The Book of Esther in the light of history

r^^»:

Brandeis University
Library

This volume is -part of the

George A. Barton Collection

patiently gathered through a

lifetime of devotion hy one of

the most distinguished scholars

in the field of Biblical archaeology.

With the Complime7its of the Author
and of the Dropsie College

THE BOOK OF ESTHER
IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

BY

JACOB HOSCHANDER, Ph.D. (Marburg)

INSTRUCTOR IN COGNATE LANGUAGES IN THE DROPSIE COLLEGE

PHILADELPHIA

THE DROPSIE COLLEGE

FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING

1923

8^137

PRINTED IN ENGLAND

AT THE OXKORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

BY FREDERICK HALL

TO MY WIFE

BERTHA HOSCHANDER

IN AFFECTIONATE APPRECIATION

OF HER ENCOURAGEMENT AND DEEP INTEREST IN

MY STUDIES

THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED

HQn/c:

PREFACE

The aim of the present book is to interpret the Book
of Esther from the historical point of view and to show the
historical origin of the Festival of Purim. It is this
historical aspect which fundamentally differentiates the
present interpretation from all previous attempts at explain-
ing the origin of the Purim Festival on which the Biblical
narrative is based, as in none of them has there been
suggested an historical reason, drawn from non-Biblical
sources, for the danger impending over the Jews during
the Persian period. The very fact, however, that outside
of the Biblical narrative which attributes this danger to the
enmity of a Persian grand vizier toward a single Jewish
individual, nothing was known from external historical
sources to account for such an event, was reason enough
for doubting or denying altogether its historical character.
My interpretation, however, is based upon an historical
event during the Persian period, well known from non-
Biblical sources, the consequences of which must have' been
disastrous to the Jews of the Persian empire. This event
I considered of so great importance for the Jews of the
Persian empire that, in investigating the subject, I felt
constrained to declare, that if the Book of Esther had
never been written, historians might have found out, that
during that period the Persian Jews were threatened with
complete extermination. The real problem is not, whether
such an event did happen, but how the Jews escaped the
danger, and its solution is presented. I claim, in the Book
of Esther. The historical event, on which the Biblical
narrative is based, is treated in the sixth chapter.

In placing this novel interpretation of the Book of
Esther for the consideration of Biblical and Semitic scholars,
I am far from deluding myself into the belief that it will
immediately find ready acceptance. As far as the modern
critics are concerned, the non-historical character of the
Book of Esther is at present with them the standard
opinion, and my interpretation would come into collision
with what may be properly termed a dogmatic bias.
Conservative scholars, on the other hand, might look
askance at an interpretation of a Biblical narrative, which
on numerous points deviates from the traditional views.
However, the only aim of scholarship, be it modern or
conservative, is truth, and if my solution of this Biblical
problem has attained that goal, I may rest assured that it
will finally prevail, notwithstanding the current opinions.

In conclusion I wish to acknowledge my special in-
debtedness to the President of the Dropsie College,
Doctor Cyrus Adler, who during the initial stages of this
investigation and later during its preparation for publication
assisted me with helpful criticism, both in the preparation
of the manuscript and in the reading of the proof

JACOB HOSCHANDER.

Dropsie College,
Philadelphia, Pa.,
December, 1922.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

The ill-fate of the Book of Esther— The Greek version — The apocryphal
additions — Talmudic interpretations — Luther's verdict — Modern theories —
Conservative exegetes — Errors of the interpreters — The interpolators
in the Maccabean period — The erroneous identification of the king of
Esther ........ pp. r-15

CHAPTER n

The improbability of Mordecai's genealogy — His access to the
harem — Haman's genealogy — The etymology of his proper and gentilic
names ........ pp. 16-29

CHAPTER HI

The author of Esther as an historian — The date of these events — The
extent of the Persian empire — The coronation festivities — Xerxes' war with
Greece— His queen Amestris — The Jews outside of the Persian empire —
The diaspora — Jewish persecutions in post-exilic times — The improbabilitj'
of Haman's decree — Xerxes' character— His attitude towards the Jews —
The new possessions of Ahasuerus .... pp. 30-41

CHAPTER IV

Ahasuerus' identity with Artaxerxes II Mnemon — Plutarch's Life of
Artaxerxes — Plutarch's sources and their reliability — Artaxerxes' character —
His relations to the Greeks— The Peace of Antalcidas — The rebellion of
Cyrus the Younger — The date of the battle of Cunaxa— Artaxerxes'
celebration of his victory — His domestic life — Quarrels between his queen
and his mother — The rule of the harem — The queen's disobedience — 'Her
degradation and murder — Her name — Artaxerxes' concubines— Artaxerxes'
suspicions against his grandees — His palace at Siisa — The name Ahasuerus
in the Hebrew version — A comparison between Xerxes and Artaxerxes II —
The resurrection of the Persian empire— The Arsacidcs alleged descendants
of Artaxerxes II - His proper name — ^The uniformity of the Scriptures — The
name Artaxerxes in the Greek version .... PP- 42-80

Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER V

The term 'Judeans' — The renascence of Israel's religion — National
aspirations — The religious propaganda among the exiles — Religious creeds
and the conduct of their adherents — The hatred of the Babylonian Jews
toward Babylonia — The attitude of the Judeans in Egypt towards this
country — The conduct of the wealthy Jews in Babylonia — The cause of
persecutions — The Judeans' attitude towards the Persians — Zoroaster's
'monotheistic' religion — The characters of Mordecai and Esther — The two
opposing tendencies within Judaism — Mordecai versus Ezra and Nehemiah —
The effect of the religious persecutions — The predicament of the Sopherim —
The omission of all religious elements in the Book of Esther — The attitude
of the Rabbis towards this book — The omission of the names of Mordecai
and Esther in Sirach's Fathers of the World . . . pp. 81-117

CHAPTER VI

The nature of the danger recorded in the Book of Esther — The intro-
duction of anthropomorphic images into the Zoroastrian religion — The
reform against Zoroastrianism— Religion and state— Zoroastrian ism as the
supreme religion of the Persian empire — Anahita as the representative and
manifestation of Ahuramazda — 'The effect of the reform — A Persian
tradition — The reform affected the Jews — The religious persecutions — The
strictly religious Jews — The festivals of Anahita — Historical reminiscences
of the persecutions . . . . . . pp. 118-138

CHAPTER Vn

The author of the reform — The success of the reform among the
Persians — The resistance of the Jews — The contrary effectof the persecutions
upon them — Their plea^Esther's relationship to Mordecai — His identity
among Gentiles — The necessity of his having some position at the court —
His discovery of a conspiracy — His attitude towards the persecuted Jews —
His refusal to bow down to the prime minister — His confession of being
a Jew — The prime minister's hesitation to punish him — His action and the
creed of the Jews — The significance of the casting of lots — The simultaneity
of Purim with a non-Jewish festival — The cpagomena — Haman's difficult
task — The Jews in Palestine — Haman's accusation — His aim— The san-
guinary style of his decree — His promise of ten thousand talents — His
wealth — The king's investigations — The early promulgation of the decree —
Its being reconsidered under the influence of wine . pp. 139-182

TABLE OF CONTENTS IX

CHAPTER VIII

The effect of the decree upon Mordecai — His sources of information —
The numerous Jewish eunuchs — Esther's attitude towards the calamity of
the Jews — Mordecai's message — Esther's arguments — Mordecai's threats —
Esther's comphance — Her omission to request an audience of the king —
Her difficult task — Her diplomacy — Her invitation of Haman — The advice of
Haman's friends — The gallows — The incident of the honoring of Mordecai —
The king's inquiry — His suspicions of the prime minister's disloyalty —
The king's apparel — A lesson in modesty — The king being ignorant of
Mordecai's creed — Haman's reflections— The deliberation under the influence
of wine — Esther's accusation of Haman — The king's indecision — Haman's
plea with Esther — The king's ridiculous accusation of Haman — The
covering of Haman's face — His denunciation by Harbonah — A parallel
between Tissaphernes' and Haman's fate — The partiality of the Jewish
point of view ....... pp. 183-229

CHAPTER IX

The infallibility of kings — The forfeiture of Haman's property — The
downfall of his whole family — The king being acquainted with the close
relationship of Mordecai to Esther — His reflections upon Mordecai's modesty
and Haman's ambition — The attitude of the people of Susa — The law
concerning the worship of Anahita not being enforced — Its resurrection
under Artaxerxes III Ochus — Haman's decree being still in force— Esther's
plea — The king's point of view — The sanguinary style of Mordecai's
decree — The interpolaters — The decree in the Greek version — Its remarkable
addition — Mordecai in the pomp of a prime minister — The joy of the people
of Susa— The conversion of many Gentiles — The joy of the Jews at being
given permission to defend themselves — The hope of their enemies to
execute Haman's decree — The fight at Susa — The Jews being attacked on
the second day — Haman's special decree for Susa — The exposing of the
bodies of Haman's sons — The number of the slain Gentiles — The Festival of
Purim — The attitude of the Sopherim towards it — Its secular character and
Persian features — Mordecai's Letter of Purim — The * Fast of Esther ' —
Mordecai's second Letter of Purim — The opposition of the Sopherim —
Purim a safeguard against Persian persecutions — The composition of the
Book of Esther in a later period — The Persian annals — Mordecai's Persian
name — His characterization by the author of the Book of Esther pp. 230-299

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE
LIGHT OF HISTORY

CHAPTER I

The ill-fate of the Book of Esther — The Greek version — The apocri'phal
additions — Talmudic interpretations — Luther's verdict — iVIodern theories —
Conservative exegetes — Errors of the interpreters — The interpolators in
the Maccabaean period — The erroneous identification of the king of Esther.

If there were any truth in the cabbalistic maxim, ' All
depends on fate, even the Scriptures ', we would say that
the Book of Esther was ill-fated from the very outset. It
relates how once upon a time, in the Persian period,
a terrible danger to the Jews was averted by natural
circumstances, without any visible divine intervention. In
our sceptical age, we should expect such a story to be held
the most credible of all the narratives of the Old Testament.
Just the contrary has happened. None among them is
more discredited by modern exegetes, except a few, than
this story. The narrative is by some partly doubted, partly
denied, by others denied altogether. But it is only fair
to say that they are not to blame.^ The current interpreta-

^ There is, however, no excuse for the unfair treatment of the story
of Esther b3' not a few of the modern critics who are not satisfied with
demonstrating its unhistorical character, but for the purpose of impressing
upon the mind of the reader its fabulous absurdity, frequently distort the
facts and make forced interpretations. The arguments and theories of
many of them would be more convincing if they were presented in an
objective manner, and were not seasoned with abusive language directed
at the contents of this story, its tendencj-, and at the Jews in general. For

H. -f r>

2 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

tion hardly admits of a more favourable conclusion. How-
ever, it is evident that already in antiquity the facts had
been distorted and represented in a false light. Interpreters
who lived two hundred years or more after the events of
the story occurred, and knew nothing about the real issue
of those events, corrupted the text according to their own
wrong interpretations.

The Alexandrian Jew who translated the story into
Greek — at a time, however, before the Hebrew text was
greatly corrupted — increased the perplexity.^ The Greek
version, being a free and paraphrastic translation, naturally
does not square with the original Hebrew text. But the
differences touch also in a striking manner the proper
names," a fact that cannot be due to paraphrase or
exegesis. This phenomenon gave cause to suspect the
authenticity of the Hebrew text.^ No other satisfactory

specimens of this kind, we may point to Carl Siegfried, in his commentary
on the Book of Esther (in Nowack's ' Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testa-
ment', Gottingen, 1901) ; Paul de Lagarde in his essay ' Purim ', Gottingen,
1887 ; G. Jahn in his book ' Esther ', Leiden, 1901 ; see also note 26.

' For the various Greek and Latin versions of Esther, cf. B. Jacob,
'Esther bei den LXX' in Stade's Zeitschnft fiir Alttesiameniliche Wissen-
schaft, Giessen, 1890, pp. 241-98) ; L. B. Paton, Critical and E.vegetical
Commentary on the Book of Esther, New York, 1908, pp. 29-47 ; P. Haupt,
' Critical Notes on Esther' (in Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory
of IVilliam Raittey Harper, Chicago, 1908, pp. 115-93) ! H. Willrich, ' Esther
und Judith' (in his Jtidaica, Gottingen, pp. 1-28), and G. Jahn's book cited
above. The latter's Hebrew rendering of the Greek version is an amateurish
biblical parody, but several of his observations deserve serious consideration.

' See Jacob, /. c., p. 271.

* Willrich, /. c.. p. 15, seriously maintains that the Book of Esther was
originally written in Greek and subsequently translated into Hebrew.
There is no need to discuss this impossible view, as Willrich himself
reluctantly concedes that the Hebrew text in several places exhibits more
originality than the Greek (p. 19, n. i), and, moreover, confesses that he is
unable to examine the linguistic character of the former.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 3

explanation for this odd divergence has been forthcoming.
This difficulty is due to the fact that the action was placed
in the wrong period. The difference between the two
versions is easily explained as soon as we know that Egypt
was not a part of the Persian empire at the period of these
events.^ Hence the Egyptian Jews were not involved in
the decree of Haman, and probably knew nothing about
the events of Purim.^ The Alexandrian translator, who
apparently was a learned and pious Jew, may have lived in
Palestine or in some other part of Syria among pious Jews
who observed the festival of Purim.^ Having annually
listened to the reading of the Book of Esther, he may have
known it fairly well by heart, but could not remember
correctly most of the proper names. After returning to
his own country, he translated this story for the edification

5 Egypt revolted from Persia in the year 405 b.c.e., and remained
independent for a period of sixty-five years. The latter, however, never
recognized Egypt's independence, and frequently made futile attempts to
reduce it to obedience.

8 We thus fully agree with Willrich (/. c, p. 3), that the Alexandrian
Jews had neither observed the festival of Purim, nor known anything
about these events, before the story was written in Greek. But we go still
further and maintain, that even after they had become acquainted with this
story, the Alexandrian Jews had no cause to celebrate the events of Purim.
This festival was most likely introduced into Egypt by Palestinian Jews not
long before the destruction of the Temple.

"^ We must bear in mind that the pious of that period who strictly
observed all religious ordinances represented only a small fraction of the
Jews. The common people had abandoned the celebration of Purim long
ago. Therefore, there was no reason for the author of the First Book of
the Maccabees to refer to the latter festival, even if it had coincided with
Nicanor Day, which it did not. Thus the objections of Willrich and all
critics on this point are unfounded. Moreover, if Willrich were right in
his assertion that the author of the First Book of the Maccabees assumes
a decidedly hostile attitude towards the Pharisees, we could not expect this
author to mention a festival observed solely by this pious sect.

B 2

4 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

of his countrymen. Not having had a Hebrew copy at
his disposal, and the translation not having been intended
for liturgic purposes, but merely as a novel, he substituted
numerous fictitious names for those in the original.^

* Jacob, I.e., pp. 266 if., is certainly right in concluding that the Greek
version is a free translation from the Hebrew text. But that alone would
not account for the proper names, as Jacob (p. 270, n. i) freely admits,
which with the exception of a few differ entirely from those of the Hebrew
text (cf. Paton, /. c, pp. 66-71). Furthermore, a free translator would
hardly omit passages without paraphrasing them, and would rather add than
omit. Finally, it seems improbable that he should have paraphrased
passages in a way which show the story in a different light, as he did in
the passages containing the decrees of Haman and Mordecai. Jahn's
sweeping assertion that the Greek version, on all points, resembles more
the original than the Masoretic text, is not to be taken seriously. Willrich's
view that the story was originally written in Greek (see n. 4), cannot be
considered at all. But even the present writer's explanation that the
Greek translator did not have a Hebrew copy at his disposal when he made
his translation, is not free from objections. It is incredible that the
translator should not have remembered the name of Ahasuerus which occurs
twenty-eight times in the story, the gentilic noun Agagi which occurs six
times, and especially the passage : ' And he thought scorn to lay hands
on Mordecai alone ; for they had showed him the people of Mordecai '
(3. 6) which is of vital importance for the understanding of the main event
of our story. But in the opinion of the present writer, the Hebrew text
underwent considerable changes after it had been translated into Greek.
The Alexandrian translator was a pious, conscientious Jew and a good
Hebrew scholar who, though paraphrasing the original text and substituting
fictitious names, did not consciously omit anything. The omissions found
are due to his exegesis. Thus, for instance, he could not understand the
meaning of IJOy pC'^D imoi (i. 22), D^JL*' m^inn yipT^y^ (2. 191,
VJn STll (5. 11), and not having been able to consult the original, he
attributed the difficulties to his bad memory, and omitted them altogether.
He may have known and applied the maxim : ' In doubtful cases, omission
is preferable to doing wrong' (^iny 'T\^'^r\ ^N1 X*')- Nor could he
understand the difficult passages "lEDil Oy "ICN* 'fpi^T) '•JD^ nX331 (9. 25),

Dnpyn nion-n nm (9. 31), do tnicnwS "i^on d-j"'i (id. 0, but in

these cases, having been convinced that they were corrupt, he explained
them differently. The fact, that so far none of the commentators have been
able to explain the passages quoted satisfactoril}*, leaves no doubt that the

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 5

The apocryphal writer went a step farther.' To his
pious mind it seemed inconceivable that such a miraculous

Greek translator was a good Hebrew scholar. His memory, however,
pla3'ed him a trick as to the date of Esther's elevation. Since the twelfth
month played so important a part in the events of Esther, he believed tha;
Esther's elevation took place in the same month. This wrong date proves
again that he translated from memory ; for if the original had contained
this date, there was not the least reason for any interpolator to place that
event in the tenth month. As for the decrees, however, the translator
neither omitted anything nor paraphrased them, but presented an exact
translation (see Chapter IX). The passage 3. 6 is undoubtedly due to
a late interpreter who believed that Haman's decree was caused by his
enmity towards Mordecai. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Greek
translator who showed us that the original Hebrew author was quite
innocent of this stupidity. As to the name Artaxerxes in the Greek
version, there is not the least doubt that the Hebrew text, even in a late
period, contained the name NnC'C'nmX (see Chapter IV). The gentilic
noun Agagi in the Hebrew text is not original either (see Chapter II).

^ The Greek version has at the end a subscription giving information
about its authorship and date, which reads: 'In the fourth year of the
reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Dositheus, who said that he was a priest
and Levite, and Ptolemy his son, brought the foregoing letter concerning
Phrourai, which they said was genuine, and that Lysimachus, son of
Ptolemy, one of the people of Jerusalem, had interpreted it' (^Erovs reraprov
^aaiXivovTos TlToXefxaiov Kal KKfondrpas. fla-qvifKf AoaiSfos, os e(pr] flvai Uptiis
Kal Atvlrrji, Kal UroX^ixaios vibs avrov, Tfjv TrpoKiifiivqv hniaToXT]v tuiv ^povpai,
■qv '<i<paaav (Tvai, Kal Tjp/xtjvevKfvai Ava'maxov UroXf^iaiov, tuiv iv 'IfpovaaKrj/x).
Jacob, /. c, p. 274, maintains that the king Ptolemy referred to in this
subscription was Ptolemy VII, Soterll, Lathurus, who reigned 117-81 b.c.e.,
and thus the introduction of our story into Egypt occurred in the j'ear 114,
while Willrich, /. c, p. 4 f., contends that this king was Ptolemy XIV, and
that the Book of Esther was composed in the year 48 b.c.e. However,
both of them are wrong as far as the date of the Greek version is concerned.
The subscription does not refer to the original Greek version of our story,,
Willrich himself points out that the Alexandrian scribe was not convinced
of the genuineness of this Book and declined to take any responsibility for
it (p. 3). Jacob likewise observes that expressions in this subscription
indicate something like distrust (p. 276). This is of course tha meaning
of the clause ^v ttpaaav dvai. What reason had the Alexandrian scribe to
doubt the genuineness of this Book ? The Alexandrian Jewish scholars
to whom we are indebted for the preservation of so many apocryph.il books

6 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

event should be narrated unless abounding in religious
sentiments, and he believed it to be a meritorious deed to
improve upon its contents by representing the chief Jewish
figures in the story as saints in Israel. This representation,
though obviously contrary to the facts, was nevertheless
generally accepted in ancient and modern times. Flavins
Josephus, in his AntiqiuHcs, moulded into his story of
Esther both the Hebrew and Greek versions — though more
of the latter than of the former ^^ — and considerable parts

were not so hypercritical as to doubt the event of Purim. With the
exception of Sirach, none of the apocryphal books has a subscription.
Paton, I.e., p. 30, observes: 'A more serious objection to the genuineness
of the subscription is the fact that it stands at the end of the long additions
that seem to come from a different hand from that of the original translator'.
However, this fact does not prove that the subscription is not genuine.
There had been a well-known Greek version of Esther long before the
arrival of Dositheus. But the latter brought another version, enlarged and
interpolated by additions, and asserted that it was the genuine story of
Esther translated from the Hebrew text, contending that the old version
was defective. Therefore, the Alexandrian scribe who copied it rightly
doubted his assertion, and .declined to accept any responsibility for its
truth. The original Greek version was undoubtedly made in a pre-
Maccabaean period. This seems to be the true reason why the Book of
Esther is the only historical book in the Greek Old Testament that has
a subscription.

10 \Ye cannot agree with Jacob, /. c, p. 291, that Josephus faithfully
follows LXX, and Jahn, /. c, p. x, is perfectly right on this point. Josephus
calls Haman an Amalekite, which can be only a translation of Agagi of
the Hebrew text, while the Greek vef^ion has instead of it '&ov^aios. Then
Josephus quotes the passage VJ^J?! U'1 , which LXX omits (see n. 8).
Further, he gives the names of the two conspiring eunuchs D"ini fri23, but
appears to have read DHm jnnj , which are omitted in LXX. Finally, in
accordance with the Hebrew text, he states that the Jews slew seventy-five
thousand Gentiles, while LXX knows only of fifteen thousand. Nevertheless,
Josephus evidently preferred the Greek version for his purpose. He may
have done so for linguistic reasons. A Jew translating the Old Testament
into a foreign tongue would for the most part, if possible, make use of and
adhere to the expressions of the already existing version. We can there-
fore understand why Josephus should have made use of expressions of LXX

THE ROOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 7

of the apocryphal additions, embelh'shing them with some
exegesis, probably of his own.^^ Origen ^- declared the
Greek version and its additions canonical.^^

Though the use of the expression ' common sense ' is
a platitude, we cannot refrain from asserting that common
sense has played no part in the interpretation of the Book
of Esther, either in ancient or in modern times. The
Rabbis, by their homiletic interpretations, contributed not
a little to change this strictly historical narrative into an
incredible fable.^^ A few among them seem to have felt
that there was something strange about this book.^^ But,
as a rule, the talmudic and midrashic sayings concerning
the events of our story are not of the least value for
exegesis, ^"^ and in all probability were not intended to be.
Notwithstanding this obvious fact, we, even in our critical
age, still follow time-honoured talmudic interpretations

(Jacob, /. c, p. 262). On the other hand, his Antiquities was written for
Gentiles, and therefore his intention may have been that his version of
Esther should be in accordance with that written in Greek which might
have been known to the critics of his period.

11 We do not agree with Paton, /. c, p. 39, that Josephus's additions
are derived from an early form of Jewish Midrash, as no trace of them
is found in the talmudic literature. His representation is a mixture of truth
and fiction.

12 In his letter to Julius Africanus, 3. " Cf. Paton, I.e., p. 34.

^* See especially Talmud Babli Megillah ioa-i6b, and cf. Paton, I.e.,
pp. 18-24 ^nd 97-104.

15 See Chapter V.

^^ The talmudic chronology concerning the date of our story is of no
value at all. It is noteworthy that in Talmud, Midrash, and Targumim,
Mordecai is represented as a contemporary of Zerubbabel (see Ezra 2. 2, &c.).
But in Talmud Babli Menahot 65 a, we find the same Mordecai as the
contemporary of Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. This fact appears to have
escaped the notice of all critics. Willrich might have made it the basis of
his theory that the Book of Esther was written 48 e.c.e. (see 11. 8), if he
had known it

8 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

which obscure the right understanding of the book. Some
exegetes are apparently over-fond of the rabbinical sayings,
gleefully quoting and exploiting them for the purpose of
stamping the story as legend.^'' It is even possible that
modern critics would hardly have hit upon the idea . of
seeing a legend in this story, if Talmud, Midrash, and
Targumim had not embellished it with their exaggerated
fables. ^^ It is regrettable to see that the strict line drawn
by the mediaeval Jewish commentators between ' exegesis '
(ac'S) and ' homiletics ' (cm») is completely ignored by
modern scholars.^^ Many of the rabbinical sayings dealing
with Esther are of such a character" that we cannot but
believe that they were witty and homiletic remarks, partly
to amuse, partly to exhort, the audience gathered around
the Purim-table.-°

Martin Luther's condemnation of the Book of Esther
in his Table-Talks: 'I am so hostile to this book that
I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much, and has

" Characteristic in this respect is Paton's Commentary. As a book of
reference it is an exceedingly valuable work. But with all modern critics
he holds the story of Esther to be a mere fable. In order to prove this
point, he employs a peculiar method. His exegesis in the main is actually
based upon the Talmud, Midrash, and Targumim. Though on every point
he quotes numerous opinions, his general contention is that the only correct
explanation of the points under discussion is given by the rabbis, and, since
the facts, according to their explanations, could not have occurred, — ergo
the whole story is not true. Cf. also Siegfried, /. c, p. 163, and Jahn.
/. c, p. 48.

1* Paton's observation (/. c, p. 18) is interesting : 'They (the Targumim)
show a fine feeling for the Hebrew idiom and are exceedingly suggestive to
the modern interpreter'. So they are, as many theories of the modern
interpreters have been suggested by them.

" Paton, /. c, p. 100, does indeed point out the difference between m^'D
and t^'"nO, and nevertheless'treats the latter as serious rabbinical exegesis.

20 See Talmud Babli Megillah 7 a.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 9

too much heathen naughtiness,' -^ largely contributed to
prejudice the mind of Protestant theologians in dealing
with it.2-

As early as the eighteenth century, scholars began to
doubt the veracity of many facts described in Esther, as
they seemed to be contradictory to the customs of the
Persians recorded by Herodotus, and pronounced them
unhistorical.^'' The nineteenth and twentieth centuries
actually teem with hypotheses concerning both the origin
of Purim and the contents of our story.-* There is no
exaggeration in declaring that it is easier to believe in the
most improbable tales of antiquity than in these theories
which are — with hardly any exception — flimsy, vague, and
incredible. It is not necessary to discuss and refute them,
as this has already been done— successfully and con-
vincingly— by Siegmund Jampel.-^ But it is hardly fair
to condemn the Talmud, as most of the modern com-
mentators do, for holding the Book of Esther higher than
the Books of the Prophets.-*^ The Rabbis were not Bible

-1 In his works, edited by Walsh, VII, 194 ; XXII, 2080. On Luthers
opinion, cf. A. P. Stanley, The History of the Jeivish Church, New York,
1879, III, p. 194, Paton, I.e., p. 96, observes that Luther's verdict is not
too severe. Paton shares this attitude with numerous Protestant theologians
who approach this subject with the pre-conceived idea of justifying Luther's
verdict.

22 But there were a few Protestant commentators who, notwithstanding
their veneration for Luther's personality, had the courage to blame him for
his subjective judgement, as did Carl Friedrich Keil, in his commentary on
Esther, p. 613.

" For the literature of the eighteenth century, see Paton, /. c, p. in f.

-< Cf. Paton, I.e., pp. 77-94 and 111-117.

25 Das Biich Esther, Frankfurt a. M., 1907, pp. 45 ^•

26 Emil Kautzs:h, in his Geschiehte des AUtcstamentlichcn Schrifttimis,
Freiburg, 1892, p. 117, vehemently denounces the Jews for holding the
Book of Esther in such high honourj and considers it his duty as a Christian
to protest against it. Similar opinions are expressed by Riehm, Wildeboer,

lO THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

critics, and believed in every syllable of our story. There-
fore how could they have thought differently? Of what use
would have been the Prophets, if the Jewish people had
been exterminated? In their belief, the words of the
Prophets and even the Pentateuch would have disappeared,
if the Jewish people had not been saved by Mordecai and
Esther. The Fathers of the Church, in declaring the Book
of Esther canonical, reasoned exactly like the Rabbis :
If there had not been Purim, Christianity would not have
existed.

All the modern critics agree that oar story was invented.
Even Kautzsch, who is a moderate critic, is unable to find

Cornill, and others. They do not consider that Purim, according to the
current conception, commemorates an historical event unequalled in the
whole history of the Jews, their escape from complete annihilation, and
'all that a man hath will he give for his life'; therefore it is natural that
the Book that records this event should be held in the highest esteem
among the Jews. Even from a purely ethical point of view, this Book is
not inferior to the other Scriptures, as it teaches the great lesson, not
found in the latter, that Providence may rule the destiny of man by natural
circumstances, without visible intervention ; and this lesson was the hope
and comfort of the Jews whose existence was extremely precarious during
the last two millenniums. It is wrong to see in the celebration of Purim
the spirit of revenge. The Jews do not rejoice at the hanging of Haman,
but at their own escape, firmly believing that their own destruction would
have been inevitable, if Haman had been left alive. Scholars ought to be
more objective, put aside their personal sentiments, and be able to compre-
hend also the Jewish point of view in dealing with this Book. It is
regrettable to find views such as are expressed by E. Bertheau, that in
this Book we find that spirit of Israel which does not trust in God, but
in its own power, and which refused to embrace Salvation when it came to
them {Die Biicher Esra, Neliemia, nud Esther by Bertheau- Ryssel, Leipzig,
1887, p. 375). Paton, /. c, p. 97, observes : ' With the verdict of late
Judaism modern Christians cannot agree'. But is this verdict the only
point of disagreement between late Judaism and modern Christians? Do
not the latter regard the whole Pentateuch as partly legendary, partly
fabrication, and the secular history of Israel, in the main, untrustworthy ?

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY It

an historical nucleus in it, and considers it roinance.^^
Driver, who cannot be accused of prejudice, declares that
' it is not strictly historical, though it cannot reasonably
be doubted that it has a substantially historical basis." ^^
There are only a few scholars who see in our story a really
historical event.^^ Paulus Cassel's commentary ,^° notwith-
standing its homiletic character and the numerous Christo-
logical remarks which have no bearing on the story, is full
of sound judgement and contains a great many historical
parallels and reminiscences which shed light on the events.
It is a storehouse of real information. But it is extremely
conservative, and sees in Mordecai and Esther the most
splendid characters and heroes of Israel. One of the best
attempts in recent years is Jampel's book cited above.^^
With a great array of arguments he tries to prove that all
the events narrated in Esther might have happened under
the reign of Xerxes.

In the present writer's opinion, however, all the com-
mentators have been on the wrong track. The facts,
as already stated, were misrepresented in ancient times,
and modern interpreters have placed the action in the
wrong period. If we may depend upon undeniabh'
historical facts, we are justified in contending that the
Book of Esther is strictly historical. We even maintain
that, if this book had never been written, historians might
have found out that at the period in which we place this
action the Jews were threatened with complete extermina-
tion. The question is not whether this event did happen,

2^ Geschichie des Altt. Schriftt., p, 1 16.
-^ An Introduction to the O. T., New York, 1898, p. 453.
-3 See the bibliography of the conservative treatises, marked with C, bj'
Palon, I. c, p. 113.

8' Das Buck Esther, Berlin. 1891 ^i gee n. 25.

12 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN .THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

but how the Jews escaped the danger. The solution of
this problem is presented in the Book of Esther.

The main event of the story actually happened under
Persian rule, though not in the reign of Xerxes. The Jews
had indeed been in danger of extermination, though not in
the sense generally understood. Many of the statements
our story contains find their support in historical facts. As
for the others, they are absolutely credible as far as they
are original. For this book was considerably interpolated
at a later period. The reason is not hard to explain. We
must bear in mind that the real danger impending over the
Jews was a tempest in a teapot : the whole excitement
did not last more than four days, in Susa as well as in all
parts of the empire.^^ With the death of Haman and the
elevation of Mordecai, the condition of the Jews was no
longer desperate. All the exegetes appear to have over-
looked this fact. An event of this short duration did not
make a lasting impression."'^ Its commemoration was
no doubt annually observed by pious Jews. But the com-
mon people, after a few generations, may have neglected
it, or may have feasted on Purim without caring about the
origin of the festival. ^^ They may have doubted the whole
story, as Jews in prosperity soon forget troubles of former

32 By the splendid royal post under the Achaemeneian rulers (see
Eduard Me3'er, Geschichte des Alferilmms, III, p. 66 f.), the overthrow of
Haman and the elevation of Mordecai must have been known to the officials
everywhere, a few days after the arrival of Haman's edict.

33 We shall see that there were religious persecutions, preceding Haman's
decree, which lasted for several years. But these persecutions were of
a sporadic character, as the rank and file of the Jews had not been affected
by them (see Chapter VI).

'■* Numberless Jews in the present age are doing exactly the same, in
enjoying the customary dishes prepared for certain festivals with great
relish, without caring in the least for the religious character of the latter

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 13

days, and as the danger could not reasonably be accounted
for, it was looked upon as an incredible tale. The Jews did
not remain untouched by the scepticism prevailing in the
Alexandrian age. Living unmolested under the mild sway
of the Lagidae and the first Seleucids, the Jews did not
believe that a man like Haman had ever existed, or that
a king should have decreed the extermination of their
ancestors. The Book of Esther became popular with them
under the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B, c. E.)
and his successors, when they met everywhere with
numerous men of the type of Haman intent upon destro\--
ing them. In those times of terror they looked for
comfort to the Scriptures. They found only one book in
which a similar event had been recorded — the Book of
Esther. At that late period the actual events under
Persian rule which had almost caused the destruction of
the . Jewish people were no longer known. Being now
popular, this book became the favourite theme of the
preachers and an object of special study. The teachers
who had to explain it to the people made wrong inter-
pretations, which subsequently were incorporated into the
story. We may well assume that for the purpose of
impressing upon the people the necessity of being united,
and exhorting them to fight one for all and all for one,
the preachers in their sermons took as their theme the
decree of Haman, and explained to their congregations
that the latter intended to exterminate all the Jews on
account of a single individual. We know that the Jews
of that period were unwilling to resist their enemies and
to fight for their independence, and their leaders had to
use any means for inducing them to do so by arousing
their fear and hatred. To encourage the people to fight

14 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

their enemies without fear, the preachers told their congre-
gations about the heroic deeds of their ancestors, who
killed 75,000 men in one day without losing a single man.
The Edomites, the hereditary enemies of Israel, were no
less hostile at the time of the Maccabees, until conquered
by Hyrcanus. Therefore Haman may by some witty
preacher of the time have been made a descendant of
Esau, by changing the gentilic name '':3n into ''j:xn.^^
Paul Haupt is partly right in observing : ' The spirit of
revenge that breathes through the Book of Esther and
manifests itself in the celebration of Purim seems perfectly
natural as soon as we know that the book vvas written
during the period of the Maccabees, after the .Syrians had
committed unspeakable atrocities in Judaea.'"^ These
interpretations were later inserted into the Hebrew text.
The Alexandrian translator was unfamiliar with them.'^'

When we understand the historical events which form
the background of the story, the social and moral state
of the Jews of the period, and the psychological motives
of the chief figures, our story will be viewed in a different
light : Mordecai and Esther will lose their nimbus, Haman
his terror, and Ahasuerus's decree against the Jews will no
more be ascribed to his imbecility. Words or passages

S5 See n. 8.

^^ Puriiu, Baltimore, 1906. This paper contains numerous ingenious
suggestions. However, the theories advanced there for the origin of
Purim and for the protot^'pes of Ahasuerus, Haman, Mordecai, and Esther
are impossible, as Paton, I.e., pp. 80-82, has already pointed out. But
P. Haupt is the only modern critic who is absolutely fair in his treatment
of this story. However, on some points he goes too far. The Jews in
post-exilic times were never persecuted on account of their nationality ;
thus the persecutions of the Russian Jews do not present a parallel to those
described in the Book of Esther.

" See Chapter II.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY I5

contradictory to our interpretation will easily be recognized
as later additions. But we must draw a line between
additions and changes due either to exegetes or to errors
of copyists and changes owing to circumstances over which
the Jews had no control. The name Ahasuerus, which is
undoubtedly identical with Xerxes, had been substituted
for the real name of the king, for obvious reasons. In the
Eastern countries under the rule of the Arsacids, this
change was made rather early ; in the West at a later
period, at the time of the fixing of the Canon. This
fictitious name led the modern commentators astray.
Those who gave credence to the story contended that
Xerxes was quite capable of doing all the silly actions
ascribed to Ahasuerus, and made more or less successful
attempts at reconciling these events with the historical
facts recorded by Herodotus. But the overwhelming
majority of exegetes rightly rejected these forced inter-
pretations. There is, indeed, no room for doubt that the
Ahasuerus .of Esther cannot be identical with Xerxes, as
we hope to prove in the third chapter.

16 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

CHAPTER II

The improbability of Mordecai's genealogy — His access to the harem —
Haman's genealogy — The etymology of his proper and gentilic names.

Before proceeding to outline our own conception of
the story of Esther, we consider it necessary to investigate
some objections of a general character, though they have
no bearing on our own interpretation. These objections,
raised by all modern critics, appear to throw doubt on the
veracity of the author of the book, and to betray a certain
tendency to present an artificial contrast between two
hostile races. Though others have already dealt with this
subject, their conclusions are not quite satisfactory.
Esther (j) There is a chronological question of the highest

2. 5, 6.

importance. The author states : ' There was a certain
Jew in Shushan the palace, whose name was Mordecai,
the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a
Benjamite ; who had been carried away from Jerusalem
with the captivity which had been carried away with
Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king
of Babylon had carried away '. According to this state-
ment, Mordecai, as fellow captive of Jeconiah ( = Jehoiachin),
was carried into captivity in the year 597 B.C.E. Shall we
then believe that 123 years later he became prime minister,
in the 12th year of Xerxes' reign, in the year 474 B.C.E. ?
But those who raise this question do not entertain any
doubt that Kish, the ancestor of Mordecai mentioned in
his genealogy, is identical with the father of Saul, the first

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY I7

king of Israel. Accordingly, the clause * who had been
carried away ' (nbn nt^'N) can only refer to Mordecai, and not
to Kish. However, this identification is by no means certain
and is indeed emphatically denied by Ibn Ezra.' Then
there is no reason why this clause should not refer to Kish
and not to Mordecai.'- Wildeboer,^ Siegfried,^ and many
other modern commentators refuse to accept this explana-
tion, as it would be against the Masoretic division, which
places this clause at the beginning of the following verse.
But they themselves often completely disregard the
Masoretic text, and would be correct in doing so here.
Cassel is right in observing : ' One cannot imagine it
possible that biblical commentators should have hit upon

1 Ibn Ezra ad loami remarks: 'If Kish, mentioned in Mordecai's
genealogy, referred to the father of Saul, the author of Esther would have
mentioned the latter, since he was king and not his father ' C^N n\T v''N1
V3N siji l^^rO Nin >3 hxC' I^DTO n\1 hNC'% No notice has been taken
of this reasonable observation by the modern critics.

2 The relative clause H?!"! ID'S occurs also elsewhere, as i Chron. 5. 4-6,
where IDNJ^D Jlbn n^JH lETN' refers to in n-|N3 and Ezra 2. i, where
the clause "lifjnaUJ H^JH "IB'N refers to the preceding noun n^^lJn and

not to njnDn''J3.

3 Die fiirif Megillot, in Marti's Kitrzer Hmid-Comuientar sum Allen
Testament, Freiburg i. B., 1898, 180.

* In his commentary on Esther, /. e., p. 148. We must consider that
the chronological knowledge of the Masoretes was no more exact than that
of the rabbis, who consider Mordecai a contemporary of Zerubbabel (see
Chapter I, n. 16) and place the reign of Ahasuerus within the seventy
years of the Babylonian Captivity. We may further presume that the
Masoretes accepted in good faith the talmudic interpretation of the name
••aTlO = ^'•31 N-IO 'pure myrrh' = nhT IID, and thus did not know
that Mordecai was a purely Babylonian name. Therefore the Masoretes
had no reason not to refer the clause \r?lT\ T.i'N to Mordecai. The latter
might have been carried away into captivity in his childhood, and was still
alive in the period of this story. Besides, the Masoretes may have earnestly
believed that Kish in Mordecai's genealogy referred to the father of Saul.

H. C

l8 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

such a monstrosity, in referring the statement of Jeconiah's
exile to Mordecai.' ^ Moreover, the purely Babylonian
name that Mordecai bears evidently shows that the author
did not intend to say that he was born in Jerusalem. We
would have to assume that the Persian-Jewish author "^ did
not know that Mordecai was a Babylonian name, at a time
when the cult of Marduk was still in existence. Wildeboer
asserts that the author clearly indicates that it was not his
intention to give a real genealogy.' There is not the least
ground for such an assertion, as the" identification of Kish
with the father of Saul is at least doubtful. Siegfried
remarks ; ' By the brevity of the genealogy, the author, in
omitting a few members of it, skips over the times of Saul
to Kish.' But did the author omit merely a few members

5 Das Buck Esther, p. 51.

^ Seeing that our author was well informed on Persian manners and
institutions, a fact that is almost generally conceded, and was well acquainted
with the Persian language, a fact that only those critics deny who are not
authorities on Persian philology, as Jampel truly remarks, we may safely
assume that the author was not a Palestinian Jew. P. Haupt {Pitrim,
p. 3; Critical Notes, p. 116) believes that he was a Persian Jew. In the
present writer's opinion, however, the Book of Esther was written in
Babylonia (see Chapter V) ; and at that period the Babylonian Jews were
just as well acquainted with Persian manners, institutions, and language as
were the Persian Jews. But Haupt from his own point of view must
assume that the author was a Persian Jew, since he contends that Esther
was written after the Maccabean period, and at that time Persian Jews
only could have been so thoroughly acquainted with Persian manners,
institutions, and language.

"^ Paton, I.e., p. 167, concedes that Jair may have been the father of
Mordecai. The reason for his concession seems to be, because he cannot
discover an ancient bearer of this name among the Benjamites. Shimei,
however, cannot have been the father of Jair, since there once existed a man
belonging to the tribe of Benjamin whose name was Shimei son of Gera
(2 Sam. 16. 6, SiQ.). Nor can Kish be the father of Shimei, since the same
name was borne by the father of Saul. But there were four bearers of
the name Shimei belonging to the tribe Reuben (_i Chron. 5. 4), Simeon

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 19

of this genealogy ? From Mordecai to Kish would be at
least fourteen generations,^ and the author enumerates
only three of them. But it is not impossible that the
genealogy is not quite complete, and that between Mordecai
and his exiled ancestor Kish there were a few more
generations. We shall see that according to our concep-
tion the events of our story occurred about two hundred
years after Jeconiah's exile, and we may reasonably doubt
whether only three generations could have intervened
between this period and that of Esther. For such a
possibility we may point to Ezra's genealogy, in which his
immediate ancestors are omitted.'' A similar omission may
be inferred in Mordecai's genealogy. We may suggest that
they were men of a type whose names the biblical authors
deemed unworthy to perpetuate, probably idolaters.^"

'ibid. 4. 26, 27), Levi (Jbid. 6. 14 and 28), besides two others of the tribe of
Benjamin {ibid. 8. 21 ; i Kings 4. 18). So also we find two bearers of the
name of Kish, both Levites (i Chron. 23. 21, &c. ; 2 Chron. 29. 12). The
genealogy of Mordecai given in the Second Targum, on which the contention
of the modern critics is evidently based, is of course pure fiction, and badly
invented, as from Mordecai to Kish it enumerates eleven generations, but
from Kish to Benjamin twenty-eight generations.

* We find fourteen generations from Kish to the return from the
Babylonian Captivity (i Chron. 8. 33-8). The same number we find from
Zadok to Joshua {ibid. 5. 34-41).

'^ Cf. Ezra 7. i ; i Chron. 5. 46. Beitheau-Ryssel, in his commentary
on Ezra, p. 88, believes that the author merely intended to show us that
Ezra was a lineal descendant of high-priests, and therefore omitted his
immediate progenitors who were not high-priests. But this explanation is
improbable. The line of the high-priests was well known, since Joshua
and his descendants still held this office. What we want to learn is
Ezra's relationship to this high-priestly line, and this point is altogether
omitted.

^' We shall show (Chapter V) that Mordecai's family does not appear
to have been strictly religious, and may have belonged to those noble
Jewish families which continued idolatrous practices in Babylonia, before
its conquest by the Persians. The same may hold true of numerous priests,

C 2

20 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

Esther (2) The author further states : ' And Mordecai walked

2. n.

every day before the court of the women's house, to know

how Esther did, and what should become of her '. This
statement is denied by most of the modern commentators,
who regard as impossible that Mordecai should have
been permitted free access to the harem without being
a eunuch. ^^ We freely admit that this is impossible, but
impossibilities sometimes happen. One could never believe
that prominent scholars and grammarians who know
Hebrew pretty well should raise such an objection. The
author does not say : ' Mordecai walked in the court of the
women's house' (D^c^Jn n^n nvnn l^nnrD ^iino), but 'before
the court of the women's house' (n''^Jn n''3 "ivn ""JS^).
Mordecai did not enter the court of the harem, which
no doubt was surrounded by a high wall, but walked out-
side of it, to inquire of the eunuchs about his adopted
daughter. Many other Persians who had daughters there
most likely did the same. Siegfried's sarcastic remark,

though Ezekiel seems to bear testimony that the 'sons of Zadok ' kept
themselves free from idolatry (Ezek. 44. 15). Some of them may have
become corrupted after Ezekiel's death. The intermarriage of the sons of
the high-priest Joshua with Gentiles shows that even the priests were not
above reproach. Now there is a talmudic maxim that the names of
irreligious men should not be recorded, based upon the verse D"'yC'l DCI
3p"1^ 'the name of the wicked shall rot' (Prov. 10. 7). This verse is
interpreted 1~''^Cty3 p''pDD N?T , that we should not bring up their names
(Talmud Babli, Yoma 38 b). Such a conception is not purely rabbinic, but
is found also in the Bible; cf., for instance, Exod. 17. 14; Deut. 32. 27;
Isa. 26. 14 ; Ps. 112. 6, &:c.

11 Th. Noldeke {^Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1401), Wildeboer, Siegfried, in
their commentaries, J. D. Prince {Jewish Encyclopaedia, under 'Esther'),
and many others, Haupt (Critical Notes, p. 135) suggests that Mordecai
may have been a eunuch. But the passage : ' and speaking peace to all his
seed ', clearly indicates that Mordecai had children, and we would have
to assume that he became a eunuch after he had raised a family.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 21

' The author does not trouble himself about the difficulty,
how Mordecai could have shown himself in the court of
the harem and converse with Esther', is characteristic of
his commentary.^2 Besides, Esther at the time of this
event had not yet been in the real harem that was under
the supervision of Shaashgaz. The virgins under Hegai, Esther
not yet being concubines, may have enjoyed the liberty ^" ^' ^'^
of communicating with their relatives.^^

(3) The author finally states : ' After these things did Esther
king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha ^' ^'
the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all
the princes that were with him '. The commentators are
by no means wrong in their arguments concerning the
representation of Haman as descendant of Agag, in calling
attention to the following points : (a) The statement that
Haman was a descendant of Agag is in itself quite im-
probable, (d) It is incredible that the Persians should
have tolerated the rule of an Agagite prime minister.
{c) The representation of a racial contrast between the
Benjamite Mordecai and his antagonist the Agagite
Haman, renewing the ancient hereditary enmity between
the Benjamite Saul and the Amalekite Agag, is too
artificial to be regarded as an historical fact.^'* The critics,
however, do not seem to perceive that their arguments are

" The present writer is gratified to find that Haupt had already called
Siegfried to account for his distortion of the truth, in observing: 'The
narrator, it may be supposed, knew more about Oriental manners and
customs than did Siegfried. The author did not overlook the difficulty,
but Siegfried overlooked 'JD7 ' (Critical Notes, p. 135). However, Siegfried
merely repeated an old objection found by many earlier commentators.

^' Paton, /. c, p. 180, is also of the same opinion that the concubines
under the custody of Shaashgaz were probably kept under stricter sur-
veillance.

^^ Wildeboer, Siegfried, &c., &c., and so also Paton, /. c, p. 72.

22 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

not directed at the veracity of the author, but at a talmudic
interpretation. They would never have thought of that
contrast if Talmud, Midrash, and Targumin had not dwelt
at length on it. It is well known that it is a pet fancy of
the rabbis to represent all the enemies of the Jews, even
Rome,^' as descendants of Esau — who had been wronged,
but never committed any wrong in his lifetime — and it is
still customary to designate any persecutor of the Jews
as Esau. Characteristic in this respect is the Second
Targum, which contains a complete genealogy of Haman,
in which we find Greek and Latin names of oppressors of
the Jews, and among them occur also those of king Herod
and his father Antipater.^^ Hence it is obvious that the
talmudic interpretation of Agagi is merely homiletic and
should not be taken seriously.

However, for the sake of argument, let us admit that
the gentilic noun AgagI actually means 'descendant of
Agag ', and that accordingly the narrative indeed implies
a contrast between two hostile races. The question now
arises whether the narrative would have been less com-
prehensible without that contrast. Would there be a
missing link in the narrative, if the gentilic noun Agagi
were entirely omitted ? This question must certainly be
answered in the negative. Nobody would presume to assert
that the Greek version of Esther is not quite intelligible
because it knows nothing about a racial contrast between
Haman and Mordecai. This version further clearly furnishes
proof that the gentilic noun ''::Nn could not have been in the
original Hebrew text, but was due to some interpreter, as

1' See Levvy's Handnorterbiich stun Talnitid wid Midrasch, under
' Edom ', and cf. Rashi on the passage )'DX^ DN^O DN'^I (Gen. 25, 23).
^^ For the genealogy of Haman, see Cassel, /. c, p. 83 f.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 23

ahead)' suggested in Chapter I/' who intended to represent
that racial contrast, after the story had been rendered into
Greek. The Alexandrian translator was undoubtedly well
acquainted with the Scriptures and thus knew who Agag
was. If he had found the gentilic noun "JJNn in his Hebrew
text he certainly would have rendered it 'Ayayalo^, not
Bovyahs}^ There can scarcely be any doubt concerning
the meaning of the latter term. The Persian word baga —
' God ' is found in numerous Persian personal names, as
for instance, Bagacaiis, Bagons, Bagopates, Bagophanes,
Bagosaces, &c.'^ Therefore, if we find Bovyam as gentilic
name of a Persian, in a narrative the scene of action of
which is Persia, we may reasonably see in it the Persian
element baga and assume that BovyaTo? = Bayalo?. The
same element no doubt occurs in the names of the eunuchs,
Nnn and fn:2 . The latter is rendered in the Greek version
BovyaOdv = BayaOdv. Paul Haupt's explanation of the
Greek Bovyalo'i as a Homeric term, ' braggart ' is far
fetched.-*^ The fact that the Alexandrian translator was
forced to substitute fictitious names for the genuine Persian
names in the Hebrew text, evidently shows that he did not
understand the Persian language. Nevertheless the gentilic
noun Bovyalos is genuine Persian. Therefore we may safely
assume that the equivalent of this term in the Hebrew
original was not ''JJNn , but '32n ' the Bagoan '. A similar

" Cf. Chapter I, n. 8.

*■ Or the Alexandrian translator might have rendered it Tu'yaios, as did
Lucian. The name Hegai usually rendered Tat in the Greek version, is
2. 15 rendered raifaio<s.

1^ See Iranisclies Namenbuch by Ferdinand Justi, Marburg, 1895.

'"' Pitrim, p. 12; Critical Notes, p. 141. Haupt evidently overlooked
that the element 1801/70 is also found in the eunuch's name BovfaOav (instead
of Ilarbonah. 8. 9).

24 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

name is borne by one of the Jewish leaders who returned
from exile with Zerubabel, ''132, which the Septuagint
correctly renders Bayovair^

Moreover, how could the Hebrew author have intended
to say that Haman was a descendant of Agag ? He
undoubtedly was familiar with the Scriptures, and must
have known that Agag's whole tribe had been exterminated
by Saul ; Agag himself was slain by Samuel,^^ and the
other tribes of Amalek had been destroyed in the time
of Hezekiah.^-^ Is it conceivable that a Jewish author
would have dared to contradict the Scriptures? Now it
has been suggested that the author's intention in desig-
nating Haman as an Agagite was merely to characterize
him as an inveterate persecutor of the Jews.-'* But also
this interpretation is improbable. The fact that Saul and
the people, notwithstanding the divine command, spared
Agag and did not wish to slay him, indicates that Agag
personally was by no means a ruthless oppressor of Israel,
but suffered mainly for the many wrongs committed by
his ancestors and his tribes, as the Bible indeed informs
us.-^ Thus there is no reason why just his name should
have been selected for the formation of an appellativum^
given to Haman, as a great enemy of the Jews. If that
was the intention of the author, he certainly would have

21 Ezra 2. 2, &c. ^^ i Sam. 15. 134.

" I Chron. 4. 43. ^* So Cassel, /. c, p. 84.

25 Graetz, in his History of the Jcivs, vol. I, p. 91, states that the
Amalekite king Agag appears to have caused great trouble to the tribe of
Judah in the days of Saul. Now there is no doubt that the Amalekites
made predatory incursions into the Jewish territory on all occasions.
They did the same in the periods of Ehud (Judges 3. 13) and of Gideon
{ibid. 6. 3). The Midianites did exactly the same. The other neighbours
of Israel, as the Philistines and Ammonites, were no less hostile to the
Israelites than the Amalekites.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 25

called Haman 'pi^oy.^^ We may therefore contend that
there is no truth whatever in this interpretation, and that
in the two words 3:x and 'JJN* we merely have a similarity
of sounds which is frequently deceptive. How fanciful
identifications of this kind are, we can illustrate by
identifying '•JJN* with the Babylonian word agag7i, ' to be
powerful', the Arabic _L^1 ' burning ',^^ or even with Greek
dyooya, 'leader.'

It has further been suggested, by Paul Haupt,-' that
the original reading of Haman's epithet was "'Jn: = Gagl,
in the sense of ' Northern barbarian ', which was afterwards
changed into ''JJN*. This suggestion is based upon the
Lucianic recension, which renders Haman's epithet "JJS* into
TayyoLo^. But Lucian's recension was made towards the end
of the third century C.E,, and is either, as some contend,
an independent translation from the Hebrew, or a recension
of the old Greek version, in which the Hebrew text was
used as well.^^ Josephus ^^ and the Talmud undoubtedly
read ''JJvS*, and therefore it is exceedingly improbable that
Lucian should have found in his Hebrew original the
reading '':w. Furthermore, it is highly improbable that
a gentilic noun Gdgi, derived from J13, should ever have
been written with s. Lucian may have found in his
Hebrew text the reading ''JJt^, but being well aware of the
fact that Haman could not have been a descendant of

2'' Similarly Cassel, I.e., p. 84.

'^"^ The present writer, ofiering these etymologies ad absttrdmu, was
surprised to see them seriously suggested by H. Winckler [AUorieniaHsche
Forschitngen, II, p. 381).

^^ Purint, p. 14 ; Critical Notes, p. 141.

2" See Jacob, /. c, p, 260, and Paton, /. c, p. 38.

2" Josephus states that Haman was an Amalekite (see Chapter I. n. 10).

26 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

arbitrary corruption on the part of the Jewish scribes for
the purpose of representing a contrast between the Ben-
jamite Mordecai and the Agagite Haman, and therefore
believ'ed that the original term was 'JJ, which he rendered
rcoyaio?. He even may have seen in the rendering
BovyaL09 of the Alexandrian version a corruption from
r(oyaio9 or Fovyaio?. But even according to Lucian's
reading we have no reason for the assertion that the
author's intention was to represent Haman as a northern
barbarian. The land Ji in Ezekiel's prophecies,"^ identical
with Gaga in the Amarna Letters,^^ was undoubtedly
situated in Armenia.^^ We know that this country became
a part of Persia proper, where the Zoroastrian religion and
the Persian language had been successfully introduced,^*

^' Ezek. 37. 2, &c.

^^ See H. Wincklefs Tcll-El-Amarua Letters, No. 5 (in Eb. Schrader's
Keilinschriftliche Biblwthek, vol. V).

^^ Gog is designated by Ezekiel : 'chief prince of Meshech and Tubal '.
These nations are of course identical .with the Mushki and Tabal. They
belonged to the Hittites (see A, Jeremias, The O. T. in the light of the
Ancient East, vol. I, p. 280). We know that Tabal dwelt in Lesser
Armenia (cf. ibid., p. 281), and the Mushki are everywhere in the Cuneiform
inscriptions mentioned in connexion with Tabal and Urartu. In Xerxes's
army against Greece we find both nations, Tabal and Mushki, under the
names of Tibarenians and Moschians under one commander (Herodotus
VII, 78). These nations are mentioned in Ezekiel with Togarmah, identical
withTilgarimu, which, according to Dillmann,Kiepert, and Friedr. Delitzsch,
is situated in South-Western Armenia (Del., Parodies, p. 246). The
principal state of these nations was Magog, which comprises Eastern and
Western Armenia {ibid., p. 247). Now the Hittites, to which evidently all
these nations belong, were by no means barbarians, if we may judge by
their monuments. Thus the assertion that Gog is a term used for ' northern
barbarian ' is unfounded.

'^* Cf. J. Marquart's Fimdamente Israelitischer und Jiidischer Geschichte,
GOttingen, 1896, p. 38, and Hastings's Encyclopaedia under * Armenia '^
(Zoroastrian ism).

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 27

and where the Persian nobles possessed large estates. '"'^
Therefore, Haman could have been of purely Persian origin
and nevertheless be designated by the gentilic noun ''ii,
because he was a native of the land of 6V^.

However, for the question, whether Haman was a
foreigner or a Persian, we must consider, beside the gentilic
*::s , his own name and that of his father. We know what
a prominent part Haoina {Honi) plays in the Zoroastrian
religion. It was the name of the guardian angel and of
the holy plant used for sacrifices."''' The names of Hainan
and his father Havidatha, ' given by Hom ', are undoubtedly
connected with Haoina. Cassel is even inclined to suggest
that such holy names could only have been borne by priests,
and that Haman and his father were Magians,'"' who were
a tribe of the Medes. But Cassel goes perhaps too far in
this assumption. We cannot see why names like Bagadatha
'given by God', and Mithradatha, 'given by Mithra',
should be less holy than the former, and yet there are
bearers of such names who did not belong to the priest-
caste of the Magians. Such names could even have been
borne by foreigners, as we see that one of the Jewish
leaders bore the name ""Ua, which, as has been suggested ,^^
is a hypocoristicon of Bagadatha (= in^^N, ^S*:n3?). Thus
the Persian names which Haman and his father bore are
no evidence that they were not of foreign descent. But

35 See Eduard Meyer, Gesclikhte, III. p. 138.

3^ Cf. A.V.Williams Jackson's Zoroaster, New York, 1899, pp. 25, 50,
and Geldner's article 'Zoroaster', in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, nth ed.

37 Cassel, /. c, p. 82.

^8 A. Wellhausen, hraelitisclie und Jiidiac/ie Gescliiclite. p. 120. His
suggestion that Bagadatha is a translation of Jonathan is improbable.
Ed. Me^'er {Entstehitng des Judentuins, p. 157, n. 2) thinks that Bagadatha
and Ba^joi arc distinct Persian names, both derived fi-om Ijas^n.

28 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

being a naturalized Persian, it is doubtful whether Haman's
foreign descent would have lowered him in the eyes of the
Persians and debarred him from occupying a high position."^
Now it is true Humma or Umma is the name of an ancient
Elamitic deity which occurs in numerous Elamitic proper
names,'*^ and we might see the same divine name in the
names Hainan and Hanidatha. We could therefore con-
tend that Haman was by origin an Elamite. But who
knows whether the divine elements HUm and Humma are
not identical ? It would be a curious coincidence if Horn,
one of the chief deities in the religion of the Persians whose
capital was in Elam, should not have some connexion
with Humma, one of the chief Elamitic deities.^^ How-
ever, for the question under consideration it is quite
irrelevant whether Haman was of Persian or Elamitic

2^ Herodotus VI, 41, states that the children of Metiochus son of
Miltiades were accounted Persians, because their father had married a
Persian woman.

^° Cf. the Elamitic proper names Ummanigash, Ummanaldasi, Teum-
man, &c. But it is strange that we do not find the name of this deity
among the names of the twenty gods enumerated by Ashurbanipal (cf.
KB., II, p. 205). However, the element anmtan is found in the compounded
divine name Am-nta-an-ka'si-bar.

*i Haoma, generally considered to be identical with Vedic Soma (cf.
Geldner, /. c.) : the Persians did not take over this deity from the Elamites.
We may only question whether there were not earlj' relations between the
Elamitic and the Vedic religions. The racial affinity of the Elamites is still
an open question. They may have been related to their neighbours, the
Kassites. Now it has been observed that some of the Kassite names bear
most striking resemblance to those of the Hittites, and especially to those
of the stock of Mitani (cf. Clay, Personal A'aiiics of the Cassite Period,
pp. 44, 45 '. It has been further demonstrated that there were Aryan
elements among the Hittite-Mitanni, as the Ar^'an deities Mitra, Vanma,
Indra, Nasatya occur in the Hittite documents found by H. Winckler in
Boghaz-koi {Miit. d. Deitlsch. Orient. Ges., Dec, 1907, p. 51). Thus there
is a possibility that Hmv.nia is of Aryan origin and identical with the Vedic
Soma.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 29

origin, as at the period of our story there was hardly any
difference between Persians and Elamites.'*'-^

But the question whether the Persians would have
submitted to being ruled by a foreigner — a question which
concerns Mordecai's position as well as that of Hanian —
we can by no means answer in the negative, if it is true
that Bagoas, the most powerful prime minister under
Artaxerxes III and his successors, was a native of Egypt.**^
Thus the premises from which the conclusions under dis-
cussion are drawn do not stand the test of impartial
research, and the objections of the modern critics do not
invalidate the contention that the Book of Esther is
historical.

*- If Ahasuerus is to be identified with Xerxes, we may doubt whether
the Elamites, who had rebelled against Darius I, and set up a king of their
own (Behistun Inscription, Col. I, 29), were in the short period of about
forty j-ears completely assimilated to the Persians. But if our story
happened much later, we may reasonably assume that at that time there
was hardly anj' difference between Persians and Elamites.

<2 See Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, under 'Bagoas'. However, the
whole argument concerning the descent and the name of Haman is absurd,
and it would be a waste of time and of labour to deal with it seriously, if it
were not lor the fact that all modern critics attribute to it so much impor-
tance and base upon it mythological or historical theories. Haman might
have been of Amalekite origin and be nevertheless to all intents and
purposes a real Persian. His ancestors might have lived in Persia for a
long period, though his foreign descent was still known to the Jews —
a fact that is of course quite improbable, but not impossible.

30 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

CHAPTER III

The author of Esther as an historian — The date of these events — The
extent of the Persian empire— The coronation festivities— Xerxes' war with
Greece — His queen Amestris — The Jews outside of the Persian empire —
The diaspora — Jewish persecutions in post-exilic times — The improbability
of Haman's decree— Xerxes' character — His attitude towards the Jews—
The new possessions of Ahasuerus.

If a book contains anachronisms, as do the Books
of Daniel, Tobit, and Judith, we may doubt its historical
character, since its author could not have committed errors
of this kind if he had known the history of the period in
which the events are said to have occurred. The author
of the Book of Esther, however, is not guilty of anachro-
nisms, and was well informed on Persian manners and
institutions. Therefore, we have no reason to assume that
his knowledge of Persian history was inferior to that of
the Greek writers of his period. From this point of
view we shall investigate the events of our story, and
demonstrate that the Ahasuerus of Esther cannot be
identical with Xerxes.
Esther i.i. (i) The story opens : ' Now it came to pass ^ in the days

' The Imperiect -with ivaw conscciitwitm in Ti''), that implies a preceding
verb in the Perfect, and is always used in continuation of a historical
narrative, is here correct. The Book of Esther continues the history of
Israel, and thus forms a part of the other historical Books. The author
does not intend to write the story of Ahasuerus, and presupposes that the
reader is acquainted with the earlier history of this king, as Bertheau-
Ryssel, /. c, p. 379, strangely explains. Nor is the use of the Imperfect with
waw coitsecuiiviim an imitation of the older histories, designed to suggest
that Esther belongs to the same class of literature, as Paton, /. c, p. no

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 31

of Ahasuerus, this is the Ahasuerus who reigned from India
even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty
provinces '.'-^ The intention of the author evidently was
to give to the reader exact information concerning the
king under whose reign the events narrated occurred.^
He assumes that several Persian kings bearing that name
are known to his readers — as Ibn Ezra explains — and
therefore fixed the date by the additional remark, that the
Ahasuerus of the story was that king who ruled from
India to Ethiopia, and no other king bearing the same
name, for the dominion of the other did not extend so far.
If this king was Xerxes, there was no need to fix the date.
(2) The king of the story did not lose any of his hundred
and twenty-seven provinces during the whole period of his
reign. But Xerxes did lose a considerable part of Asia
Minor, in the sixth and seventh years of his reign, as we

2 The identification of the term nno with 'satrapy' is decidedly
wrong. The titles D^JDITiTnS*, mnD, and mrti:n nu' represent three
classes of officials. The first were rulers of satrapies, as is well known, the
second were governors of smaller territories, and the last were the
governors of districts. The word rUHJO is a derivation from JH 'to
judge ', and means ' the seat of a judge, judge's circuit ' ; and therefore in
Arabic and Syriac the terms for 'city' are liJ^.I and )t^L.»j«. Judaea
was a Medinah, not a satrapy. In a later period, Judea and Galilee were
considered two different DiyHD. Accordingly, there is no discrepancy
between the author of Esther and Herodotus, who states that Darius 1
divided the Persian empire into twenty satrapies (III, 3). Of. Keil, /. c,
p. 616, and Paton, /. c, p, 123.

^ Wildeboer, Driver, and others deduce from this passage that the reign
of Ahasuerus lay in a past somewhat distant at the period of the author.
But we ought to give the author credit for more sense. The latter evidently
intended to present this story as an ancient document. Hence it is
improbable that he should have expressed hipiself as if he intended to show
that those events occurred in the distant past. Therefore it is obvious that
his sole intention was to fix the date of tha« ruler und<"r whose reign the
story occurred.

32 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

know that most of the Greek territories became inde-
pendent after the battles of Salamis, Plataea, and Mycale.*
This fact seems to have been overlooked by all the exegetes.
Esther ^.^j -pj^g story Continues : ' In those days, when the king

Ahasuerus was sitting on the throne of his kingdom, which
was in Shushan the palace, in the third year of his reign,
he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants ; the
power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the
provinces being before him '. In these passages the author
seems to contradict himself. The clause, ' when the king
Ahasuerus was sitting on the throne of his kingdom ',
evidently implies that this feast took place on the occasion
of the king's accession to the throne, and immediately the
author states that it occurred ' in the third year of his
reign '. Hence it is obvious that the former clause can
have no other meaning than ' when the king Ahasuerus
was firmly established on the throne of his kingdom '/'
Both the Alexandrian translator and Rashi felt this
difficulty ; ^the former therefore renders this clause ore
kOpoviaO-q /SaaLXev? 'A. This phrase contains, as Jacob
points out, the special Egyptian term for the coronation
festivities of the Ptolemies.'' Rashi explains this clause
)T2 nuijon n^'pn^^^ 'when the kingdom was established,
in his hand '. Both interpretations may mean the same.
The author evidently intends to inform us that the king

* See Ed. Meyer, Geschichte, III, p. 416.

^ Paton, /. c, p. 124, observes: 'The language suggests the beginning
of his reign, but i. 3 says that it was in the third year'. H. Winckler {Der
Alte Orient unci die Gescliiclitsforschung, 1906, p. sr) thinks that this phrase
means: 'when he ascended the throne'. H. Willrich, /. c, p. 15, sees in
this expression an official coronation that may have been celebrated three
years after the accession of the king. But cf. Keil, /. c, p. 617, and
Bertheau-Ryssel, I.e., p. 384.

« See Jacob, I.e., p. 281.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 33

of our Story did not feel himself secure in the possession
of his throne at the beginning of his reign. He must have
had a rival who challenged his right to the throne. There-
fore no festivities took place on his accession. But in the
third year of his reign, after having defeated his rival, and
being now generally recognized as legitimate ruler and
thus firmly established on his throne, the king celebrated
the event in the manner described. This was actually
a coronation feast. If this interpretation is true, the king
cannot be identified with Xerxes. The latter being the
son of Darius and Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus the
Great, his right to the throne, after his accession, was not
contested — though during his father's lifetime there might
have arisen a doubt whether Xerxe.^, who was born in the
purple, or his elder brother should succeed to the throne.^
There is no record that Xerxes had to assert his right
to the succession against any claimant. None of his
brothers rebelled against him.

(4) The events narrated in the second chapter of Esther
could hardly have occurred between the third and seventh
years of Xerxes' reign. He was at that time fully occupied
with his preparations for the war against Greece. The
advice of the courtiers seems to have been carried out in
the sixth year. But Xerxes was at that time in Greece.
The selection of Esther took place in the seventh year.
But the testing of the other virgins, before Esther's turn
came, must have lasted several months. We would have
to assume that Xerxes at that time was already back from
Sardis. Such an assumption is not impossible, but rather
improbable.

(5) Esther could not have been the queen of Xerxes

'' See Herodotus VII. 2 3.
H. D

34 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

between the seventh and twelfth years of his reign, as the
queen at that time was Amestris, and she cannot be
identified with Esther.^ We cannot accept Jampel's forced
suggestion that Esther was not a real queen, but one of
Xerxes' wives — not a concubine^ — as she is continually
referred to as queen in our story. Moreover, according
to a statement of Herodotus, Darius made an agreement
with the six conspirators against Pseudo-Smerdis, stipulating
that the king was to marry into no families except those
of the conspirators.^^ If this statement be true, it is very
improbable that this agreement was disregarded by the
immediate successor of Darius. But history shows that
kings hardly ever faithfully observe agreements made by
distant ancestors with their subjects, and we may well
imagine that this agreement was violated in a later period.
Furthermore, if we may believe Herodotus, the Persian
kings had a very convenient ancient law that decreed
'that the king of Persia might do whatever he pleased ',^^
which enabled them to set aside any law or agreement that
interfered with their own pleasure.
Esther 3. 6. (6) The passage 'The Jews throughout the whole
kingdom of Ahasuerus '. and similar expressions, apparently
imply that at the period of our story there were Jews out-
side of the Persian empire. Herodotus does not know
anything about the Jews.^- This fact alone is sufficient

8 Amestris was the daughter of Otanes 'cf. Herodotus IX, 109 ; Ctesias,
Persica 20). Cf. Paton, /. c, p. 71 f.

9 Jampel, /. c, p. 114. " Herodotus III, 84. " Ibid. Ill, 31.
^2 Ed. Meyer {Geschichte, III, p. 218) is evidently wrong in identifying

the people which are designated by Herodotus II, 104 as Ivpoi ol h tjJ
naKaiarivTi with the Jews. Herodotus VII, 89 used the same designation
for the Syrians who, along with the Phoenicians, furnished three hundred
vessels for the war against Greece. This of course can refer only to those

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 35

evidence that no Jews lived at that time among the Greeks.
Egypt was under the dominion of Persia during the reign
of Xerxes. An assumption that Jews Hved among the
independent, savage Scythians is not to be considered.
The only independent, civilized country where Jews might
have settled was Carthage, and so far we have no record
of the existence of Jews among the Carthaginians. Hence
it is highly improbable that Jews existed outside of the
Persian empire at the time of Xerxes.

(7) The passage 'There is a certain people scattered Esther 3.8.
and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy
kingdom ' distinctly shows that the Jews at the period

of our story had already settled in all parts of the Persian
empire. If those events occurred under the reign of
Xerxes, it is hardly credible that such a dispersion should
have been accomplished in the relatively short space of
about sixty years. However, this objection is not con-
clusive.^'^

(8) The main proof, however, that Ahasuerus cannot be
identified with Xerxes, may be seen in the principal event
of our story. If we are to believe that a Persian king had
once decreed the destruction of the Jews, we must advance
some plausible reason for such an action. Considering it
from the point of view of all commentators, we encounter
a monstrosity inconceivable to the human mind. Does it
stand to reason that Haman, on account of a single
individual, who had refused to pay him due homage, should
have resolved to destroy a whole innocent race? Now

Syrians who inhabited the seacoast, and the Jews in the Persian period
were not inhabitants of the sea-coast.

" This problem is treated in the Appendi.K 'The Exiles of Judah and
Israel '.

D 2

36 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

it is true, the bloody pages of Jewish history bear testimony
to terrible persecutions of the Jews, in all ages, down to
the present, through no fault of their own. But we must
bear in mind that this hostile attitude was always caused
by religious fanaticism and intolerance. In post-exilic
times, the hatred against the Jews was never directed
against the Jewish race, but against the Jewish religion.
The Jew who became a pagan, or embraced Christianity
or Islam, was in all countries and in all ages just as safe
as one of the other races. It was always the aim of
intolerant rulers to compel the Jews to abandon their
exclusive position, and this task could not be accomplished
except by means of persecution. We know that the Jews
who abandoned their religion could attain to the highest
dignity in the Christian hierarchy, even in the Dark Ages.
But Haman's action is without a parallel in history. If he
had been a religious fanatic, he would have compelled the
Jews to abandon their religion, as did Antiochus Epiphanes.
However, let us admit that Haman was of an excep-
tional turn of mind, and desired to exterminate the whole
Jewish race on account of Mordecai. But how can we
believe that Xerxes was exactly of the same turn of mind
and readily agreed to carry out his intentions ? Jampel's
suggestion that Xerxes was afraid of the Scythians, who
frequently laid waste the country, and therefore believed
that Haman's accusation referred to them,^* is impossible.
Who ever heard of enemies of this kind being destroyed
by royal decrees? Xerxes might just as well have decreed
the destruction of Greece ! If the Scythian hordes had
been so weak as to be destroyed by the people, they could

'^ Jampel, /. r., p. 114.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 37

not have inspired any fear. There was no need to ask
special permission and offer a large amount of money
for the destruction of enemies of this kind. If he had
been afraid of these hordes, Xerxes would gladly have
given an}'thing to rid himself of them. Moreover, the
words of Haman, 'scattered and dispersed in all the
provinces of thy kingdom ', distinctly indicate that he could
not have referred to the Scythians, who were by no means
scattered and dispersed in all the provinces, but came in
large bodies from their steppes whenever they committed
their depredations. It is also preposterous to assume that
Xerxes could have decreed the extermination of a people
without knowing their name. The testimony of classical
authors, quoted b}' Jampel, that Xerxes was of very
inferior intelligence, ' being a body without a soul ', does
not deserve any credence. The only authority for the
personality of Xerxes is the honest, unbiased Herodotus —
who, though he may in some cases have been misinformed,
never distorted the truth. The profound remarks which
Herodotus ascribes to Xerxes, no matter whether they are
oratorical embellishments or not, indicate that he considered
this king a man of intelligence. It is wrong to see in the
scourging of the Hellespont a childish action, as is generally
done by the commentators. Herodotus and the Greeks
did not look upon it as childish, but as impious. It was
a symbolic action, a chastisement of the Greek god
Poseidon, whom Xerxes may have held to be a creature
of Ahriman, according to his religious conception. This
action was in some respect similar to the striking of the
Red Sea and of the Rock by Moses. According to
Herodotus, Cyrus punished the river Gj'ndes by dividing
it into three hundred and sixty parts for a lesser cause, his

38 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT UF HISTORY

favourite horse having been drowned in it.^'' Xerxes was
not inferior in intelligence to any of his successors. Curtius
justly describes him as having had a deep sense of the
dignity of the empire.^'^ The Persians in later times may
have depicted him as an incapable ruler, attributing to his
incapacity the disgraceful defeats Persia suffered under
his reign. But exegetes have no right to stamp Xerxes
a fool for the purpose of confirming the veracity of the
Book of Esther.

It has further been suggested by Jampel ^' that Xerxes'
detestation of the Jews may have been caused by his
religious fanaticism. Now there is no doubt that Xerxes
was a fanatical adherent of the Zoroastrian religion,
appaVently more so than his father Darius. The former
even removed the statue of Bel-Marduk from the Babylonian
temple, an action which his father ' had not the hardihood
to do', as Herodotus informs us.^- It has been pointed out
that Xerxes after the fourth year of his reign is no longer
styled ' king of Babylon ' in the Babylonian documents ; for
this title could only be borne by a king who seized the
hand of Bel-Marduk on the New Year festival.^' Though
the action of Xerxes may have been a political measure
and done for the purpose of abolishing the kingdom of
Babylonia and uniting it with the Persian empire, and
not with any religious motives, nevertheless Xerxes could

" Herodotus I, 189. Grote. in l)is History of Greece, IV, p. 284. does
not doubt this narrative, though it has been said that Cyrus's real intention
was to put this river out of his waj' in case he should find it necessary to
cross it.

"^ In his History of Greece, II, p. 273.

1^ I.e., p. 119. '* Herodotus I, 183.

" Cf. Ed. Meyer, Forschtatgcn sur Altcii Gescluciite. Halle, 1892. I,
p. 474, and Gcschichie, III, p. 130.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 39

hardly have committed such a sacrilegious deed, if he had
not been, as a true Zoroastrian, an inveterate enemy of the
worship of idols. It has even been asserted that he
destroyed Greek temples for the same reason.^'' This,
however, is rather doubtful, as Herodotus states that on
the day after the temple of Minerva was set on fire, Xerxes
assembled all the Athenian exiles and bade them go into
the temple and offer sacrifices after their own fashion.-^
Xerxes would in all probability have destroyed the temples
of his enemies, even if he had been an idolater. But the
very fact that Xerxes was an ardent Zoroastrian is proof
to the contrary, that he could not have been hostile to the
Jews on account of their religion. We shall see that the
latter were by no means averse to the Persian religion, as
long as it remained in its purity, free from idolatrous repre-
sentations. Both the Jewish and Zoroastrian religion were in
the main points, superficially at least, alike, acknowledging
only one God and having no idols.-^ If Xerxes was an
ardent Zoroastrian, he must have been favourably inclined
towards the only non-Iranian subjects in his empire, who
had a religion akin to that of the Persians, and readily
acknowledged the divinity of Ahuramazda. As significant
for his favourable attitude towards the Jews we consider

'^^ Cf. G. Rawlinson's Herodotus, vol. Ill, p. 254 ; IV, p. 241, and Cassel,
/. c, p. 82.

2' Herodotus VIII, 54. The fact that Xerxes destroyed Greek temples
is no proof that he was opposed to the worship of idols. Herodotus VIII, 35
states that he intended to invade Delphos for the purpose of seizing the
riches which were laid up there. It was a political measure lest the Greeks
might use these treasures against him. For the same purpose he may have
plundered the very rich temple of Apollo at Aboe, according to Herodotus
VIII, 33. Ed. Meyer {Geschkhte, III, p. 255) contends that Xerxes was not
hostile towards the Greek gods.

22 See Chapter V.

I.

40 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

the Statement of Ezra, ' And in the days of Ahasuerus,
in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation
against the inhabitants of Judea and Jerusalem.'-^ It is
noteworthy that nothing is said about the result of this
accusation.-* It is evidently due to Xerxes' benevolent
attitude towards the Jews that this accusation remained
without result. Seeing that we cannot assign sufificient
reasons for the danger of extermination impending over
the Jews under the reign of Xerxes, it is obvious that the
latter cannot be identified with the king of our story.
Esther (9) There is a remarkable statement in the last chapter

of our story : ' And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon
the land, and upon the isles of the sea '.-^ This passage
has puzzled all commentators: What connexion may this
trivial remark have with the preceding events? Cassel's
ingenious explanation, that the king indemnified himself
for the ten thousand talents he had lost in frustrating
Raman's decree,-*' is impossible. The money that Haman
promised was not a profit, but indemnification for the loss
of Jewish taxes. Further, the king had renounced all

23 Ezra 4. 6. Ahasuerus in this passage is undoubtedly Xerxes, not
Cambyses. Cf. Keil, p. 442, and Bertheau-Ryssel, p. 64.

2* Marquart. /. c, p. 63, sees in this passage the gloss of an interpolator.
But if the intention of the alleged interpolator was to give us some
information about troubles of the Judeans under the reign of Xerxes, why
does he stop with the accusation? This 'interpolator' was apparently
a better historian than the author of the Book of Daniel, since he placed
Ahasuerus between Darius I and Artaxerxes I. Siegfried, in his com-
mentary on Ezra, p. 24, observes : 'The petition to Ahasuerus is missing. . . .
But this gap is filled out by Ezra 2. 17-25'. But Ezra omits this passage
altogether, and the verses 17-25 correspond, with the exception of the
proper names, to the Hebrew text.

25 See Keil, p. 658; Bertheau-Ryssel, p. 545; Wildeboer, p. 196;
Siegfried, p. 175: Paton, p. 303, &c.

26 Cassel. /. c., p. 236.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 4 1

claim to this money, in saying: 'The silver is given to
thee'. Finally, the king had already indemnified himself
by confiscating Haman's property.'-^' The author evidently
intended to inform the reader about the great statesmanship
of Mordecai, that the king by following his counsel was
very fortunate in his enterprises, and increased his dominions
by acquiring a new land and isles on which he levied
tribute.-^ But we know that Xerxes did not increase his
empire ; on the contrary, he lost the Greek cities and
islands of Asia Minor, the whole of Thrace, and the greater
part of Cyprus between the years 479-476 BC.E., and
never recovered them. Hence such a statement cannot
refer to the reign of Xerxes.

■-' Though Ahasuerus made a present of it to Esther, the property ol his
wife was alwaj-s at his disposal.

28 Ibn Ezra, ad locum, is the only commentator who recognized the
meaning of this passage.

42 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

CHAPTER IV

Ahasuerus' identity with Artaxerxes II, Mnemon— Plutarch's Life of
Artaxerxes — Plutarch's sources and their reliability — Artaxerxes' character —
His relations to the Greeks — The Peace of Antalcidas — The rebellion of
Cyrus the Younger — The date of the battle of Cunaxa — Artaxerxes' cele-
bration of his victory — His domestic life — Quarrels between his queen and
his mother — The rule of the harem — The queen's disobedience — Her
degradation and murder — Her name — Artaxerxes' concubines— Artaxerxes'
suspicions against his grandees — His palace at Susa — The name Ahasuerus
in the Hebrew version — A comparison between Xerxes and Artaxerxes II —
The resurrection of the Persian empire — The Arsacides alleged descendants
of Artaxerxes II— His proper name — The uniformity of the Scriptures —
The name Artaxerxes in the Greek version.

The veracity of a story has to be judged by the facts
narrated therein, and these facts on their own merits,
independently of the names of the dramatis personae, which
may have been changed for some reason. The modern
exegetes of the Book of Esther evidently do not grant
these premisses. Having identified Ahasuerus with Xerxes,
an identification that etymologically cannot be doubted,
and finding that historically the events of this Book could
not have occurred under the reign of the latter, they
conclude that the story is fictitious. This conclusion is
erroneous. We readily concede that an assumption that
these events actually happened under Xerxes' reign is
beyond the limits of consideration, as we have shown in
the preceding chapter. But this fact does not prove that
these events are unhistorical They might have occurred
under a ruler whose name was not Ahasuerus. We indeed

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 43

contend that the events of our story, being corroborated by
external, non-biblical historical sources, cannot be denied,
and that the navic of the king found in the present Hebrew
version of the Book of Esther is fictitious. In the course
of our investigation, we hope to prove the truth of our
contention.

Historical events under the reign of Artaxerxes II
Mnemon (404/3-359/8 B.C.E.) leave no room for doubt
that the events narrated in our story occurred under that
king's reign. The latter having played a part in the
history of Greece, such as no other Persian king before
or after him, we have abundant information about his
political affairs, which can be traced in our story. But
records about his domestic life, written by various Greek
authors, are scanty and not of a character to be implicitly
relied upon, being apparently a mixture of truth and
fiction. The writings of the older classical historians who
dealt with this subject, like Ctesias of Cnidus, Deinon of
Colophon, Heraclides of Cyme, and others are lost, with
the exception of some fragments of Ctesias.^ All later
historians who touched upon this subject drew from these
sources. Plutarch, in his Life of Ai'taxerxes, relied for the
description of the first part of this king's reign chiefly upon
Ctesias, for that of the later years chiefly upon Deinon, but
drew also from Heraclides and other sources. Ctesias
could testify as an eye-witness to the events that happened
in the first six years of Artaxerxes' reign, since he was
physician at the Persian court for about seventeen }ears
(414-398). He wrote his history about 390. His testi-
mony ought seemingly to be regarded of prominent value.

' For the historical sources for this period see Ed. Meyer^ Cesch.
III. pp. 7ff

44 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

But Plutarch does not place much confidence in him,
charging that he had filled his books with a number of
extravagant and incredible fables. Ctesias had indeed
in antiquity the not undeserved reputation of a liar and
forger. Deinon wrote his history towards the end of the
Achaemenian period, and is generally regarded as trust-
worthy. For our present investigation, we must chiefl}^
rely upon Plutarch. But judging by his Artaxef'xes, we
must doubt Deinon's reliability. We shall demonstrate by
a few striking examples that this historian does not deserve
great confidence. It is surprising to see our modern
historians, like Ferdinand Justi,^ and even Eduard Meyer,
the greatest authority on ancient history in our times,
implicitly accepting in their Histories many statements of
Plutarch, without subjecting them to a critical analysis.
We call a:ttention to the following points :

(i) According to Plutarch, Artaxerxes II reached the
age of ninety-four years.'^ Both Justi* and Eduard Meyer^'^
accept this statement. If this be true, Artaxerxes must
have been forty- eight at the time of his accession to the
throne, since he reigned from 404/3 to 359/8. But the
latter was the son of Darius II and Parysatis. They had,
according to Plutarch,*^ four children, of whom Artaxerxes
was the eldest, Cyrus the second, and Ostanes and Oxatres
the two youngest. Darius reigned 424-404. As Cyrus
claimed the throne on account of having been born in the
purple, he must have been about nineteen years old at the

2 Geschichte des Altai Persieiis, Berlin, 1879 (in Oncken's ' Allgemeine
Geschichte', part IV).

■ Plutarch's Artaxerxes. XXX, 9.

* In his Geschichte, p. 136.

^ In his Forschmigen. p. 489. In his Geschichte he says that Artaxerxes
was Hralt. •"' Artaxerxes, 1,2.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 45

demise of his father. Accordingly Artaxerxes would have
been twenty-nine years older than his second brother.
Parysatis, remarkable for her cruelty, would have been
more remarkable as a natural phenomenon, having borne
three lusty sons after an intermission of twenty-nine
years.'^ As a matter of fact, Artaxerxes was merely a few
years older than his second brother. He must have been
at the prime of his life at the time of his campaign against
the Cadusians, about twenty-four years after his accession,
if he could bear all the hardships of the march like the
meanest soldier and show strength and alacrity by marching
two hundred furlongs daily.'as Plutarch informs us.^ How-
ever, Plutarch is in this case not as much to blame as the
modern historians ; for the former gives Artaxerxes a
reign of sixty-two years,'-' and thus Cyrus would have been
only about thirteen years younger than his eldest brother.
If historians rightly reject the statement concerning the
years of his reign as unhistorical, they ought to have
repudiated also that as to Artaxerxes' age !

(2) Plutarch's date of Artaxerxes' reign, mentioned
above, is not a scribal error, as the same date is given by
Sulpicius Severus, and both drew from the same source,
from Deinon, according to Ed. Meyer.^'^ The latter

'' There is also another chronological improbability. Artaxerxes I, who
was the younger son of Xerxes, was undoubtedly born in the purple. As
the latter ascended the throne 484, and was murdered 465, Artaxerxes could
hardly have been more than eighteen at the time of his accession. Now if
Artaxerxes II was forty-eight years old when he became king, he must have
been born 452. Then Artaxerxes I would have become a grandfather at
the age of thirty. G. Rawlinson {Herod. IV, p. 2) considers it incredible
that Xerxes should have had a grown-up son when he was at most thirty-six
years old.

» Artaxerxes, XXIV. 11. * •' Jbiel. XXX, 9.

'" Forschuitgen, p. 489.

46 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

admits that he is unable to explain how such an error
could have occurred. He evidently overlooked the fact
that this date, giving Artaxerxes the age of ninety-four
years at his death, is the basis of all the stories about
Cyrus and Parysatis, told by Plutarch. It is also possible
to explain the occurrence of this error. Eusebius gives
Artaxerxes II a reign of forty years, while Africanus gives
Artaxerxes III a reign of twenty- two years. Hence it is
very possible that the date given by Plutarch and Severus
include the regnal years of both these kings. This date
sufficiently shows how badly Deinon must have been
informed about the Persian history of this period.

(3) Plutarch tells us that Cyrus had a concubine named
Aspasia, who had been taken prisoner in the battle of
Cunaxa, and afterwards became the concubine of Artaxerxes.
But his oldest son Darius, after having been appointed
successor, requested his father to give Aspasia to him.
Artaxerxes complied with his request, but soon afterwards
he took her away and made her priestess of Diana of
Ecbatana, whom they called Anaitis, that she might pass
the remainder of her life in chastity.^^ Darius, incensed
and persuaded by Teribazus, conspired against the life of
his father and intended to assassinate him in his bed-
chamber.^^ When these events occurred, Artaxerxes was

" Artaxerxes, XXVH, 4.

1- Ibid. XXIX. Plutarch may congratulate himself that he was not
a Jewish author. The commentators on Esther concern themselves with
the difficult question how Esther, who as cousin of Mordecai must have
been at least fiftj- or sixty years of age, should have been so beautiful as to
captivate the heart of Xerxes. Plutarch's tale is more incredible, and
nevertheless Justi, Gesc/i., p. 137, accepts it literally, without expressing
any doubt as to its historicity.^ Some commentators believe that in the
seclusion and care of an Oriental harem beauty lasts to an extreme age
(see Bertheau-Ryssel, p. 400, and Paton, p. 170). However, just the

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 47

alread}' far advanced in years, as Plutarch asserts. The
fact that a successor to the throne was appointed shows
that they happened in the last years of his reign. At that
time Aspasia was ah-eady an old woman, at the age of
seventy at least, according to Plutarch's chronology.
Accordingly, 'the goddess of beauty' could not have ' con-
tributed her share towards persuading Darius by putting
him in mind of the loss of Aspasia '.

(4) Plutarch further tells us that Parysatis was instru-
mental in bringing about the marriage of Artaxerxes to
his own daughter Atossa, by telling him to make her his
wife, without regarding the laws and opinions of the
Greeks.^" This daughter was apparently rather young at
the time of her marriage to her own father, since her
brother Ochus, the youngest son of Artaxerxes, is said to
have promised her to make her his queen, in case she
would assist him in putting his elder brothers out of the
way.^"^ This occurred at the time of Darius's conspiracy.
But according to Plutarch, Parysatis must have been fifty
years of age at least, when Artaxerxes ascended the
throne, and could hardly have been alive towards the end
of his reign.

Historians attach too much importance to Persian
harem-stories recorded by Greek authors. We ought to
bear in mind that the Persian harem was more closely
guarded than the Golden Fleece. No outsider could know

contrary is true. Justi, /. c, p. 125, observes : ' The charms of the women
last seldom more than eight or nine years. The splendid beauty soon turns
withered, lean, blear-eyed, and becomes in every respect an ugly woman.
Each year brings a new wrinkle, until the former light of the harem is
quite obscured '. From this point of view, we understand why there were
new gatherings of virgins from time to time.

" Artaxerxes, XXIII, 5. i' Ibui. XXVI, 3.

48 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

exactly the real happenings there/'' The stories are based
upon rumours which may have been embellished and dis-
torted, not upon first-hand information. It should also
be taken into account that the Greek writers in telling
startling stories about the barbarians, were playing to the
gallery. The Greek physicians at the Persian court were
most likely better informed about happenings in the harem.
But with the exception of Ctesias, who is fond of giving
fiction instead of truth, especially where his own ambition
was concerned, these physicians did not write histories.

There is no doubt some truth in many stories of
Plutarch's Artaxerxes, but it is mixed with fiction. There
may have been a conspiracy against the life of Artaxerxes
in the first years of his reign, in which Aspasia played
some part. Who knows whether she was not involved in
some conspiracy to avenge the death of her lover Cyrus,
which the Greek author mixed up with the conspiracy of
Darius that occurred about forty years later ? Ed. Meyer,
who in his History gave full credence to Plutarch's account,
seems to have lost faith in it, as his description of the
events under discussion, in the Encydop. Brit, (nth Edition),
differs in several points from that of Plutarch. He writes:
' In the last years of his reign, he had sunk into a perfect
dotage. All his time was spent in the harem, the intrigues
of which were complicated by marrying his own daughter
Atossa. At the same time his sons were quarrelling about
his succession. One of them. Ochus, induced his father
to condemn to death three of his elder brothers who stood
in his way. Shortly afterwards Artaxerxes died.' This

15 It is different with Jewish writers, as some of them were in all
probability eunuchs ^see Chapter VII), and therefore were better acquainted
with the secrets of the harem than the average Persians.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 49

historian evidently does not believe in Plutarch's stories,
that Darius was found guilty of a conspiracy, that the
second brother, Ariaspes, committed suicide, and that the
third brother was murdered by Harpates at the order of
Ochus.^'^ We must indeed take these stories with a grain
of salt, not as did Justi who in his His tor y\dheres faithfully
to Plutarch's description in all its details.

It is noteworthy that there is a period of about thirty
years at least between the death of the first queen of
Artaxerxes and the alleged marriage to his own daughter
Atossa. Who was queen in the meantime ? If there had
been a queen, she would in all probability have taken part
in the intrigues at the court, as did all the Persian queens,
and Greek writers would have told us something about
her. There seems to have been a queen v/ho differed from
all her predecessors, in not mixing herself in the intrigues
of the court, and, therefore, Greek writers did not know
anything about her. Now it is true, Plutarch states :
'Some historians, amongst whom]is 'Heraclides of Cyme,
affirm that Artaxerxes married not only Atossa, but also
another of his daughters Amestris.' ^^ However, the latter
marriage could only have preceded that to Atossa by
a few years ; for Plutarch tells us that Amestris had been
promised to Teribazus, but Artaxerxes, instead of keeping
his promise, married her himself, promising Teribazus that
he should have his youngest daughter Atossa, of whom,
however, he also became enamoured and whom he married.^*
Moreover, Plutarch's statement that Artaxerxes married his
own daughters, though generally accepted by all historians.

16 AriaxcKxcs, XXX, 2-8. i" Jbid. XXIII, 6.

18 Ibui XXVII, 7-9.

II. E

5© THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

is rather doubtful.^^ We have no similar record of any-
other Persian king of the Achaemenians, Arsacids and
Sassanids. Artaxerxes may have had a queen whose
name by some was said to be Atossa. by others, Amestris.
But the Greek writers, knowing that the Zoroastrian religion
considers next-of-kin marriage sacrosanct, and being led
astray by the queen's names, identical with those of his
daughters, believed that he married the latter.^^'

Ed. Meyer describes Artaxerxes II as being a good-
natured monarch, but weak, capricious, readily accessible
to personal influences and dependent upon his favourites ;
in his time the baleful influence of the harem made
appalling progress.' ^^ The character of Ahasuerus, as
represented in the Book of Esther, could not be more
accurately depicted than by this description. However,
notwithstanding his character, Artaxerxes II was, without
exception, the greatest monarch of the Achaemenian
dynasty. It is true he does not deserve any credit for
his power. His greatness was due neither to his own
personality nor to the strength of the Persian empire,
which on the contrary showed in all parts under his reign

'^ Cf., however, Ed. Meyer, Gesch., Einleitung, 1910, pp. 23-32, and
III, p. 41. He accepts this statement on Plutarch's authority. The latter
tells us in connexion with Artaxerxes' marriage to his own daughter : ' his
affection for Atossa was so strong, that though she had a leprosy which
spread itself over her body, he was not disgusted at it'. This statement is
not in accord with that of Herodotus, I, 139, who writes: 'If a Persian
has the leprosy, he is not allowed to enter into a city or to have any dealings
with the other Persians.'

20 It is rather curious that the names of Artaxerxes' queen Hadassah
and Esther should be almost identical with those of his two daughters,
Atossa and Amestris, he is said to have married.

21 See his article 'Artaxerxes', in the Encydop. Brit., nth ed., and
Geschichte, V, p. 181.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 5 1

visible signs of decline and decay, but to the discord and
corruption of the Greeks. Still the Persians must have
looked upon him with the greatest admiration for having
vindicated their honour. Since the days of Marathon and
the humiliating defeats at Salamis, Plataea, and Mycale,
the Persians, this proud nation which considered itself to
be greatly superior in all respects to the rest of mankind ,^^
could not help admitting the superiority of the Greeks, by
whom they had been disgracefully defeated. Ed. Meyer
observes : ' In many Persians may have been alive the
feeling of disgrace that the great campaign had ended so
deplorably, that they were even unable to come to the
assistance of the brave garrisons • in Thrace.' ^^ Both
Artaxerxes I, who was compelled to recognize the inde-
pendence of the Greeks of Asia Minor, and Darius II were
only too glad when the Greeks did not interfere in then-
own dominion.^* But under the rule of Artaxerxes II,
the Persians could lift up their heads again and look down
with contempt upon their former arch-enemies, the Greeks.
What a spectacle it must have been for the Persians to
see the descendants of the heroes of many glorious battles
crouching at the feet of their king and paying him divine
honours ! ^^ The aim for which Darius I and his successor
Xerxes had striven in vain, the subjection of the Greeks,
was actually attained by Artaxerxes II. Greece was
subdued, and officially recognized Persia's suzerainty.
There is no doubt that this king's memory was held by
the Persians in the greatest esteem and reverence even in

22 Herodotus I, 134. a Geschichte, III, p. 585.

-* Egypt would never have succeeded in freeing itself from Persia
without the aid of the Greeks.
-5 Artaxerxes^ XXII, 8.

E 2

52 THE BOOK OF ESTHER I\ THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

later times. Diodorus Siculus informs us why Ochus, the
successor of Artaxerxes II, assumed the name Artaxerxes :
' Artaxerxes, ruling the kingdom with great justice and
integrity, and being a great lover and earnest promoter of
peace, the Persians decreed that all succeeding kings
should be called by his name.' ^^ Such an unhistorical and
ridiculous legend must have come from an oriental source
at a time when Persian history was no longer known, but
the memory of Artaxerxes II was still alive. We consider
it hardly a coincidence that the founder of the Neo- Persian
empire bore the name of Artaxerxes (Ardashir, Artashatr).^^
Artaxerxes II was, like Darius I, incontestably king
of Asia. The extent of his empire is defined in the Book
Esther of Esther by the geographical term : ' from India unto

; 8.9

28

Ethiopia' (^i'l^ iy"i nin»3)
was fortunate in recovering many Greek cities of Asia
Minor lost about eighty years before his reign by his
great-grandfather Xerxes. The fall of Athens (402 B.c.E.)
ended its hegemony over these cities, and they became an
easy prey to the Persian empire. Sparta's plan to continue
Athen's policy and to establish a new hegemony, was
frustrated by the corruption of Greece. Plutarch states
that Artaxerxes forced Agesilaus, who was victorious every-
where, to leave Asia Minor by sending Hermocrates into
Greece with a great amount of gold, and instructed him to
corrupt with it the leading men in the Greek states and to
stir up a Grecian war against Sparta. The most important

2« In his Historical Library^ XV, 2.

" See Justi, Geschichte, p. 177.

28 There may be some doubt whether such a geographical term includes
Egypt. The latter country was no longer under the Persian rule at the
period of our story. But we may reasonably assume that its independence
was never recognized by the Persian kings (cf. Chapter I, n. 5).

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 53

cities formed a league against it. Artaxerxes dcpriv^ed

Sparta also of the dominion of the sea through the agency

of the Athenian Conon who acted in conjunction with the

Persian satrap Pharnabazus. After he had won the battle

of Cnidus, he drew almost the whole of Greece into his

interest. The Peace of Antalcidas (387 B.C. E.) was entirely

of his own making. Sparta, at the advice of Antalcidas,

gave up to the Persian king ' all the Greek cities of Asia

Minor, and the islands tvhich are reckoned among its

dependencies, to be held as tributaries', as stipulated by

this Peace. -^ It is noteworthy that both Plutarch and the

author of the Book of Esther, in describing the signal

success of Artaxerxes II, use exactly the same expression.

The passage : ' And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute on Esther

the land and the isles of the sea ', undoubtedly refers to the

Greek part of Asia Minor and the islands which became

tributary to this king, by virtue of the Peace of Antalcidas.

It was concluded five years after the events narrated

in our story. Our author does not say that Ahasuerus

came into the possession of these territories by means of

conquest. He was an historian, and knew that they were

not acquired by force of arms but by diplomacy. Being

well acquainted with the historical events of that period,

he was justified in saying: 'And all the acts of his power Esther

and of his might . . . are they not written in the book of

the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia ? ' These

high terms of praise were well merited, and justly applied

to the political achievements of this king. Artaxerxes II

was indeed, from the Persian point of view, as Diodorus

said, an earnest promoter and great lover of peace. By

his famous 'Royal Peace', he freed his empire from its

29 Artaxerxes, XX, XXI, 6.

lO. 2.

54 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

hereditary enemies, gained valuable possessions, and de-
prived Greece of its independence, so that the Greeks
themselves had hardly anything left worth fighting for.
But from a Greek point of view the Greek was right
who exclaimed : ' Alas for Greece, when the Lacedae-
monians are turning Persians ! ' ^°

Darius II died in the spring of 404 B.C.E. He had
appointed his eldest son Artaxerxes as his successor. This
appointment was not in accord with the precedent of
Darius I, who had appointed his younger son Xerxes as
his successor, because he was born in the purple. According
to this precedent, Cyrus, the second son of Darius 11, had
a better claim to the throne, having been born after the
latter had become king.^^ It was also well known that
Parysatis, the all-powerful queen, the mother of both
Artaxerxes and Cyrus, was strongly in favour of her
younger son. Hence Artaxerxes II, at the beginning of
his reign, did not feel himself secure in the possession of
the throne. He may have well remembered how Xerxes II,
after a reign of forty-five days, had been murdered by his
brother Sogdianus, and the latter in his turn, after several
months, at the order of his own father Darius II. Thus
fratricide was not unusual among the members of his
dynasty. Cyrus, indeed, at the accession of his brother,
on the occasion of his consecration at Pasargadae, designed
to murder him. This design was frustrated by Tissaphernes.
The tears and entreaties of his mother prevailed with
Artaxerxes to pardon his brother for this crime, and he
sent him back to Lydia.^^ Soon after, despising his
brother for his weakness for having let such a dangerous
enemy escape, Cyrus again began to conspire against

30 Ibid. XXII, 4. SI Jlid. II, 4-5. 32 Jlicl, III.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 55

him. Artaxerxes was well aware of his designs, being
warned of all his movements by Tissaphernes. But
Parysatis made it her business to remove the king's sus-
picions.-'3 Meanwhile Cyrus gathered a large army, and
also wrote to the Lacedaemonians for assistance, making
them great promises in case he should achieve his aim.
In this letter he spoke in very high terms of himself,
telling them that he had a greater and more princely
heart than his brother ; that he was the better philosopher,
being instructed in the doctrines of the Magi,^^ and that
he could drink more wine and carry it better (ohov niuetv
irX^Lova Kal 0epeii/) than his brother.^^ This character-
ization of Artaxerxes II by his brother Cyrus is of the
highest importance for the interpretation of the Book of
Esther. Artaxerxes was indeed a weak character. He
was not a good Zoroastrian, for under his reign the Zoroa-
strian religion was completely corrupted.^" Finally, under
the influence of wine, he was losing his senses.^^

Having made all preparations for carrying out his
designs, Cyrus began his march against the king with
a numerous army, among which were about thirteen
thousand Greek mercenaries. He found one pretence
after another for having such an armament on foot ; but
his real designs did not remain long undiscovered. For
Tissaphernes went in person to inform the king of them.^^
Therefore on the march Cyrus openly declared his inten-
tions to overthrow his brother and to seize the crown.

53 Artaxeyxes, IV, 3.

3* Cyrus evidently meant to imply to the Greeks that the Magi would
willingly assist him in his enterprise.

55 Artaxerxes, VI, 3-4. ^'■' See Chapter VI.

" See Chapter VIII. s« Artaxirxes, VI, 6.

56 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

This rebellion came to an end at the battle of Cunaxa in
which his army was defeated and Cyrus lost his life. This
battle occurred in October 404. Now it is well known
that the Babylonian chronology is a year behind that of
the Greeks and Egyptians. The latter had the system
of ante-dating, that is to say, the year in which a king died
is reckoned as the first year of the succeeding king, and
with the civil New Year begins the second year of his
reign. Accordingly Artaxerxes II, having ascended the
throne in the year 404, the Greek chronology places the
battle of Cunaxa in the fourth year of his reign. The
Babylonians, however, had the system of post-dating, the
year in which a king ascends the throne is given to his
predecessor, while the first year of his own reign begins
with the first of Nisan, on the New Year festival, in which
the king had to seize the hand of Bel-Marduk, in order to
be recognized as legitimate king.^'-' The Book of Esther
was undoubtedly written in Babylonia, and according to
Babylonian chronology, the year 404 in which Artaxerxes
ascended the throne was reckoned to his predecessor
Darius II, and his own reign began 403. Therefore the
battle of Cunaxa occurred two years and a half after his
accession to the throne.
Esther Cyrus being dead, Artaxerxes II was at length firmly

established on his throne. He could now in perfect security
celebrate the long delayed coronation festivities, and at
the same time the victory over his enemy. It was done
in a magnificent fashion, befitting the rank of the Great
King, and the signal occasion ; he had saved his life and
his throne. The description of these festivities is therefore
by no means exaggerated, as all modern commentators

39 Cf. Ed. Meyer, Forsclmngen, pp. 437-502.

2-9.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 57

contend.^° This celebration lasted throughout the whole
Winter, one hundred and eighty days. The battle of
Cunaxa occurred, as we have seen, in October, and the
festivities lasted from October to April.^^ Satraps and
governors, grandees and nobles, from all parts of the
empire, not a few from a great distance, arrived daily and
departed after a sojourn of a few days. Many who
formerly favoured the claim of Cyrus may have hastened
to the court to assert their loyalty to the victorious king.
Plutarch states : ' There were turbulent and factious men
who represented that the affairs of Persia required a king
of such a magnificent spirit, so able a warrior, and so
generous a master as Cyrus was ; and that the dignity
of so great an empire could not be supported without
a prince of high thoughts and noble ambition.' ^^ All these
guests had to be magnificently entertained. Besides these
officials and nobles, the king feasted ' the army of Persia
and Media' (n?2l DiS ^^n),^^ that is to say, those loyal
warriors who came to his assistance against his brother.
It must have been a very large army, though the number
nine hundred thousand, given by Xenophon,'*^ and four
hundred thousand, as stated by Ctesias^^ and Diodorus,
is evidently exaggerated. After these festivities were over,
Artaxerxes gave a special feast of seven days to the inhabi-

*° Paton, p. 73, and numerous other exegetes, regard the gathering of
nobles from all provinces for a feast of hundred and eighty days as intrinsically
improbable.

■•i According to Xenophon {Cyropaedia, VIII, 2. 6), Susa was the winter
residence of the Persian kings.

" Artaxerxes, VI, 1-2.

" Siegfried, Wildeboer, Paton, &c. believe that we have to read ^"IL"1
no D-|3 ^''n.

<« Anabasis, I, 7. 11-12. « p^y^^ ^x . Diod. XIV, 5.

I. To-ia.

58 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

tants of the capital, that is to say, each day of the week
a different part of the population was invited. It may
have been the farewell feast before the king's departure
from Susa, or the New Year festival in the month of
Nisan. On the seventh day, when not in a sober condition,
the king ordered the eunuchs to bring to the banquet his
queen Vashti 'to show to the people and the princes her
Esther beauty ; for she was fair to look on. But the queen
Vashti refused to come at the king's commandment by
the eunuchs'.

For the interpretation of this incident we again refer
to Plutarch who tells us : ' Artaxerxes married a beautiful
and virtuous lady, by order of his parents, and he kept her
when they wanted him to put her away. For the king
having put her brother to death, designed that she should
share his fate. But Artaxerxes applied to his mother with
many tears and entreaties, and, with much difficulty, pre-
vailed upon her not only to spare her life, but to excuse
him from divorcing her.'**' Plutarch's source for this story
is Ctesias who gives a more detailed account of this event
in telling us that the whole family of Hydarnes, the father
of Artaxerxes' wife, were put to death with the exception
of the latter, on account of Teriteuchmes the son of
Hydarnes, who had been found guilty of the crimes of
adultery, incest, and murder.^'^ We must bear in mind,
that by opposing the will of his parents, Artaxerxes might
have easily forfeited his right to the throne, to which his
claim, as we have seen, was questionable. It was very
dangerous for Parysatis to let a woman whose whole
family she had destroyed, have the power of a queen, and
she indeed exerted all her influence with the king to

*''• Artaxerxes, II, 2-3. ■*" Pers. 29.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 59

deprive him of the succession. But Artaxerxes cared more
for his wife than for the throne.

Plutarch tells us further that this wife of Artaxerxes
was a great favourite with the people : ' What afforded
the Persians the most pleasing spectacle was the queen
riding in her chariot with the curtains open, and admitting
the women of the country to approach and salute her.
These things made his administration popular.'*^ This
queen and her mother-in-law detested each other, and
quarrelled continually. When Cyrus rebelled, the queen
openly upbraided her mother-in-law for her intercession
by which she had saved Cyrus's life, and accused her of
favouring the claim of the latter.'*^ When Parysatis
executed in a most cruel way the faithful servants of the
king who had killed Cyrus, the queen complained of her
injustice and cruelty,"^ 'These expostulations fixed in
the heart of Parysatis, who was naturally vindictive and
barbarous in her resentment and revenge, such a hatred
of the queen that she contrived to take her off. Deinon
writes, that this cruel purpose was put into execution
during the war ; but Ctesias assures us, it was after it.
And it is not probable that he, who was an eye-witness
to. the transactions of that court, could either be ignorant
of the time when the assassination took place, or could
have any reason to misrepresent the date of it ; though
he often deviates into fictitious tales, and loves to give us
invention instead of truth.' ^^ ' It was only from the
hatred and jealousy which Parysatis had entertained of
the queen from the first, that she embarked in so cruel
a design. She saw that her own power with the king

'» Artaxerxes, V, 6. " Ibid. VI, 6-7.

=0 Ibid. XVII, 9. f'l Ibid. VI, 8-9.

6o THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

depended only on his reverence for her as mother ; whereas
that of the queen was founded in love, and confirmed by
the greatest confidence in her fidelity. The point she had
to carry was difficult, and she resolved to make one
desperate effort.' ^'^ Plutarch further states that after
Parysatis had managed to poison the queen, Artaxerxes
inquired into the affair, and executed her principal
attendants who assisted her to carry out this design. But
' as for Parysatis, the king did not reproach her with the
crime, nor punish her any further than by sending her
to Babylon, which was the place she desired to retire
to, declaring that he would never visit that city while she
lived.' ^" However, ' the king did not long retain his
anger, but was reconciled to his mother, and sent for her
to court ; because he saw she had understanding and spirit
enough to assist in governing the kingdom, and there now
remained no further cause of suspicions and uneasiness
between them.' ■^'^

The queen represented in the Book of Esther, her great
beauty of which the king was so proud, her great influence
with the latter that she presumed upon his love to disobey
his behest, cannot be better depicted than by Plutarch's
description of the queen of Artaxerxes, the daughter^ of
Hydarnes. Only a woman like the latter would act like
Vashti, openly daring to disgrace the king in the presence
of the people, presuming upon his love for her to obtain
pardon for her disobedience. The queen of Artaxerxes
evidently lost her life shortly after Cyrus's rebellion. But
Plutarch's description of the method of her assassination
is rather fabulous, and the deed itself seems improbable.
We can hardly imagine that Parysatis should have dared

52 Ibid. XIX. 1-2. 53 Il^icl, XIX, 8-IO. 54 75,-^_ XXIII, 2.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 6l

to murder a queen with whom the king was so deeply in
love, and that the latter should not have reproached her
with this crime, and should have been reconciled to her
after a short time. Plutarch himself refuses to accept
Ctesias's account that Parysatis plotted against the queen
and resolved to carry her off by poison, because at her
own request the king promised not to put Clearchus to
death, but afterwards, persuaded by the queen, he destroyed
all the prisoners, except Menon, and observes : ' But it is
a great absurdity in Ctesias to assign so disproportionate
a cause. Would Parysatis, for the sake of Clearchus,
undertake so horrid and dangerous an enterprise as that
of poisoning the king's lawful wife, by whom he had
children and an heir to his crown ? ' °^ Hence, if we should
accept Plutarch's account that Parysatis out of hatred of
the queen did undertake ' so horrid and dangerous an
enterprise ', we must assume that the queen's position had
undergone some change, before she was murdered ; that
in the meantime some incident occurred which to a certain
degree estranged the king from the queen. Parysatis,
seeing that the love of the king for his queen was no longer
so strong as before, and being afraid lest the latter should
regain her former influence, resolved to murder her. The
fact that the king, after a short banishment, recalled her,
shows that she had not been wrong in her reasoning.

Plutarch further states, ' None had been admitted to
the king of Persia's table but his mother and his wife ; the
former of which sat above him and the latter below him.
Artaxerxes, nevertheless, did that honour to Ostanes and
Oxartes, two of his younger brothers.' ■^'^ This statement
shows that it must have been a very rare privilege to dine

55 Ar/axiKves. XVIII, 4-6. 56 /^/^ V, 5.

62 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

with the queen." A special feature of his character was
his great vanity, claiming credit for actions which he
never did and for qualities which he did not possess. He
was desirous of having the world beHeve that Cyrus was
killed by himself.^^ When Mithridates, the real slayer of
Cyrus, to whom Artaxerxes owed his life and throne, in
an unguarded moment, under the influence of wine, boasted
of his deed, he was put to death in a manner that beggars
description.^^ Artaxerxes also put many grandees to
death, because ' he thought that they despised him for
the ill-success of his campaign.' ^^

For the interpretation of the incident of Vashti, we
must call attention also to another point. We have

57 Plutarch's statement that none had been admitted to the king of
Persia's table but his mother and his wife, is quoted by Paton, p. 150, as
proof that it was not Persian custom to seclude the women, in observing :
' Stateira was present at the table of Artaxerxes '. Paton's quotation of
Herodotus IX, no, in support of his contention that Persian queens were
present at the royal banquets, is just as incorrect. Amestris was at the
birthday feast of Xerxes, but Herodotus clearly implied that the latter did
not dine with the people, as it is incredible that Amestris would have dared
' to weary Xerxes by her importunity ' in the presence of the people.
Even Masistes, his own brother, was not present at his table, as he was
afterwards called into his presence. Paton further quotes Herodotus, V, 18,
where the Persian ambassadors say to Amyntas, king of Macedonia, that
the Persians bring their wives and concubines to the feasts. But it is
evident, as G. Rawlinson (ad locum) rightly observes, that the Persian
ambassadors presumed upon the Greek ignorance of Persian customs, in
order to amuse themselves with the foreign women. They had indeed to
atone with their lives for their conduct, as Alexander, Amyntas's son, well
knew the Persian customs, and divined their intentions. Paton and others
overlook what Plutarch says about the Persians that they ' are so extremely
jealous of their women, that capital punishment is inflicted, not only on the
man who speaks to, or touches one of the king's concubines, but on him
who approaches or passes their chariots on the road ' {Artaxerxes,
XXVII, i).

68 Ibid. XIV, 5. »^ Ibid. XV, XVI. «o Ibid. XXV, 3.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 63

already mentioned that under the reign of Artaxerxes II
the baleful influence of the harem made appalling progress.
The rule of the harem was indeed the main curse of the
Persian empire. The king was a mere tool in the hands
of his favourite wives. The most meritorious grandees
fell victims to their intrigues. No Persian could regard
himself for one moment secure, if one of the favourite wives
or her family bore him ill will. Such a man, his life being
in danger, was easily persuaded to conspire against the
king or join an insurrection. The patriotic statesmen must
have perceived that such a condition was disastrous to the
existence of the empire, and were desirous of eliminating
the influence of the women. We may also reasonably
suppose that the feminine influence at the court set a bad
example to all Persian families.*^^ These statesmen were
wrong in believing in a remedy for an incurable evil.
A man of weak character, be he king or beggar, will
ahvays yield to his wife's influence, for good or evil.

We return now to the incident of Vashti : The king, as
we have seen, was deeply in love with the queen, and
exceedingly proud of her beauty. Having been under the
influence of wine — and from Cyrus's letter to the Lacedae-

^1 Paton, p. 162, observes : ' The absurdity of the solemn edict com-
manding the wives to obey their husbands struck even the doctors of the
Talmud '. The latter might have been right, if they had ridiculed the idea
of making the husbands masters in their own houses by a royal edict. But
in remarking that * even the weaver is master in his own house ', thej' were
decidedly wrong. However, Paton and the rabbis overlooked the fact that
the royal edict does not say anything about the obedience of the wives to
their husbands, but merely contains the fundamental principle, ' that ever\'
man should bear rule in his own house ', which of course gives the husband
power also over his wife. Such a general principle is by no means
ridiculous, since it formed one of the fundamental Roman laws, as set forth
in the Twelve Tables, according to which the life and liberty of children
were in the father's hands.

64 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

monians we learn that Artaxerxes II did not possess the
Persian ' virtue ' of being able to consume great quantities
of wine without becoming intoxicated — the king commanded
the queen to come and partake of the feast, that the guests
might admire her beauty. The queen, however, being
' a virtuous lady ', as Plutarch expresses himself, and well
aware that that request was not in accordance with the
Persian customs, properly inferred that the king in his
right senses would never have made such a request, and
rightly refused to show herself in the presence of an
intoxicated crowd. Artaxerxes, exceedingly vain, and
ashamed to admit that he was under the influence of his
wife, ' was very wroth and his anger burned in him '. The
thought might have occurred to him, having no authority
in his own palace, how could he expect the people to obey
his commands? The queen's disobedience could not pass
with impunity.

Esther ' Then the king said to the wise men which knew the

times .... and the next unto him . . . . , the seven princes
of Persia and Media, which saw the king's face and which
sat the first in the kingdom : " What shall we do unto the
queen Vashti according to law, because she hath not
performed the commandment of the king Ahasuerus by the
eunuchs ? " ' The royal councillors to whom this question
was addressed were well acquainted with the weak spots
in the king's character and with his love for the queen.
This question put them in a most embarrassing situation.
Considering the queen's disobedience from a purely moral
point of view, they could not but admit that under the
circumstances her conduct was justifiable. Yet to defend
her action would have been nothing short of high treason.
The authority of the king was indeed at stake, if the queen

I. 13-22.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 65

should be acquitted. It was the latter's duty to comply
with the king's behest, even if it was not in accordance
with the Persian customs. Besides, if we may believe
Herodotus, the Persian kings were not bound by customs,
as there was an ancient law decreeing that the king of
Persia might do whatever he pleased. ^^ Moreover, it was
not for the councillors to decide the guilt of the queen.
The question put before them was merely concerning the
punishment that should be meted out to her. This was
a very difficult problem. They did not want to condemn
her to death, lest after a short time the king's yearning
for his lost queen might return, and they would have to
atone with their lives for their judgement.*^^ They feared
the same fate, if they should propose her divorce, as
nothing would prevent the king from marrying her again,
if he still loved her, and the queen, after regaining her
power, in her resentment against them, might easily bring
about their destruction. If they should condemn her to
the loss of the rank of a queen, it was probable that she
would soon regain her former influence with the king,
without the royal rank, and again would not fail to avenge
herself upon them. Yet the latter course was the lesser
evil and the only way out of this dilemma. Therefore, the
councillors condemned her to the punishment of degrada-
tion for her conduct. But this queen, as we have seen, was
a great favourite with the people. It was not enough to
hold up the authority of the king, but also to demonstrate
the justice of her punishment. Artaxerxes' administration

®- Herodotus HI, 31.

^3 The Targumim indeed say that after sleeping off his wine-debauch
and having grown sober, Ahasuerus executed the councillors who advised
him to put Vashti to death.

H. F

66 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

was very popular, as we have seen, and they did not wish
that by their advice the king should lose his popularity.
Besides, no king at the beginning of his reign likes to gain
the reputation of a tyrant. Hence, the councillors repre-
sented the queen's oiTence as a danger to the well-being
of the empire, saying : ' Vashti the queen hath not done
wrong to the king only, but also to all the princes, and
to all the people that are in the provinces of the king
Ahasuerus. For this deed of the queen shall come abroad
unto all women, so that they shall despise their husbands
in their eyes, when it shall be reported, the king Ahasuerus
commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him,
but she came not. Likewise shall the ladies of Persia and
Media say this day unto all the king's princes, which have
heard of the deed of the queen. Thus shall there arise
too much contempt and wrath.' The councillors, therefore,
advised the king to promulgate the degradation of the
queen by a decree, in proposing : ' If it please the king, let
there go a royal commandment from him, and let it be written
among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be
not altered, that because Vashti came not before the king
Ahasuerus, the king shall give her royal estate unto
another that is better than she.' Such a decree would
have the effect of making the lives of the Persians moi'e
secure at the court and more peaceful at home.'''* The

^* The clause 'JOJ? \YC'?2 ~l3Tf.^1 is generally regarded as corrupt. The
rendering of the English version : ' and that it should be published according
to the language of every people ', is of course quite impossible. We have
already mentioned that the Greek version omitted this clause (see Chapter I,
n. 8). Bertheau-Ryssel, Wildeboer, Siegfried and others emend it, with
Hitzig, to IQy \T}P i?3 ('what suits him'). These commentators could
have saved themselves the trouble of emending this corrupt clause, if they
had seen how such a corruption might have occurred. We may assume

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 67

councillors of course could not mention the deplorable
state of harem-rule at the court, but only the latter's effect :
' And when the king's decree, which he shall make, shall
be published throughout all his empire, for it is great, all
the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to
great and small '. This affair undoubtedly caused an
estrangement and a bitter feeling between the king and
Vashti. The former could not get out of his mind the
humiliation he suffered in the presence of his subjects, and
the latter was indignant at the injustice of her degradation.
Parysatis, taking advantage of this state of affairs, resolved

that there were manuscripts in which the 'aiitiiiildim ran in the following

'\:\:yb2 uv) ny ba^ nnn^a njnoi n^no ^x
.-j^ron ncn iil"3 n^xn nnmn nns

We may further assume that some scribe misspelt the words "IJIC^JD DVl
or made a blot on them, and not having had the proper means handy to
erase them, wrote the same words again underneath in the following line,
after the words )n'^22 "iI'lC' tJ"'S i?^ DlTlS, as between the first and second
chapters there was in all probabilify a free space. Subsequently, some
copyist read laiK'^a DVl lir^nn -niK' t:"'N bs nVn!?, and understood the
passage to mean : 'That every man should bear rule in his own house, and
every people according to its own language '. But as the passage in this
construction did not seem to give a proper sense, he may have changed the
words IJVJ'^3 Dyi into IJOy |1t^'b^, and by way of interpretation, added
the marginal gloss naiDI. Haupt (Critical Notes, p. 131), considers the
whole clause a late gloss, since in Talmud Babli Megillah 12 b the passage
I. 22 is discussed, but there is no reference to this clause. But this fact is
no proof at all that the rabbis did not know this passage. They did not
discuss it, because it seemed to them incomprehensible. We cannot expect
them to suggest that this clause was a gloss or corruption. Moreover,
a suggestion that a gloss was added in post-talmudic times, when the Book
of Esther had been already for hundreds of years one of the most esteemed
canonical books, deserves no consideration vvhatevcr. Finally, a gloss is
supposed to have some sense, and this clause has none at all.

K 2

68 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

to put her out of the way, lest the king might be reconciled
to his wife and she regain her former power.^^

We are well aware of the fact that our interpretation
is not in accordance with the text under discussion, which
reads : i^on ]r\' nni3^oi mic'ns* "i^ton ''jd^ tici Nun i6 nL"s*
T]:r272 nniun nmyn^ (' that Vashti come no more before king
Ahasuerus, and the king shall give her royal estate unto
another that is better than she '). Accordingly, the text
distinctly states that Vashti was actually divorced and not
merely degraded from the rank of a queen. However,
by a critical analysis of this passage we can demonstrate
that the text here must be slightly corrupted. If the
promulgation of Vashti's punishment was intended to have
a salutary effect upon the conduct of the Persian women
for all times, we would expect to find in this edict ' written
among the laws of the Persians and the Medes ', the cause
of her punishment. Furthermore, the second part of this
passage is quite superfluous, it being a matter of course
for the king to choose another queen, if Vashti was
divorced, and cannot be a part of the edict; why should
such a trivial fact be written among the laws of the
Persians and the Medes ? Nor can it have been the advice
of the councillors, as this was unnecessary. The original
reading of this passage may have been something like
l^cn |n^ nnn^D cnvj-ns -\b^n *js^ ^nci nxn ab -ic-n {bv)
n:i2^ r\2)i2r\ nniyn^ ' because Vashti came not before the
king Ahasuerus, the king shall give her royal estate unto
another that is better than she ' ; but the original reading

65 Plutarch's statement that short^' before the murder of Stateira, the
latter and Parj-satis had, in appearance, forgotten their old suspicions and
animosities, and began to visit and eat at each other's table, implies that
the queen no longer interfered with her mother-in-law (Atia.veyxcs, XIX, 5 .

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 69

S"i3n ab "lu'N* could also mean : 'because she will not come'.
In either case, the text, according to our emendation,
would contain both cause and effect, and be in agreement
with our presentation of that incident. Vashti lost only
her rank as queen, but still remained the lawful wife of
Artaxerxes.'"'

There is still another point to be discussed. The name
of the queen of Artaxerxes II was not Vashti, but Stateira.
Plutarch is no doubt right on this point, as Ctesias who
lived at the court of Artaxerxes must have known the
name of that queen. As far as the other Greek writers
are concerned, all of them are more or less dependent
upon Ctesias, and they took over the name of this queen
from the latter. The name of the queen was indeed
Stateira, but having been a famous beauty and a great
favourite with the people, she was styled Vashti, which,
as was recognized long ago,'''' means in the Persian language
* beauty '. In the memory of the people, her proper name
was displaced by this epithet. We have a classic example
of such a phenomenon in the name of the famous Greek
woman who lived in Egypt under the reign of king Amasis.
Her real name was Doricha, yet Herodotus and other
classic writers call her by her epithet Rhodopis, ' the rosy-
cheeked ', though they knew that Sappho mentioned her
by her real name/'^ Our author may likewise have known
that the queen's real name was Stateira, and nevertheless
preferred to call her by the widely-known epithet Vashti.

*^ Renan, in his History of the People of Israel, VIII, 15, note, is the
only historian who conjectured that ' possibly there is some reminiscence of
Stateira and Parysatis '. *

*' Gf. Richardson's Ueber ntorgenldndische Volkcr, 1779, p. 166; Cassel,
/. c.f p. 27, and Justi, Iran. Namcnb., under 'Wasti'.

®* Herodotus II, 134-5, and cf. G. Rawlinson, n. 2, ad locum.

70 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

However, the possibility that Vashti is a hypocoristicon
of a compounded name Sta-teira — Asta-teira = WasJita-
ieira, which may mean ' the beauty of the god Mercury ',
ought also to be considered.*'^

We have already observed that Plutarch is silent as to
the immediate successor of the assassinated queen. Ctesias
may have known nothing about it, as he left the court
about 398 B.C.E.''^ But the former states a fact that

^^ The name Staieira is, according to Justi, Iran. Namenb., compounded
of the two elements sta and teira. The latter element is evidently identical
with ier in the Persian personal names Teribazits, Teridates, Teriteitchmes, &c.,
which is generally taken by Justi and others to be the Persian name of the
planet Mercury (as god, the scribe of Ahuramazda, and identical with
Nabu). The same divine element we may see in the names Aghrimat-
ieira, Baeshat-teira^ and Pairish-teira. Doubtful, however, is the meaning
of the first element sta. The latter occurs also in two other Persian names
^Ta/xevrjs and 'S.ra^aicrjs, the meaning of which is, according to Justi,
doubtful. We suggest that the name Sta-teira corresponds to the Persian
name Vashta-teira. The name Vashti is rendered in the Greek version into
"kariv and ' kOTi, in which the first radical is represented by a vowel. The
same rendering is found also in other Persian names, as Vidarna = 'ISfpvrji,
Vindafarna = 'lvra<ptpvr}s, Valiuk = "^Clxos, Vashtak = 'AaraKTOs, Vanmisa =
"Clfjuffos, &c. Lucian's rendering of Vashti into Ovaariv and that of Josephus
into Ovaarr] are due to the Hebrew pronunciation of this Persian name.
Now the element asta is actually found in several Persian names, as in
'AariPaaas, 'AaTaartr]s (Aeschylus, Persae 22), and 'Aarijs. The same
element we may see in the name OvaaroBaKos. We further find that
a vowel at the beginning of a name was regarded as prothetic ; so we find
side by side the names ' AanafjLiTprjs and 'S.naiurprjs, "iairacFivrjs and "S.iraaivjjs,
Afrudsha and Frudslia, Amirchvand and Mirchvaiid, Vardati = 'PoSavT]; and
'OpSavr]s. Considering all these points, we may well assume that the
Persian name Vaslita-teira was rendered by the Greeks into Asta-teira, and
by treating the first vowel as prothetic, was also pronounced Sta-teira.
The Babj'lonians, however, shortened this compounded name by omitting
the second element and by attaching to the shortened name the Babylonian
hypocoristic termination t.

''o His departure from the court may have had some connexion with the
banishment of Parysatis, who was a friend of Clearchus whom Ctesias so
greatly admired (Plutarch, Arta.xcr.xes, XVIII). The latter may have been
her protege.

THE ROOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 7 1

somewhat seems to corroborate the incident of the second
chapter of Esther : ' Artaxerxes had three hundred and
sixty concubines, all women of the greatest beauty 'J^
This reminds us of the gathering of the virgins for the
selection of a successor of Vashti. Now, it is true, Diodorus
Siculus tells us exactly the same about Darius III."'^ And
all Persian kings had a large number of concubines. But
the current interpretation of the incident of the second
chapter is erroneous. The royal harem could not have
been maintained without having taken into it, either by
force or with the consent of their relatives, the daughters
of the subjects. From time to time such a harem had to
be replenished and rejuvenated by younger womenJ^ The
advice about the gathering of the virgins was not an inno-
vation under the reign of Ahasuerus, as such gatherings
were customary in the Persian empire. The author of
our story merely intends to inform us that on the occasion
of such a gathering Esther became the queen of Ahasuerus.
The latter, when his wrath was appeased, ' remembered
Vashti, and what she had done, and what was decreed
against her '. Remembering now that she was unjustly
condemned and publicly disgraced, his love for her revived,
and he mourned her loss. Among the women of his harem,
there was none the equal of his lost wife in beauty and
other qualities, who could replace her. Nor was there
among the high nobility with whom the royal family was
wont to intermarry such a woman to efface in the heart
of the king the image of the former queen. Therefore

■1 Ariaxerxes, XXVII, 5. ^2 Diodorus XVII, 8.

" See n. 12. Diodorus indeed alludes to such gatherings in saying that
these three hundred and sixty women were the greatest beauties that could
be found throughout Asia,

Esther
2. 2-4

72 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

the courtiers advised the king that such a customary
gathering of virgins should be held now — though the need
of the harem may not have required it, or it may not have
been the usual period for such a gathering — and among
those gathered might be found one woman who would be
in every respect equal to Vashti. It was by no means
necessary that such a woman should succeed the latter
as queen. But from the king's weak character it was a
foregone conclusion that the latter would bestow on her
the highest rank, if she succeeded in completely obliterating
in his heart the memory of his former wife. The courtiers
in saying : ' Let the maiden which pleaseth the king be
queen instead of Vashti ', may have alluded to the agree-
ment of Darius I with the other conspirators, that the
Persian kings should not marry outside of their own
families, and advised the king to disregard this agreement,
which under present circumstances became invalid ; since
of these noble families there was none worthy of taking
the place of Vashti.

Of further interest for the character of Artaxerxes II
is Plutarch's account of his return from the campaign
against the Cadusians : ' He found on his arrival at his
capital that he had lost many brave men, and almost all
his horses ; and imagining that he was despised for his
losses and the ill-success of the expedition, he became
suspicious of his grandees. Many of them Jic put to death
in anger, and more ant of fear! '■* Though the expedition
against the Cadusians took place in a later period of his
reign, and therefore these executions have no connexion
with our story, nevertheless this conduct sheds light upon
this king's character. A king who puts to death many

"* Artaxerxes, XXV, 5.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 73

grandees in anger, and more out of fear, was quite capable
of executing his prime minister Haman, his sons and
partizans, for the same reason. No less characteristic of
this king is his treatment of Tissaphernes. The latter had
saved his life at Pasargadae and watched all the move-
ments of Cyrus, informing the king of his designs, as already-
mentioned. Plutarch calls him * the most implacable
enemy of the Greeks','^ and thus, from a Persian point
of view, he must have been the most ardent patriot. His
final reward was to be executed upon charges preferred
against him by his greatest enemies, the Greeks and
Parysatis.'*'

In support of our contention that Ahasuerus of Esther
is identical with Artaxerxes II, we may call attention to
the following fact. The French Archaeologist Dieulafoy
describes the ruins of Susa, and demonstrates that the
description of the palace of Ahasuerus in the Book of
Esther is absolutely correct.'^^ But the palace to which
this scholar refers is not that of Xerxes but that of
Artaxerxes II. The palace in which Xerxes and his
successors resided had been destroyed by a fire and was
rebuilt by Artaxerxes II, as the latter in his inscription
informs us.'^^ Who knows whether the palace of Xerxes,
dating from an early period, was not in many points
different from that given in our story?"''

We may mention also a remarkable statement of Bar
Hebraeus in his Chronicles: 'This Artaxerxes (II) the

''^ Artaxerxes, XXIII, i. 75 y^/^/^ ^^

'^ M. Dieulafoy, UAcropole de la Siisa, 1890.

"8 Die altpcrsischen Keilinschrifien, p. 45.

"^^ Patoii, p. 65, also observes : ' The palace of Xerxes, as described in
Esther, is not unlike the palace of Artaxerxes Mnemon, as excavated by
Dieulafoy at Susa.

74 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

Hebrews call Ahasuerus ; and therefore Johanan was of
the opinion that the story of Esther occurred in his days '

ij]^flo(? \.=>iJL. Joo» wO)G:«a*r.>).^o This plain statement that
Artaxerxes II was by the Hebrews called Ahasuerus must
rest upon some tradition still preserved in the days of
Bar-Hebraeus (c. 1250 C.E.). On the basis of this tradition,
and for no other reason, Johanan suggested that the story
of Esther occurred under the reign of Artaxerxes II, seeing
in this story a similar phenomenon that the Ahasuerus
of the Hebrew text is in the Greek version called
Artaxerxes.

Having now sufficiently demonstrated that the king
described in the Book of Esther was Artaxerxes II, we
have to explain why the Hebrew text should contain
a fictitious name. The solution of this problem may be
found by a comparison of the political careers of the two
Persian kings Xerxes I and Artaxerxes II, and by taking
into account historical events in a later period of the
Persian empire.

No nation cherishes the memory of a ruler by whom
it was humiliated. The memory of Xerxes was no doubt
detested by the Persians in a later period, after the passing
of the Achaemenian dynasty, when they looked back at
their glorious past, and could freely express their opinions
about the happenings of those times. After four years
of preparations, with enormous forces at his command,
Xerxes was disgracefully defeated several times by the
comparatively small army of the Greeks, and in conse-
quence of these defeats, lost the Greek cities of Asia Minor,
Thrace, and Cyprus. By these misfortunes Xerxes put

*" T/ie Clu-oiiides of Bar-Hebraeits, p. 32.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 75

upon the haughty Persians the stigma of cowardice. The
later Persians could vindicate the honour of their ancestors
only by laying the blame for these defeats on Xerxes,
contending that they were not due to any lack of courage
in the Persian armies, but to the misfortune of having
been under the command of an incapable ruler. The dis-
paraging description of Xerxes's personality by late classical
writers may have had its source of information in the
Orient. No Persian would have objected if Xerxes was
represented as a weak character.

The condition of the Persian empire, as far as its
foreign relations w-ere concerned, exhibited under the reign
of Artaxerxes II a sharp contrast to that under Xerxes.
The memory of the former, who humiliated the hereditary
enemies of the Persian empire and vindicated its honour,
could not but be sacred to every Persian. The legend men-
tioned above, that in honour of Artaxerxes II, the Persians
decreed that all his successors should bear the name
Artaxerxes, must have its origin in the Orient in a period
when the Persian history of the Achaemenian empire was no
longer well known. The names Arses and Darius III, who
succeeded Artaxerxes III, were sunk in oblivion. But
Artaxerxes, II was a name never to be forgotten.

The Persian empire overthrown by Alexander the
Great was, after an interruption of about eighty years,
resurrected in the year 248 B.C.E., though under another
name, Parthia. The founders of the Parthian empire,
Arsaces and Tiridates, and their successors traced their
lineage to Artaxerxes II, and based upon it their claim
as rightful heirs to the empire of the Achaemenians,*^

-1 See Justi, Iran. Nameiib., p. 28. Ed. Meyer {Encycl. Brit., under
'Arsaces' says : 'A later tradition, preserved bj- Arrian, derives Arsaces

76 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

though this claim may have no real foundation. The
representation of the alleged famous ancestor of the
Parthian kings as a weak character, and the recital about
him of uncomplimentary details in the Jewish sacred
writings, was not without danger for the Jews in the East,
and may indeed have been the cause of persecutions. We
must bear in mind that the Parthian empire was established
in the Alexandrian age, when the Jewish writings were
being rendered into Greek. The Parthians were somewhat
imbued with Greek culture. The Arsacids even founded
Greek cities. When Arsaces Mithridates conquered
Babylon, he assumed the epithet Philhellene.^^ The
hostile attitude of the Greeks towards the Jews in the
second century B.C.E. was no doubt just as intense in the
East under the Arsacids as in the West under the Seleucids.
The presumption that Greeks actually accused the Jews
of slandering publicly and annually the memory of the
famous ancestor of the Parthian kings, whose name ought
to be sacred to everybody, is very likely. Therefore the
Jews were compelled to choose between two alternatives :
either to suppress the Book of Esther altogether and at
the same time abolish the festival of Purim, or to change
it in such a way that it might not be offensive to the
national feeling of the inhabitants of the Parthian empire.
They naturally preferred the latter course, and substituted

and Tiridates from the Achaemenean king Artaxerxes II, But this has
evidently no historical foundation '. This historian is no doubt right, if he
means that this tradition is without historical foundation. But there can
be scarcely any doubt that the Arsacids did claim to be the lineal descendants
of Artaxerxes II. Arrian certainly did not invent this tradition. It would
have been without historical analogy, if they had not claimed to be the
descendants of an ancient royal family.

82 See Ed. Meyer {ibid.) and Justi, Geschichte, p. 148.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 77

in the Book of Esther, for the name of Artaxerxes, the
name of Ahasuerus (= Xerxes), which could be used with
impunity.

The substitution of the name Ahasuerus was quite
natural. Besides, the Jews had no other choice among the
names of Achaemenian kings. Those of Cyrus and Darius
could not be considered for this purpose, as they were
sacred to the Jews, and even more so than to the Persians.
The names of Cambyses and Arses were out of the question,
as these kings did not rule twelve years. Nevertheless,
the name they substituted is remarkable, as there is reason
to assume that the proper name of Artaxerxes II was
Ahasuerus. If this is true, it is either a coincidence, or the
Jewish leaders in the East, in the second century B.C.E.,
must have known more about Persian history than we are
willing to give them credit for. The name Artaxerxes was
not a proper name, but a title, and means ' he whose
empire is well fitted, or perfected ',-^ which was assumed
by the kings Artaxerxes I, II, III, on their accession to
the throne. From an astronomical cuneiform tablet dated
'in the twenty-sixth year of Ars/ne, who is Artaxerxes'
{Arshu sha Artakshatsn) ^^ we learn that the proper name
of Artaxerxes II was Arshii. This evidently confirms
Deinon's statement that his name was Oarses. Plutarch,
however, does not accept this statement, and observes :
* Artaxerxes at first was named Arsicas (or Arsaces),
though Deinon asserts that his original name was Oarses.
But though Ctesias has filled his books with a number
of incredible and extravagant fables, it is not probable that

*3 See Ed. Mej-er, Encycl. Brit., under 'Artaxerxes', and Justi, Iran.
Namenb.

"* Strassmeier, in Zeitschrift f. Assyrioloi;ie, VII, p. 148.

78 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

he should be ignorant of the name of a king at whose
court he lived, in quality of physician to him, his wife,
his mother, and his children '.^^ But Plutarch did not
know that both names, Oarses and Arsaces, are identical.
The name ArsJiu = Arses — Oarses = ' man.' The suffix
ke{ka) is a Persian hypocoristic termination.^" Thus Arsaces
(Arsicas) is a hypocoristicon of Arshu. But hypocoristic
terminations, as a rule, are affixed only to shortened
names.*'^ What may have been the original compounded
name of Artaxerxes ? The name Xerxes = Persian Khsha-
;'^ri-//rt = Babylonian Khi-sha-ar-shu means 'a mighty
man, warrior, hero '. It was not a title, like Artaxerxes,
but a proper name. In antiquity, especially among the
Aryans, a proper name was the expression of the bearer's
personality.^^ The bearer of a name ' Mighty man ' had
to live up to its meaning, and could not be a coward.
Both Darius I and Artaxerxes I gave the name Khsha-
ydrsha to the legitimate heirs of the throne. Darius II,
though he had not yet been king at the birth of his eldest
son, may have nevertheless imitated their example and
named his first-born son Khshaydrsha. But the first royal
bearer of this name was murdered. When the same fate
happened to the second royal bearer of this name, it may
have become ominous. Besides, this name may have
become unpleasant to the ears of Darius II, who occupied
the place of his murdered brother, Xerxes II. Hence Darius

*s Artaxerxes, \, 4. ^^ Justi, Iran. Namcnb., Einleitung.

*'' See ibid. It is quite possible that in a later period the name Arsaces
was treated like a regular name and lost its hypocoristic signification. But
the fact that Artaxerxes is called Arshu in the Babylonian document leaves
no doubt that Arsaces was a hypocoristic formation.

88 Cf. H. Ranke, Die Pcrsonennamen i. d. Urkiind, d. Hammiirabi-
dynastie, 1902, p. 2.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 79

may have shortened his son's name KhsJiaydrsha to ArsJia
and affixed to it the hypocoristic termination keika). But
in official documents this name was written without the
hypocoristic suffix.*^^ The Jews who had many eunuchs
at the Persian court, of whom some appeared to have been
leaders in Israel, may have been better informed of these
details than the Greek classical writers. These court
stories may have been handed down, so that the original
name of Artaxerxes II was still known in the second
century B.C.E. and even later.

Outside of the Parthian empire, in Syria and Palestine,
the original name Artaxerxes has been preserved in the
Book of Esther. The rabbis, who fixed the Canon, aimed
of course at uniformity of the Scriptures. But the Jews
in the East could not accept the name Artaxerxes. — And
there can be no doubt that the fixing of the Canon was
done with the co-operation and approval of the Eastern
rabbis, though we have no information whatever how this
work was done. — Therefore the Western rabbis had no
other choice but to accept the reading, Ahasuerus. Hence
the Greek version which undoubtedly ante-dates the fixing
of the Canon,^" has the original name Artaxerxes. But
the Lucianic recension made towards the end of the third
century C.E. preferred the reading of the Hebrew text and
rendered it 'Acrvr]po?. Josephus follows as usual the

• *^ We might even suggest that the title Arsaces of the Parthian rulers
was not assumed in honour of the founder of this empire, but to assert
their descent from Artaxerxes whose proper name was Arsaces. It is
even possible that the very name of the founder of the Parthian empire
was assumed in honour of his alleged ancestor. The former ruled only two
years, and his dominion was insignificant, as it was limited to his native
land Parthia.

'•"' Cf. Chapter I, n. 9,

8o THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

Greek Version and has the correct name Artaxerxes, but
identified this king with Artaxerxes Longimanus.^^

^i Josephus may or may not have known that the name Ahasuerus in
the Hebrew text was due to ' the correction of the Scribes ' (D''*1S'lD ppH).
But this question is quite irrelevant, as his chronology of the Persian period
is not to be relied upon. In presenting Ezra as a contemporary of Xerxes,
Josephus follows neither the Hebrew nor the Greek text. This error is no
doubt due to his wrong identification of the king of Esther with Artaxerxes
Longimanus. The latter, according to Ezra 7, was very favourably inclined
towards the Jews in the seventh year of his reign. Therefore it seemed
to Josephus incredible that the same king should have decreed five years
later their destruction, and he concluded that the king of Ezra was Xerxes.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 8l

CHAPTER V

The term 'Judeans' — The renascence of Israel's religion—National
aspirations — The religious propaganda among the exiles — Religious creeds
and the conduct of their adherents — The hatred of the Babylonian exiles
towards Babylonia — The attitude of the Judeans in Egypt towards this
country— The conduct of the wealthy Judeans in Babylonia — The cause
of persecutions — The Judeans' attitude towards the Persians — Zoroaster's
' monotheistic ' religion — The characters of Mordecai and Esther—The two
opposing tendencies within Judaism— Mordecai versus Ezra and Nehemiah
— The effect of the religious persecutions — The predicament of the
Sopherira— The omission of all religious elements in the Book of Esther —
The attitude of the Rabbis towards this book — The omission of the names
of Mordecai and Esther in Sirach's Fathers of the IVorm.

In the preceding chapter we have demonstrated that
the Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther is to be identified
with Artaxerxes II. Now it remains to prove that the
main event of our story actually occurred under that king's
reign. Before, however, proceeding to deal with that event,
it is indispensable to outline the conditions and the character
of the Jews during the Babylonian captivity and the Persian
period ; for the misinterpretation of the Book of Esther in
ancient and modern times is mainly due to misconception
on those points. In the first place we have to investigate
the term ' Jews ' (Dni.T).

In pre-exilic times, the inhabitants of the kingdom of
Judea, irrespective of their descent, had been termed ' Jews '

82 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

(nnin''}.^ Even those who were worshippers of Baal, Moloch,
or Astarte, who were the citizens of that country, were
nevertheless called ' Jews '. This appellation was used
without the least regard to their beliefs. The practice
of idolatry did not deprive any one of his nationality. On
the other hand, Gentiles who had adopted the religion
of Jahveh, but had not become inhabitants of Judea, were,
of course, not called ' Jews ' (D'^Tin''), and still remained
members of their own nationality,^ Thus the term ' Jews '
had not the least religious significance.

What were the criteria of the Judean nationality of
the inhabitants of Judea who had been carried into the
Babylonian captivity, or had migrated to Egypt? The
Hebrew language ^ and the national consciousness 1 But

1 The term DHin^ (2 Kings 16. 6; 25. 25 ; Jer. 32. 12, &c.), includes
all inhabitants of Judea, even those who did not belong to the tribe of
Judah (cf. Ges.-Buhf's Hwb., p, 311).

* It goes without saj-ing that the worship of Jahveh, as generally
practised by the people in the pre-exilic period, was not restricted to the
state of Judea, and thus was not characteristic of the inhabitants of this
country. There were the inhabitants of Samaria who claimed to be wor^
shippers of Jahveh (Ezra 4. 2). The name Jail -bi'cii of the king of Hamath
points to the existence of that worship in the latter country. In this fact
we may see a corroboration of the reading Joram, the name of the son
of the king of Hamath (2 Sam. 8. 10), of which we find the variant Hadomm
(i Chron, 26. 25). The name Azri-jau of the king oi Jahidi (cf. Winckler,
Altorientalische Forschnngen, I, 'Das Syrische Land Jaudi und dor angebliche
Azarja von Juda ') leaves no doubt that the Jahveh-worship existed in the
latter country. But we may wonder whether it is a mere coincidence that
the name of that country is identical with that of Judea, in the cuneiform
inscriptions, and that in both countries the Jahveh-worship is found.
Who knows whether there is not after all some ethnological connexion
between these two countries. For the legal status of foreigners among
the Jews cf Ed. Meyer's Entsiehiing des Judenthums, pp. 227-34.

' Hebrew was still the national tongue, as in the period of Hezekiah
(2 Kings 18. 26), and had not yet been superseded by Aramaic, as we may
learn from the words of Ezekiel : ' For thou art not sent to a people of

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 83

on a foreign soil these distinctive marks could not have
endured for a long period. The succeeding generations,
born in those countries, could not but adopt the idiom
of the population among whom they were dwelling, with
whom they were in intercourse. Their own national tongue
was scarcely of any use in their daily pursuits, and this fact
must have been detrimental to its preservation. Nor could
the national consciousness of those generations survive for
a long space of time. Gradually it must have evaporated.
There was nothing that should have prevented the
descendants of those captives or immigrants from being
absorbed in the nations among whom they dwelt. Their
assimilation with the latter seemed to have been inevitable.
The complete disappearance of the remnant of Israel
was averted by the renascence of the Religion of Israel.
The religious ideas, propagated by the prophets of the
captivity and a small number of zealous Jews, made rapid
progress, not only among their own fellow captives of
Judea, but also among Gentiles. The result of that
religious movement apparently was the preservation of
the Jewish nationality. But as a matter of fact, a new
principle was now being proclaimed. This did not result
in restoration^ but in reform of the Jewish nationality.
Henceforth, neither descent, nor language, but religion,
was the criterion of ' Jews '. However, the religion the
exilic prophets resurrected could not be restricted to
the narrow bounds of the Jewish nationality. The national
barrier had to be removed, and every one was invited to

a strange speech and of a hard language, but to the house of Israel '
(Ezek. 3. 5). Even after the return from the captivity, Hebrew continued
to be the common language, as we may adduce from the words of Nehemiah
(13. 24), that the offspring of those who married non-Jewish wives could
not speak the Jews' language.

G 2

84 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

enter into this religious union and was gladly received.
Those who accepted this invitation, and entered into the
Covenant of Israel, became at the same time ' Jews ' (D''Tin'').
Consequently, the Jewish nationality disappeared from the
scene, and its place was taken by the Jewish religious
community.^ The latter included, on the one hand, all
adherents of the Jewish religion, even Gentiles, and, on the
other hand, excluded all idolaters, even those who belonged
to the Jewish race.^

There were, indeed, Jewish patriots who thought dif-
ferently. They saw in the religious movement an effective
force for the Jewish national resurrection, whose preserva-
tion could be effected only on a racial basis. These claims
could not but deeply hurt the feelings of the newly-
converted Gentile, who bitterly complained : * The Lord
hath utterly separated me from His people'.^ But those
national aspirations were nipped in the bud by the great

* Ed. Meyer {Gesck. d. Alt., Ill, p. 183) arrives at the same conclusion,
but from a point of view which the present writer does not share, in
observing : ' The community is no longer national, but had become a
religious association which makes propaganda and enlists adherents among
foreign tribes.' Cf. alto his Entstelmng d. Jud., p. 233 f. He points to the
large number of proselytes in the Greek and Roman periods. The Semites
of the Western countries, who were captives like the Jews, may have
associated with the latter rather than with the Babylonians, and thus were
easily persuaded to embrace their creed.

^ We shall see further below that the latter were designated as 123 ^33
' sons of the stranger '.

* Isa. 56, 3. There must have been a national party which was dis-
satisfied with Ezekiel's declaration, that the proselytes should become
equal citizens in the land restored to Israel, who said: 'And it shall come
to pass that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to
the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among
you : and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children
of Israel. They shall have inheritance among you among the tribes of
Israel ' (Ezek. 47. 22).

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 85

exilic prophet, the so-called ' Second Isaiah ', who pro-
claimed: 'Also the sons of the stranger which join them-
selves to the Lord to serve Him, and to love the name
of the Lord, to be His servants, every one who keepeth
the Sabbath from 'polluting it, and taketh hold of my
covenant. Even them will I bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer ; their burnt
offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine
altar ; for mine house shall be called a house of prayer
for all people '."^ In accordance with this principle, Jewish
nationality receded into the background, and the religion
became its postulate. The idea of Jewish nationality
required adherence to the Jewish religion, not, however,
vice versa. Idolaters of Jewish descent ceased to be 'Jews ',
and Syrians, Babylonians, &c., who accepted the Jewish
religion, became at the same time 'Jews' (□''TiiT). The
latter term lost its gentilic significance and became a
religious designation. In post-exilic times, the pagans
who lived among the Jewish people in Judea, though
inhabitants of this country, were never termed ' Jehudlm '.
The truth of this definition was felt by the Rabbis, who
expressed this idea in observing, ' Everybody who denies
idolatry is called a Jew' CTin^),^ and further assert that the

' Isa. 56. 6, 7. Tliis prophet went still further than Ezekiel. To him
it is irrelevant whether the stranger who worshipped Jahveh lived among
the Jews or in his own country. The house of God is the common property
of all nations, and everybody is made welcome here. There is only this
difference between Jews and Gentiles ; the former are condemned for
forsaking the God of their ancestors, while no blame is attached to the
latter, if they refuse to join the Lord and adhere to their ancestral deities.

8 Talmud Babli Megillah 13 a : nin"" N"lp3 nnT muyn lEnSn ^3. The
Talmudic expression, however, is misleading. A gentile denying the
divinity of idols and refusing to worship them does not become thereby
a ' Jew '• The Talmud of course means that every Israelite who refuses

86 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

biblical commandment, 'This is the ordinance of the pass-
over : There shall no stranger eat thereof ', exclusively
refers to a Jewish idolater.^ The latter is thus, notwith-
standing his Jewish descent, termed ' the son of a stranger'
("I3J p), according to the Rabbinic conception. The same
term which is used by Ezekiel, ' Thus saith the Lord God :
no stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in
flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that
is among the children of Israel',^*' may have the same
meaning. We see, then, that the appellation ' Jews ' (CTin'')
in the exilic and post- exilic periods was a purely religious
designation,^^ and not a national term, like 'Nazarenes' for
' Christians ' in the Middle Ages. It is of interest to notice
that niiT is the only gentilic noun from which a verbal
noun, cnnTio 'becoming Jews', is derived, but we nowhere
meet with a similar derivation from other gentilic nouns,
as ^DHN 'Edomite', ^»"is* ' Aramean ', 'JT* 'Greek', nvD
' Egyptian ', &c. The author of the Book of Esther who

to recognije idols, even a descendant of any other tribe and not of Judah,
is nevertheless called a ' Judean '. The same is of course true of prosel3'tes.

* See Rashi on Exod. 12, 44.

lo E2el<. 44. 9. In the followring passages the prophet excepts the
Levites, though they had been idolaters. Thus the former passage seems
to refer to Israelites, not to utter strangers.

" Cassel, /. c, p. 40, is the only commentator who correctly perceived
that D''^1^'' in Esther is a distinctly religious, not a national, term. But
he was wrong in believing that the name ' Israel ' remained the ideal
designation characteristic of the relation of God to Israel. On the contrary,
the term 'Israel' has a purely national signification, including even those
who are not 'sons of the covenant' (0^3 "'J3\ according to the Rabbis,
and as can be seen from the term bn'Xy'' V-'ID. It is of interest to see
how the modern commentators contradict themselves. They generally
see in □'''TliT a national term (cf. Siegfried, p. 141 and others', and never-
theless almost all of them entertain no doubt that the story of Esther reflects
the events of the Maccabean period, though these events had a purely
religious character.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 87

used that derivation knew that the appellation Jehudl was
a religious term.^^

The words of the Babylonian Isaiah, quoted above,
indicate that the promoters of the religious movement did
not content themselves with the conversion of their own
brethren, but became aggressive, and carried their religious
ideas into the camps of the Gentiles. The religious pro-
paganda, carried on successfully, produced the same change
of conception concerning the term 'Jews' among Gentiles
as among the Jews themselves. Seeing people of non-
Jewish descent embracing the Jewish religion, the Gentiles
used the term ' Jews ' in a religious sense. This neither
implied that an adherent of the Jewish religion was of
foreign descent, nor that the family of such a one belonged
to the same creed, which was an individual belief, regardless
of family, race, and country.

What reason may we advance for the great success of
that religious revival among the Judean exiles? Did the
latter attribute their great miseries, the loss of their country
and of their freedom, to their evil conduct and trans-
gressions against the God of their ancestors? This may
have been the case with a small fraction of the exiles.
But if we should judge the reasoning of the average of the
Judeans by the behaviour of their brethren in Egypt,'^
we would be forced to the conclusion that the sufferings
they experienced produced just the opposite effect, inducing
them to believe that their misfortune was due to the wrath
of the gods whose worship they neglected.^* Shall we

^^ For the author's statement that many embraced Judaism, see the
discussion of that subject in chapter IX.
" Jer. 44. 16-19.
" Ed. Meyer {G. A., Ill, p. 177) assumes that the Babylonian Jews

88 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

ascribe that success to the eloquence of the exilic prophets,
and the lofty ideas of religion and morality they proclaimed?
In their former country the Judeans had prophets whose
eloquence and religious ideas were by no means inferior
to those of the captivity, and yet they were not persuaded
by their arguments and exhortations.^^

The average man hardly ever judges religious creeds
on their own merits, but by the conduct and deeds of their
adherents. In their actions and behaviour he sees the

thought differently from their own brethren in Egypt. This is correct, as
we shall further see. But he ought to have been more explicit and inform
us of the reason why they did think differently.

■" This question is hardly touched upon by Ed. Meyer, /. c. He sees
in the exiled Jews strict adherents to the Jahvistic religion, with the
exception of a few who were soon lost among the gentiles, and does not
give credence to the accusation of Ezekiel that they were idolaters, con-
sidering chapters XIV and XX mere fiction. This historical conception
is decidedly erroneous. There is no denying the fact that the Jews who
remained in Judea continued to be idolaters, notwithstanding the introduc-
tion of the Law by Josiah. For this fact we have the testimony of the
eye-witness Jeremiah (19, 25, 32. 33, &c.). Those who were carried into
captivity could not have been different from those who were left behind.
Nebuchadnezzar did not select religious Jews as captives. Those who were
carried away belonged to the partisans of Egypt, and there is no reason
why they should have been more religious than the others. As to the
chapters dealing with the idolatry of the Jews being fictitious, such an
assertion is rather daring. The prophets frequently made predictions
which did not come true. But none of them would have dared to make
accusations which were not true. Ezekiel wrote his book for his con-
temporaries, not for modern historians. If he had accused them of sins
they did not commit, the prophet would have lost his reputation for veracity
and discredited all his prophecies. Ed. Meyer seems to have overlooked
to whom the prophet addressed himself in those chapters, not to the common
people, but to ' the Elders of Israel '. Most of the common people abandoned
idols not long after their arrival at Babylon, but not the wealthy classes,
as we shall see further on. Renan (History of the People of Israel, VII, i)
does not explain how the anavim, < the pietists, the fanatics', became
prominent in Israel. Nor does Graetz, in his History, I, p. 332, tiiough his
description of the exiles is partly correct.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 89

influence of their religions. Therefore, just and benevolent
intercourse of members of a religious creed with their
fellow-men will help more towards disseminating their
belief than the highest code of ethics. On the other hand,
unfair and malicious dealings of members of any creed
will do more towards discrediting the latter than the worst
ethical conceptions. A people, as a rule, is favourably
inclined towards the religion of its friends, and is easily
persuaded to follow their example, but detests that of its
enemies, without investigating which of the two religions
is of higher quality. This may be the reason why the
Israelites, during the period of the Judges, were willing to
imitate the idolatrous worship of their friendly neighbours,
but always turned back to the God of their ancestors when
oppressed by them.^^ This repentance may have been
a purely psychological process, and not the effect of
religious convictions. The modern scholars who contend
that the Mosaic Code contains numerous Babylonian rites
and myths, taken over in the exilic period, leave out of
consideration the character of the Jews. The latter have
been living among Christian nations for the last sixteen
hundred years. And yet we do not find any rite or custom
the Jews adopted from their Christian neighbours during
this long period. This remarkable phenomenon is by no
means due to the rigidity of the Jewish religion. In modern
times, in liberal countries, where Jews are treated more or
less fairly, many have abandoned ritual laws of the Bible
and Talmud, and have even adopted Christian customs.
The Spanish Jewish preachers, six hundred years ago, who
considered the stories of Genesis pure mythology, and saw
in the Patriarchs and the Twelve Tribes personifications
1^ See Judges 3-13.

90 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

of the planets and the signs of the Zodiac,^"^ were quite
capable of changing the Jewish religion in the most radical
manner, but for the persecutions the Christians continually
inflicted upon the Jews. In paraphrasing a Talmudic
saying, we may venture the paradoxical statement : The
Christians did more for the preservation of the Jewish
religion by their persecutions, than did the Prophets and
the Talmudic literature.^^ The same, of course, holds true
of the Mohammedans. The Bible undoubtedly contains
many ideas similar to or identical with those of the
Babylonians. If they originated in Babylonia, they must
have been transmitted to the Jews in a very early period,^'^
not at a time when the Jews suffered under the heavy yoke
of that empire.^"

" See the Responses of ("N^n":^"-!) miS p rcob^ ''3n, No. 415.

1* The Talmud observes : ' The seal-ring which Ahasuerus gave to
Haman effected a greater success than the forty-eight prophets who rose
in Israel : it did what none of them was able to do, to cause them to repent
of their sins', Megillah 12 b.

" In the present writer's opinion, the transmission to Israel of ideas
developed in the Euphrates Valley dates back to a pre-Mosaic period
(cf. Jewish Ouaiterfy Review, New Series, vol. I, pp. 147 ff.). Of the same
opinion is also Jastrow, in his recent work, Hebrew and Babylonian
Tradtiions, New York, 19 14, p 4. Albert T. Clay takes a different position,
in his work Amurrii, Philadelphia, 1909, and contends that the Babylonian
religious conceptions developed mainly in the Westland, the home of Israel.

20 Renan {History, VI, i) remarks : * It is our opinion that the pious
Jews who were captives in Babylonia wilfully closed their eyes to all that
surrounded them, like Bretons transplanted to Paris who will not look
at anything and depreciate all that passes under their eyes.' The analogy
is rather incorrect. Paris did not destroy Bretagne, and thus the Bretons
have no reason to detest the former city, and merely look down contemp-
tuously upon this state of luxury. The Judeans, however, had ample
reason to abominate Babylonia, even these who were not pious. Jastrow,
in the work cited above (see preceding note), correctly observes that the
Hebrews were in no mood to assimilate ideas from those who appeared to
them in the light of ruthless destroyers.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 9I

The Judeans led into captivity to Babylonia naturally
hated intensely the people which had deprived them of
their liberty. Their conqueror, Nebuchadnezzar, was by no
means a cruel monarch. He was a generous robber, and had
no desire to destroy his victims utterly. Though depriving
the exiles of their possessions and their freedom, he gave
them means of subsistence in his native land. The prophets
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, seeing in this king the instrument
of Jahveh's judgement, were grateful to him for his gentle
treatment of the exiles, and even represented him as the
' servant of Jahveh '. But the victims themselves thought
differently on this point. Little did they care whether he
was an instrument in the hand of Jahveh for the execution
of his judgement. They saw in him only the merciless
destroyer of their happiness, and thus detested and cursed
this king, his country, his people, and all their institutions.

The exiles were addicted to idolatrous practices in their
own country. Their local gods having, according to the
common conceptions,^^ no power outside of their own

^^ Such a conception was generally shared by Jews and Gentiles alike.
David complained to Saul : ' They have driven me out this day from abiding
in the inheritance of the Lord, sa3ing: Go, serve other gods ' (i Sam. 26. 19).
The colonists transplanted by the Assj'rians to Palestine found that their
own gods were powerless to protect them against the lions, until they
placed themselves under the protection of Jahveh, and only then were able
to worship their ancestral gods, who became now the manifestations and
ministers of Jahveh, ' they feared the Lord and served their own gods '
(2 Kings 17. 25-33). The Assyrians frequently carried their captives and
their gods to Assyria, for the purpose of depriving the latter of their power
to avenge the harm done to their votaries. In Assyria the foreign gods
became subject to the will of the indigenous gods, and had to punish their
own votaries if they were not faithful to their masters. The Bible expresses
the same idea : 'The Lord shall bring thee . . . unto a nation which neither
thou nor thy father have known ; and there shall thou serve other gods,
wood and $tone ' (Deut. 28. 36). Jahveh, having no representation, could

92 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

dominions, were of no use to them in a foreign country.
The same conception prevailed even among those who
were worshippers of Jahveh, that He was powerless to
assist His votaries outside of Palestine. Now the Baalim
and Astartes they had worshipped were essentially and by
origin identical with many gods of the Euphrates valley,
and the exiles could easily have substituted the latter for
the former deities. And even the worship of Jahveh could
have been preserved on this foreign soil by identifying him
with one of the chief Babylonian divinities of West Semitic
origin, like Adad or Marduk. But how could they be
expected to recognize the very gods to whom their mortal
enemies attributed the victory over them? It was quite
natural that the captives who could not reconcile themselves
to the new conditions, and deeply felt the misery of the
captivity, detested and refused to worship the gods of their
conquerors.-^ Not being able to preserve their old religious
practices, and not willing to put themselves under the
protection of the gods of their enemies, the captives were
practically without any religion. There was a void in their
heart, and they felt themselves forsaken by god and man.

Under those circumstances, the prophets found it easy
to disseminate the old religion of Israel, as the soil was well
prepared. The religion whose laws awakened memories

not be carried into captivity, and his worshippers would have to serve there
other gods. It was due to the prophetic idea of the Omnipresence of
Jahveh that the Jewish belief lost its local character, and could be
established everywhere. Nevertheless, the idea of Galuth ha-Shekinah,
that the Lord abides with his people in the captivity and is powerless to
redeem them, has still survived in the Talmudic and Cabbalistic literature.
It would lead us too far to dwell upon it.

''■''■ Renan, I.e., failed to see that the idolatrous Jews had more reason
to detest Babylonia than those who were pious. The latter may have seen
in their miseries the hand of the Lord, while the former did not.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 93

and aspirations immensely dear to their hearts was en-
thusiastically accepted by the people. The change in their
religious conceptions was effected in a short time. Not
long after the first exile Jeremiah could already contrast
the religious conduct of the Babylonian exiles with that
of those who were left behind in Judea, in the parable of
the 'two baskets of figs'.^^ The Judeans in the old
country still continued the practice of idolatry. But as
soon as they came to Babylonia, after the complete
destruction of Judea, most of them imitated the example
of their fellow captives and accepted the religion of Jahveh.
They had even more cause for detesting the Babylonians
and their deities than the first exiles.^*

The condition of the Jews who migrated to Egypt was
different from that of the Babylonian captives. Egypt
had done no harm to Judea. Though the latter suffered
a terrible defeat, twenty years before the destruction of
the Temple, at the hands of the Egyptians at Megiddo,'-^^
Egypt was not responsible for this calamity. It was due
to the presumption and short-sightedness of the Judean
government. Being assured that the king of Egypt

23 Jer. 24. 3. The same is seen from the letter sent to the captives
(29. 1-32). But not all of them had at that time abandoned idolatry (see

n. 15).

M We may assume that the captives at the final destruction of Judea,
who had proved themselves faithless to the Babylonian in their covenant
with the Babylonian king, were not treated with some consideration as
were those who were exiled with Jehoiachin. This may perhaps be the
reason why the last chapters of Jeremiah show such a deep-rooted hatred
toward Babylonia, and so strangely contrast with the sentiments of this
prophet toward the Babylonian empire. Jeremiah may have learned in
Egypt of the sufferings of those exiles at the hands of the Babylonians,
and thus his sentiments toward them naturally changed.

25 2 Kings 23. 29 ; 2 Chron. 35. 20-24. Cf. Graetz, Hist., p. 296 f.

94 THE liOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

had no hostile intentions against Judea, Josiah had no
reason to prevent the passing of the Egjptian army through
his borderland to Syria. At the time of Judea's final
destruction and conquest by Babylonia, the Egyptians were
the allies of that country and made an attempt to come
to its rescue.^^ The Judean immigrants expected to find
a 3afe refuge in the land of their former allies, were no
doubt received in a friendly way by the Egyptians, and
accordingly felt a deep gratitude towards their kind hosts.
' The Queen of Heaven', to whom the immigrants sacrificed,
was an Egyptian goddess whose cult had been introduced
into Judea long before the reform of Josiah. ^^ Thus the
immigrants had not the least reason for abandoning
the worship of this goddess, since they believed that her
wrath for having been formerly abandoned by them was
the cause of their present condition. We do not know
whether at that time the Jahveh-cult was given up altogether.
It is more probable that along with the worship of Jahveh
the Egyptian Jews practised idolatry, as they formerly did
in Judea. But after the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses,
the intercourse of the Egyptian Jews with their Babj' Ionian

*" Jer. 37-5, 6-1 r.

" Graetz, Hist. I, p. 300, asserts that the worship of the ' Queen of
Heaven' was introduced after the battle of Megiddo. The improbability
of such an opinion is evident, as the Jews would never have accepted
voluntarily the cult of a people at whose hands they suffered a terrible
defeat and to whom th^y had to pay a heavy indemnity. Moreover, the
words of the immigrants : ' But we will certainly do whatsoever goeth
forth of our own mouth, to burn incense to the Queen of Heaven, as we
have done, we and our fathers, our kings and princes, in the cities of
Judah' (Jer. 44. 17), prove that her cult in Judah must have dated from
an earlier period. The Egyptians were continually on friendly terms with
Israel and Judea and the other Western states, since the Assyrians started
their conquests in the West, and the Judeans may have adopted tlic cult of
the goddess at that period.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 95

brethren was not without influence, and many of them may
have become pure worshippers of Jahveh.^^

As a rule, reh'gion plays a minor, not to say an in-
significant part, in the affairs of those who live in affluence.
The religious propaganda was successful among the poor
and middle classes of the Judean captives. The nobles,
however, who exercised a certain authority over their poor
brethren,^^ were soon reconciled to the exilic conditions.
Having been the leaders of the people, they came in contact
with the government officials, and entertained friendly
relations with many Babylonians. Out of deference to the
latter, and in order to keep on good terms with them,
these nobles were quite willing to pay their respects to the
Babylonian deities. There were others who became pros-
perous by commerce, and were quite contented with their
present conditions in the great Babylonian metropolis,
where they found more opportunities for accumulating
riches than in their former agricultural country. Being
satisfied with their new surroundings, they had no ill will
towards the king and the people who transplanted them
to Babylonia, and thus no reason for refusing to worship
the gods of this country. Those Jews, though representing
a small portion of the captives, were, on account of their
influence, a constant menace to the religious movement.
The activity of the prophets was directed against them.

2« But the Elephantine Papyri (published by Sachau, Leipzig, 191 1)
seem to indicate that the Egyptian Jews were not pure worshippers of
Jahveh in the fifth and fourth centuries b. c.e. There may, however, have
been a number who accepted the religious conceptions of the Babylonian
Jews, and the sanctity of the Temple of Jeb was not recognized by them.

^^ See Ezek. 34. There can be no doubt that these ' shepherds ' were
the leaders of the Jews in the captivity. Cf. Gractz, /. c, p. 332, and
Renan, I.e. VI, i.

96 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

However, they had little regard for the prophets, and
ridiculed their prophecies.^" ' The elders of Israel ' fre-
quently visited Ezekiel, but not for the purpose of listening
to his teachings.^^ The prophet being respected, and
enjoying the highest authority among the common people,
it was a matter of policy to occasionally ask his advice,
in order to give to their measures divine sanction.'^^ Hypo-
critically they asked for a divine message. But he was
well acquainted with their conduct, and they could not
deceive him. 'What do you idolaters care for God and
His messages?' was his reply. Whenever he addressed
the elders of Israel he accused them of idolatry,^^ To the
common people, however, he spoke in a different tone,
comforting them and correcting their religious conceptions.^*
As long as the influential men among the captives were
not won over to the religious party, the existence of the
Jewish religion was precarious.

The religious propaganda could not be carried on
secretly. The publicity which it aroused could not fail
to engender bad feeling among the Babylonians. Com-
batting and deriding idolatrous conceptions in the very
centre of the Babylonian cult was nothing short of high
treason.^^ Such a movement was undoubtedly the cause

30 Ezek. 21. 5.

31 If the elders of Israel practised idolatry, we cannot assume that
they were in earnest in visiting the prophet and listening to his admoni-
tions.

S2 A similar condition is not totally unknown at the present time, that
wealthy men of influence stand at the head of communities and consult the
Rabbis upon the religious work of Ihe congregations though these leaders
themselves may be totally indifferent to religion.

s» Ezek. 14, 20.

s« Ibid. 18, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38. 25-9.

86 It is inconceivable how Kenan {History, VI, 1) came upon the idea

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 97

of numerous persecutions,^'' which, however, had no dis-
couraging effect upon the zeal of the pious Jews. On the
contrary, even those who had held aloof from the religious
movement could not remain unaffected by the sufferings
of their brethren. It is easy to sneer at religious ideas,
but they assume a different aspect when one sees men
willing to pay for them with their lives. However, this
sympathy did not have an immediate effect. Those wealthy
Jews preferred their own comfort above everything, and
were not inclined to expose themselves to persecutions by
abandoning idolatrous practices. They were not of the
stuff of which martyrs are made.

The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus dealt a death-blow
to the Babylonian religion. The superstitious belief in
Bel's power was shattered. Idolatry, though still tolerated,
was no longer fashionable. The seeds of the Jewish religion
now found a fruitful soil even in the hearts of the wealthy
people, who gave up idolatry and joined the Jewish
community. Nevertheless they still remained indifferent
members, without high regard for the observances of
the Jewish laws. They were the people of whom the
Babylonian Isaiah said: 'They who are eating swine's

that the Babylonians at that period denied both the gods and Providence.
The Babylonians were certainly at that period just as religious as ever,

S8 Graetz {History, I, p. 334) states that the violent hatred of the Jews
toward Babylonia was caused by Nabunaid's refusal to grant them per-
mission to return to their own country. But the letter of Jeremiah stated
that they had to remain in the captivity seventy years (29. 10). The pious
Jews were firm believers in the prophetic prediction, and thus did not
cherish any hope of an earlier return. The indifferent Jews felt comfortable
in that country, and were not eager, to leave it. Even if we should see in
that prediction a later interpolation, we have not the least evidence for
an assumption that Nabunaid had been kindly disposed towards the captives
on his accession to the throne, and later changed his mind.

H. H

98 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

flesh, and broth of abominated things is in their
vessels.' ^'

If the Jews detested the Babylonian religion as being
the creed of their oppressors, it stands to reason that they
loved the Persian religion as being that of their liberators.
This love would have been disastrous to the establishment
of the Jewish religion if the Persians had been idolaters.
The mere fact that the Persian religion did not do much
harm to the Jewish religious conceptions is in itself a
sufficient proof that there were no great differences between
the principal doctrines of both the Jewish and Persian
religions.

Ahuramazda was a purely spiritual god, not represented
by any image, according to the Avesta. His emblem,
adopted by the Iranians from the Assyrians,^^ consisting
of a winged ring floating in the air with a human figure
rising from the circular space, was not considered an idol.^^

*'' Isa. 65. 4. This accusation does not refer to those who practised
idolatry. No prophet would have blamed idolaters for not observing the
dietary laws. On the contrary, if the latter had observed them, the pro-
phets would have ridiculed their conduct. The prophet in those passages
describes different kinds of Jewish transgressors ; some were real idolaters,
sacrificing in gardens and burning incense upon altars of brick ; others
were superstitious, remaining among the graves and lodging in the monu-
ments, and practised necromancy ; and others finally had already abandoned
all those practices, but still continued to eat swine's flesh.

^* This was the emblem of the Assyrian god Ashur (see Justi, History,
p. 69, and Ed, Meyer, G. A., Ill, p. 123). If Zoroastrianism dates from
the beginning of the sixth century, we must assume that the adopting of
this emblem was pre-Zoroastrian, and that Zoroaster did not consider it
an idolatrous representation.

'^ See Ed. Meyer, ibid. Justi, however, is of the opinion that the
religion of the Achaeamenides was not identical with that of the Avesta,
as the latter prohibits the representation of Ahuramazda by an image. But
then he would have to go a step further and maintain that the religion
of the Sassanides, the most fanatical adherents of the Zoroastrian religion,

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 99

'The essential part of this emblem was the winged ring and
not the human figure, as this emblem was represented
frequently without the latter.'^° This divinity was not the
supreme god of the Persians, but actually the only one.
The Daevas, the gods of the popular belief, were, according
to the teaching of Zoroaster, to be regarded as spurious
deities, and their priests and votaries as heretics-'^^ The
angels, by whom Ahuramazda was surrounded, originally
represented abstract ideas.''^ However, at a later period,
when the Zoroastrian religion became corrupt, they assumed
the character of the former Daevas.'^ The power of
Ahuramazda, the god of light, having continually to strive

under whose rule the Avesta was compiled, was not identical with that
of the Avesta either, as the Sassanides represented Ahuramazda in human
shape. Thus we cannot but assume that the Persians did not look upon
these figures as representations.

*o Cf. George Rawlinson, Herodotus, vol. I, p. 208, n. 3. That this
symbol was not regarded as an image is seen from Berossus who was no
doubt well acquainted with the Persian religion, and nevertheless asserts
that the Persians knew of no images of the gods before Artaxerxes II (see
chapter VI).

« See K. F. Geldner's article 'Zoroaster' in the Enc. Brit. J. Darme-
steter {Zend-Avesta, p. 59^ observes that Mazdeism struggled on towards
unity : the Lord (Ahura) slowly brought everything under his unquestioned
supremacy, and the other gods became not only his subjects, but his
creatures. Justi, in his History, remarks: 'AH these things have in
Zoroastrianism an essentially different position than in the natural religion.
They have given up their character as gods, and preserved only their
cosmic sphere of action. They are creatures and servants of the supreme
god ' (p. 82).

« Cf. Geldner, I.e. Darmesteter, I.e., p. 71, observes: 'They were at
first mere personifications of virtue and moral or liturgical powers ; but
as their lord and father ruled over the whole world, they each took by and
by a part of the world under their care.'

« In Armenia, at least, some of the Amshaspands possessed their own
sanctuaries ; cf. the article 'Armenia' (Zoroastrian) by H. M. Ananikian,
in Hastings's Encychp. of Religion and Ethics, and Ed. Meyer, G.A., III,
p. 127 f.

H a

roo THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

with Anra-Mainyu, the god of darkness, was seemingly '
limited. Notwithstanding this conception, he was, to all
intents and purposes, the only god. The conception of
the power of darkness in the Zoroastrian religion corre-
sponds to that of the spiritual enemy of mankind, the
Evil One, in the Christian religion, who is feared, but not
worshipped.'*'* The term dualism applied to the Persian
religion is a misnomer. The two opposing forces of light
and darkness represent the principles of good and evil.
There is no good without its counterpart, evil. The latter
being the destructive element in nature, it is reasonable
that man should place himself under the protection of the
good, constructive principle. Ahuramazda himself was
originally, to a certain extent, placed above these opposing
forces, as has been pointed out.*^ In a later period, however,
the Holy Spirit was made equivalent to him.'*'' This would

^^ Herodotus VII, 114 seems to contradict that assumption, as he tells
us : ' I have heard that Amestris, the wife of Xerxes, in her old age, buried
alive seven pairs of Persian youths, sons of illustrious men, as a thanks-
offering to the god who is supposed to dwell underneath the earth.' But
Zoroastrianism is just as little responsible for the superstition of Amestris
as Christianity for some mad witches who worshipped the devil. George
Rawlinson {ibid.^ vol. I'V, p. 8) holds as probable that Herodotus merely
speaks as a Greek. In the Avesta there is no vestige of such a cult. That
god Anra-mainyu, being the personification of the evil principle, was
naturally unlike any other deity that could be propitiated by sacrifices.
Justi, in his History, observes : ' If the ancient writers inform us that the
Persians sacrificed to Hades, we may recognize therein a feature of the
Median religion of the Magians ' (p. 83). The latter religion, however, was
not identical with that of Ahuramazda, but represents the old Iranian belief.
*^ A similar opinion is expressed by Darmesteter, I.e., p. 82: ''When
the Magi had accounted for the existence of evil by the existence of two
principles, there arose the question how there could be two principles, and
a longing for unity was felt, which found its satisfaction that both are
derived from the same principle.'

^^ Cf. Geldner's 'Zoroaster', EncycL Brit., and Justi's Hist., p. 83.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY lOI

account for the fact that Darius, in his Behistun Inscription,
does not mention Anra-Mainyu.'i^ Besides, the limitation
of Ahuramazda's power was held to be merely temporary,
as he was bound after a certain period to be victorious,
and destroy his enemy.'^^

To scholarly minds there might have been great
differences between the Jewish and Persian conceptions
concerning the Divine Nature. However, to the average
man, Jahveh and Ahuramazda were identical in all respects
but in name.*'^ The Persian religion having no images,
no temples, and no ahars,^" the Jews did not see any
transgression in acknowledging Ahuramazda as God, and
identifying him with Jahveh.^^ We may assume that they

» It has been contended that Darius did not know anything about
Zoroaster, since he does not mention Anra-Mainyu in his Behistun in-
scription.

*8 Geldner, /. c , and Justi, I.e., p. 83.

« Graetz {History, I, p. 402) is certainly correct in his remark : ' They
contrasted that doctrine with their own belief that the God of Israel created
light and darkness, good and evil.' A similar opinion is expressed by
Alfred Jeremias {The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, II,
p. 276): 'The assumption that the prophet (Isa 45- 7, 12) combats the
theology of Zarathustra, at least in its exoteric interpretation, is well
founded.' He further observes (n. 2) : ' The esoteric religion of Zarathustra
is not dualistic in the proper sense.' Bat the contrary may be true.
Zoroaster's esoteric religion was dualistic, and the prophet called attention
just to this fundamental principle which the common people did not perceive.
But so subtle a distinction could scarcely have made any impression upon
the average Jew. Moreover, it was no easy task to convince the people
that God himself was the creator of evil. The very idea of the prophet
that God created the darkness evidently contrasted with the story ol
Creation in which the first divine act was the creation of light.
60 Herodotus I, 131.

51 It looks as if the Persians themselves saw in Jahveh their own God
Ahuramazda under a different name. Marquart {Fundamentc, p. 49)' indeed
contends that 'the God of Heaven' (Ezra 7- 12, 21, 23) is Ahuramazda.
This conjecture "is not without foundation. The edict of Artaxerxes, in
which enormous powers are conferred upon a Jewish priest, even to impose

I02 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

did not fail, whenever there was an opportunity, to impress
upon the minds of the Persian officials the close relationship
of their own religion to that of the Persians, and thus justly
claim special favours.

During the Babylonian period, the distinctive mark of
' Jews ' (onVT) was the rejection of idols. Under Persian
rule, however, this fact ceased to be the criterion of the latter,
as the true Zoroastrians did the same. Zoroastrianism
having adherents everywhere throughout the Persian empire,
a Jew, not caring to reveal his identity, could live among
Gentiles all his lifetime without being recognized as an
adherent of the Jewish religion. A strictly pious Jew could

the death penalty upon those who disobey the Jewish Law, is quite
incomprehensible. The Persian rulers were very tolerant towards the
creeds of their subjects. There is nothing improbable in granting the Jews
permission to return to their old home, to rebuild the Temple and the walls
of Jerusalem, and to live according to their own laws. But it is rather
strange that a Persian king should have been so solicitous about the
promulgation of the Jewish Law as to impose it by force upon those who
had no inclination to accept it. Hence it is no surprise to find that the
authenticity of that edict is denied by Kuenen {Hist.-krit. Emkitimg, I,
p. 165), Kosters {Het Hersiel van Israel, 1903, p. 114% Wellhauscn {Israel,
widjild. Geschkhte, 1914, p. 160), Th. NOldeke {Gott. Gel. Anz., 1884, 1014),
and others. Ed. Meyer {Enist. d. Jtid., p. 60 f.), however, has clearly
demonstrated that this document is absolutely genuine. But his explanation
that Artaxerxes was superstitious, and that the promulgation of the Law
had to be sanctioned by the government is very forced. There is no
parallel between favours granted to the Greeks in religious matters and
those granted to Ezra. A polytheistic religion does not interfere with
other polytheistic creeds, while the promulgation of the Jewish Law
involved the negation of other creeds. We therefore suggest that this
promulgation was a matter of policy on the part of Artaxerxes. The latter
looked upon the Jewish creed as being identical with that of the Persians.
He was desirous of introducing the latter belief in the Western countries
in order to connect them more firmly with his empire, and he saw in the
Jewish Law such a connecting link between these inhabitants and the
Persians. We shall deal with this subject further on in chapter VII, n. 59.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 103

not have done so, on account of his observance of the ritual
laws. But at that period these laws had not yet been
firmly rooted in the hearts of the Jewish people, and many
of them may have neglected them.^^ The wealthy cared
more, as we have seen, for their own comfort than for
religion. Many among them, indifferent to the religious
observances, in all probability pretended to be Zoroastrians,
and concealed their religion. Examples of this kind of
Jews we may see in Mordecai and Esther.

Mordecai was born in Babylonia, as we may conclude
from the pure Babylonian name he bears. The fact that
he could rise later to a high position in Persia seems to
indicate that he came to Persia in his early youth, and
received a Persian education.^^ He was a member of one
of the distinguished families which had been carried into
the Babylonian captivity with the Judean king Jeconiah
(^Jehoiachin). We have already observed that those
noble families were soon reconciled to their fate, and were
idolaters. Under Persian rule, however, idolatry having
gone out of fashion, they apparently abandoned it, as
evidenced by the fact that the late prophets do not accuse
any Jew of idolatry. But even then they were not quite
averse to the worship of the Babylonian deities, being
indifferent to both the Babylonian and the Jewish religions.
There can be little room for doubt that the father of
Mordecai was a Jew of that type. In Babylonia a proper
name compounded with the name of a deity was intimately

62 The Rabbis accuse the Jews of that period of having partaken of the
feast of Ahasuerus (Megillah 12 a). They correctly judged that the Jewish
observances were neglected at that period.

63 According to Flavins Josephus, in his story of Esther, Mordecai
moved from Babylon to Susa after Esther had been taken into the house
of the king. This is of course pure fancy.

I04 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

connected with the religious belief of its bearer, as may be
seen from the seal cylinders.^* The bearer of a name
Nabu-nasir, 'the god Nabu protects', was a votary of the
god Nabu. The name Mordecai is a hypocoristicon of a
complex name compounded with the divine name Marduk.
Thus the full name was undoubtedly of idolatrous character.
If the Talmudic statement, ' Mordecai is identical with
Bilshan ',^^ is based on tradition, the compounded name of
Mordecai was Mardiik-bti-sJnmn, ' Marduk is their lord \^^
Such a name could be borne only by a worshipper of the
god Marduk. But that does not prove that Mordecai's
father was an idolater. To ease his son's path through
life, that he should not be hampered with an outlandish
name which stamps one as an alien, his father gave him a
pure Babylonian name. Not infrequently Jews in European
countries, where biblical names are very seldom met with
among Christians, consider it likewise a disadvantage for
the future career of their children to be named Abraham,

^^ Cf. J. Krausz, Die Cdltentajiien in den Bahylonischen Siegehyliiidcr-
Legenden, Munchen, 1910, pp. 15 fT.

^^ Megillah 15 a and Menahoth 65 a. However, the Talmud had not
the slightest notion of the meaning oi Bilshan, and explained it as 'master
of the languages, linguist' (pB'? bV^^, as he was said to have been a member
of the Sanhedrin, and was therefore supposed to understand 'seventy
languages ', that is to say, he had to understand the various idioms in use
in Palestine, and not to have to rely upon the services of an interpreter.
The explanation of Bilshan presents a counterpart to that of Mordecai,
which is explained as 'pure myrrh' (N''3T N"lfO), the Aramaic translation
of "ITI ito (Exod. 30. 23). The fact that the Rabbis did not know the
meaning of Bilshan, and nevertheless connect it with Mordecai, seems to
point to a true tradition. As a matter of fact, Bel shUnu is an abbreviated
name, and so is Mordecai.

" Cf. Nabu-bel-shunu, Nin-ib-bel-shftmt, Sha-la-bel[Jil)-shunu (cf. Tall-
quist, Neubabylonisches Namenbnch, Helsingfors, 1905 ; Assyrian Personal
Nanus, 1914). Many of the numerous names Mardnka, Marduku (see ibid.)
may be hypocoristica of Maidiik-bcl-shunit.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY I05

Moses, &c. No Jew with any regard for his religion
would have given his son a name that implied his being
dedicated to the worship of Marduk. But Jair was not
an exception in this respect. It was customary among
the indifferent Babylonian Jews to name their children
Arad-Gula, Nana-nadin, Ninib-viiiballit, Sm-nasir, Sic.,^"^
as may be seen from the business documents of those
periods. But it may be of interest to observe that we very
seldom find names of idolatrous character borne by relatives
of those whose names are compounded with the divine
name Jawa.^^ The latter were, as it seems, characteristic
of the religious conduct of their bearers and their families
as faithful worshippers of Jahveh. Mordecai was not better
in this respect, if not worse, than his father, and by no
means proud of his religion. Though exercising, as it
seems, some authority over his humbler co-religionists in
Susa, as did his distinguished family in Babylonia, he was
anxious to conceal his Jewish identity, which under Zoroas-
trianism it was easy to accomplish, without transgressing
the main tenet of the Jewish religion. The name Mordecai

57 Cf. Babyl. Exp., IX, x and Tallquist, I.e. That the bearers of such
names, are Jews may be seen by the names of their fathers or sons. Renan
{History, VI, i) remarks : ' A great many Jews became servants of the
households of the Chaldean nobility and adopted Chaldean names, without
troubling themselves about the paganism implied by these names. It did
not entail any apostasy and was no more shocking than when the Jews of
the Roman epoch called themselves Apollonius or Hermes.' His analogies
are wrong. Strictly religious Jews never adopted in post-exilic times
names impl^'ing paganism. The name Apollonius is a mere translation
of the Hebrew name Samson, and the name Hermes means literally
'interpreter', and a Jew may bear such a name, even if it is also that of
a Greek god. It would be different if a Jew would be called ApoUodorus
or Isidorus. They would certainly be characteristic of the indifference
toward the Jewish religion on the part of their hearers.

»8 See chapter IX.

Io6 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

being Babylonian, we may assume that he had for special
use in his dealings with Persians a pure Persian name.^^

Esther, like Mordecai, was born in Babylonia. Her name,
undoubtedly identical with that of the goddess Ishtar =
Astarte, is a hypocoristicon of a complex name compounded
with that of this goddess. Her full name may have been

. Ishtar-udda-sha^ * Ishtar is her light ', which would account
for her two names, nriDN and nonn, both abbreviations,
= nD"nn-nFiDN. But it is perhaps more probable that the
name riDin is the Persian Hutaosa, rendered into Greek
as Atossa^^ and was adopted by her in Persia. Whatever

• her compounded name may have been, the name Esther =
Ishtar evidently shows that Abihail, Esther's father, was
a worthy brother of Mordecai's father, Jair. Having lost
both parents in her childhood, Esther was brought to Susa
and adopted by Mordecai. He could not give her a better
Jewish education than he himself possessed. Their real
characters are shown in the second chapter of the Book
of Esther.

^' We find names compounded with ud da, cf. Tallquist, Namenbuch.
This word is a synonym of urru, ur i — "IIS 'light', and of tturu = *13 Jjoj,
of the same meaning, and is etymologically identical with Hebrew IIH
'splendour', which is used also in the formation of Hebrew proper names
(see Hebr. Dictionary). Both synonyms are found in cuneiform proper
names, as in llu-ur ri, f/-''«-' Ma-lik, &c. ; Nuri-Ishtar, &c. (see Tallquist,
I.e.) That ud-du does not refer merely to the 'daylight'; though UD =
Shamash, may be seen from the name Nabushakin-ud-du, 'the god Nabu
makes light' (cf. ibid.). This noun may have been pronounced hud-du,
according to the etymology. We see that even the Sumero-Babylonian
•word ekal, 'great house, temple, palace' was by the Hebrews pronounced
hekdl.

6" Stanley, History of the Jewish Church, III, p. 196, remarks: ^ Hadassah
(her Hebrew name) is either " myrtle", or else a Hebraized form of the
Persian Atossa.'' But the Hebrew form stands nearer to the Persian name
Huiaosah than the Greek rendering Aiossa. Cf. Cassel, /. c, p, 54.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 107

Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, the two opposing tendencies
within Judaism, are by no means peculiar to and charac-
teristic of our enlightened era. They are as old as Judaism
itself, though in each age, in accordance with the prevailing
ideas, Heterodoxy assumed a different character. As long
as idolatry was fashionable, the Heterodox were idolaters ;
in the Alexandrian age, Hellenists ; under the Maccabees,
Sadducees; during the Jewish-Christian era, adherents of
the Christian doctrines ; in the period of the Geonim,
Karaites ; in the Middle Ages, philosophers ; and at a later
period, Cabbalists. Orthodoxy, the real representative of
that Judaism established during and after the Babylonian
captivity, has survived all these changes.^^ The same two
'tendencies in Judaism are met with in the times of Mordecai
and Esther.

The author of our story states : * Esther had not shewed Estlier

10
her people nor her kindred ; for Mordecai had charged her

that she should not shew it '.'^^ He tells it so frankly and

*i Many of those opposed to Rabbinic Judaism, whose aim was at the
start to abrogate its rigid observances, found that they could not draw
a strict line between the latter and those of the Mosaic Law.

62 The passage nm^t^ HNI r\t2]} HK IDDN HT-^n nb is not quite
clear. The terms DJ? and mpID here and in the similar passage "IJIDX fN
noy riNI nmblO m:D (II, 20) might be regarded as hendiadys. But
that is scarcely true of the other passage : ny~Q ''n"'X"n i^JIK n:D3"'N '<D

"•mijio finxa ^n'^ni b^Mi hd^'^ni >oy nx nvd^ -ic't< ' For how can

I endure to see the evil that shall come unto my people ? or how can I endure
to see the destruction of my kindred'? (VIII, 6). The term m!?"lJ3 means
cither 'native place' or 'kindred'. The former meaning is here impossible,
as Esther's native place was Babylonia, and the latter very improbable.
But mi'lD may mean also ' place of origin ', and could refer to Judea.
Such an interpretation is not impossible, as the execution of Haman's edict
involved the destruction of the Jewish state, as we shall further see. But
it is strange that the terms m^lOI DJ? arc nowhere found, outside of
Esther, in the Old Testament. We find only mi^llO pN or m^lDI pK-

Io8 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

naively, without giving any reason for such a conduct, as if
it were the most natural way and a matter of course, and
not a dastardly act, for a Jew to conceal his religion.''^ It
was indeed unnecessary for the author to explain why
Mordecai charged Esther not to disclose her Jewish identity,
as we can read the reason between the lines. Relying upon
Esther's great charms, which, in his belief, could not fail
to captivate the king's heart, Mordecai was apprehensive
of her being excluded from the competition for the rank
of queen if she was known as an adherent of the Jewish
religion. For her elevation he was ready and willing to
sacrifice her religion.^* If Mordecai had been imbued with

Hence there is room for doubt whether the original text contained the
word mblD. We shall find that Raman's edict was not directed against
the Jewish race, but against those who were adherents of the Jewish
religion. They were in no danger, if they abandoned it. But at a later
period, the real issue of that event was not known any longer. The term
m , a Persian loan-word (which occurs so often in Esther), in the passage
Dy 73D mVC^ DnTm ' their laws are diverse from all people ', refers of
course to the Jewish religion. The identical term is used in the Mishnah
in nmiT m 'the Jewish Law', and bn'iy) Ht^'D m ' the Law of Moses
and Israel'. Hence we venture the following suggestion. The same word
m might have been contained in the original text in the passages quoted.
But a later copyist changed the word JTi into mplJD , believing that TH and
Dy are superfluous synonj ms, as a member of the Jewish race is of course
an adherent of the Jewish religion. Thus the original meaning of the
passages II, lo. 20 might have been : Esther kept secret her people and her
religion. In her supplication to the king, Esther complained not only about
the evil that shall come unto her people, but also about the disappearance
of the Jewish creed. Siegfried, /. c, is correct in objecting that m?1D is
here out of place.

"^ Ibn Ezra remarks : ' Some say that Mordecai was wrong in com-
manding Esther not to disclose her origin, because he feared that he might
not take her for a wife if he knew that she was one of the exiles. But
others say that Mordecai learned in a dream that Esther was destined to
save Israel '.

^' Paton, I.e., p. 178, observes: 'There is nothing of the martyr-spirit
in Mordecai, as in Daniel and his friends who display their Judaism at all

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY I09

the spirit of Ezra and Nehemiah, there is no doubt that
rather than giving her in marriage to a Gentile he would
have slain his adopted daughter with his own hands,
and he would certainly have charged her to disclose her
religion.^^ If Esther had been a true daughter of Israel
she would have done everything in her power not to
become the wife of a Gentile, preferring the observance
of her religion to the rank of a queen.'^'^ On informing
the keeper of the harem of her religion, Esther would have
dt)ne her duty, and been free from blame if he had kept
her notwithstanding that reason, as we could not condemn
her for not having been courageous enough to prefer death
to that fate.

However, on the other hand, the question presents itself:
Why did Mordecai so ardently desire to see Esther as
queen? Was it due to his ambition? Certainly not ! *''^
If he had been ambitious, it would have been easy for him

costs. So long as there is any advantage in hiding it, he does not let
Esther tell her race ; only when secrecy is no longer useful, does he bid
her disclose it' (see n. 68).

«s The author of the apocryphal additions to the Greek version of Esther
could not comprehend either how the pious Esther could have acted in that
way, and lets her say in her prayer: 'Thou hast knowledge of all things,
and thou knowest that I hate the glory of the wicked and abhor the bed
of the uncircumcised and of every alien '. This prayer is characteristic of
the mode of thinking of religious Jews of the Graeco-Roman period con-
cerning intermarriage.

66 See, however, Cassel, p. 61 f.

6' The commentators who think that Esther concealed not only her
Jewish origin, but also her kinship to Mordecai, must admit that the latter
could hardljr have profited anything by Esther's exalted position. Moreover,
they assume that ' Mordecai was sitting in the king's gate ' as a lounger,
and not in an official character. Thus what advantage was there for
Mordecai? Hence it is evident that Mordecai did not act out of selfish
motives in furthering the elevation of Esther, but for the welfare of his
people (see n. 64).

no THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

to be appointed to a high position after the elevation of
Esther, or at least after having saved the king's life. Thus
it is evident that his desire that Esther should be elevated
to the rank of queen was not prompted by selfish motives.
Although concealing his own religion, Mordecai was never-
theless solicitous for the welfare of his people, and was
convinced that Esther on becoming queen would be in
a position to render them many useful services, as indeed
she was.

However so prudent and farsighted the policy of Mor-
decai, in his endeavour to elevate Esther, may have been
for the benefit of the Jewish people ; from a purely
religious point of view, we either must condemn his conduct
or accept utility as the sole standard of rectitude. An
approval of Mordecai's action would give full licence to
intermarriage. We might say that that prohibition under
certain circumstances may be disregarded, if any essential
advantage would accrue to the Jewish people or to some
Jewish community from such an intermarriage. It Would be
wellnigh impossible to draw a strict line between a marriage
to a king, a high official, or any other person. But
Mordecai no doubt belonged to that party which espoused
intermarriage between the Jews in Palestine and their
non- Jewish neighbours, as by these alliances they were
strengthening their own position.*'^ That policy, ho\^ever,
though of great advantage to the newly-established Jewish
state, was disastrous to the Jewish religion, and we may
doubt whether the latter would have survived if such a
practice would have been permitted to continue. On the

*^ That party was in all other respects just as strict worshippers of
Jahveh as Ezra and Nehemiah, since even the family of the High-priest was
related by marriage to the Samaritan Sanballat and to other non-Judaeans.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY III

other hand, the zeal of Ezra and Nehemiah against inter-
marriage caused many hardships to the Jewish people in
Judea, and jeopardized the existence of the new state, but
the Jewish religion remained pure and intact. Thus Ezra
and Nehemiah represented Orthodoxy, while Mordecai
was the representative of the Heterodox wing of Judaism
of that period which advocated intermarriage.

It is characteristic of Jews in all periods that, though
indifferent to religious observances, and being hardly
recognized as members of the Jewish people, at times of
religious persecutions they do not stand aloof from their
suffering brethren, but identify themselves with them in
every respect, some of them becoming even more or less
religious. The religious persecutions which soon broke out
had the same effect upon Mordecai. Seeing the sufferings
of the Jews, Mordecai openly declared his adherence to the
Jewish religion,^^ and did everything in his power to assist
his brethren. But a change produced by sympathy, not
conviction, never has a lasting effect. Mordecai, after his
elevation to the rank of prime minister, was not and could
not have been religious.'^" The Rabbinic homiletic inter-
pretation of the passage, * He was pleasing to most of his
brethren', that it meant to indicate that a part of the
Sanhedrin separated themselves from him,"* contains a
great deal of truth, even more than the rabbis intended
to imply. A part of his brethren refused to have any
intercourse with Mordecai. Even among the Sanhedrin,
the leaders of Israel, the strictly religious Jews, who do not
barter the tenets of their religion for worldly advantages,

69 See chapter VIII.

70 Cf. also Renan, History, VI, i.
" MegiUah i6b.

112 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

though being in all periods Israel's very representatives
and preservers, always form only a small fraction. And
men of that type refused to associate with him.

The Book of Esther was in all probability composed
in Babylonia, not Palestine,'^'' as the former country was
for a considerable period the real centre of Jewish learning.
It undoubtedly was composed at a time when the person-
alities of Mordecai and Esther were still well known. Its
compilers were the Sopherim, who strictly adhered to the
principles of Ezra and Nehemiah. Upon them devolved
the task of commemorating an event, in which the
opponents of the latter, against whose principles they still
had continually to fight, figured as heroes and saviours
of Israel. Those Sopherim were in a most embarrassing
situation. They could not deny the fact that Mordecai
and Esther, though having been transgressors of the Law,
actually effected the rescue of Israel's religion. Not to
record such an event would have been disgraceful.'^^ But

'''^ But they did not put this story in writing during the life-time of
Mordecai and Esther (see following notes and chapters VII, IX).

" Megillah 7a:' Esther sent to the sages, saying : " Record this event
of mine for future generations," But they sent back : " It is written, Have
I not written for thee three times?" (Prov. 22. 20'. This passage teaches
that any event should be recorded only three times, and not four times, and
the memory of Amalek's destruction is already recorded three times.
(Thus they refused to record it) until they found for her a biblical verse :
" Write this for a memorial in a book'' (Exod. 16. 14) : " write this " refers
to the records made by Moses himself, here and Deuteronomy 25. 17-19 ;
"for a memorial" refers to that which is written in the historical records
of the prophets (i Sam. 15. r-34) : "in a book" refers to the event of
Purim, the story of which ought to be represented in a special Book '

{i? ^nnna abn' nb ^rh'\y nnnb ^^nna d^odh^ inos* on^ rMib:^
^.-nin n:ii'D2) |N3 nin^::' no nsr 3in3 '"idd:: jn^r nxi ainn'

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY II3

It could not be done without jeopardizing the religious
principles for which they stood. To describe Mordecai
and Esther as ardent adherents of the Jewish religion was
impossible. The religious conduct of Mordecai and Esther
was well known. Besides, the Sopherim would under no
circumstances have consciously distorted the facts. To
represent, however, non-religious Jews as God's chosen
instruments for the preservation of Israel, would have been
destructive to the ritual edifice they strove to preserve
intact. The people would have been perplexed, and would
have raised the question : How could the rites and ob-
servances be an essential part of the Law of Israel if God
chose for his own instruments people who did not care for
them? The only way out of this dilemma was to represent
the events exactly as they happened, without suggesting
that there was any divine intervention. In this way the
compilers did not commit themselves, and the people could
interpret this story each according to his own sentiments.
In the present writer's opinion, a strictly orthodox rabbi
of to-day would be in the same predicament, if compelled
by circumstances to write the biography of a great Jewish
philanthropist who was indifferent to all religious ob-
servances, and would have to act in the same way as the
Sopherim did in the compilation of the Book of Esther,
circumspectly avoiding all matters pertaining to religion.

There is a Talmudic statement that Esther requested
the sages of her period to compile the story of that event,
and they at first refused to comply with her request.'*

''* Rabbi Joshua, son of Hananiah (flourished about 100 c.e.), still held that
this Book ought not to have been put in writing, in explaining: 'write this '
refers to what is written in Exodus; 'for a memorial' refers to the repeti-
tion of that commandment in Deuteronomy to remind Israel to keep it
in their memory; 'in a book' refers to what is written in the Book of

H. I

114 "THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

Who knows whether this narrative is not based on some
tradition ? We can well imagine that it was Esther's just
ambition to have the event in which she played such a
conspicuous part recorded for the admiration of future
generations, and that the Sopherim, confronted by the
difficulty of such a task, used some subterfuge to be excused
from compiling that story, in expressing their opinion that
it ought to be handed down by tradition, like the Oral
Law, and not to be recorded J^ We may even assume that
they definitely refused to undertake this compilation, and
that the only record of that event consisted of the letters
sent out by Mordecai and Esther."" Later, however, being
afraid lest the Feast of Purim might assume a non-Jewish
character, as we shall see further on, the Sopherim could
not but compile the story of that event, and order its

Samuel (^min nr^'D2 ainatr no jnar ,fN3 ainat' no nsr aind

D^X^333 3in3t^ no "1DD3, ibid.). In the present writer's opinion, these
homiletic explanations do not give the real reasons pro and contra. The
Rabbis were averse to questioning the religious conduct of Mordecai, and
therefore expressed their opinions in homiletic disguise.

"> See chapter IV.

" We shall see that the Sopherim were even averse to the commemora-
tion of this event, because the time of the celebration was simultaneous
with that of a Persian festival. The Talmud indeed tells us : ' Esther sent
to the sages : " Establish for me a festival for future generations". But they
sent back: "Will you incite envy against us among the nations? " She,
however, sent back: "(There is no fear of that) as the event of mine is
already written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and

Persia"' (jiK HNjp rh in^B* nHH^ ^Jiy3p D'cnn^ -inDN nrh r^rbv
n3i nsD bv '3N naina -i3d nrh r\nb^ nicisn pa^ irb m-iiyo

D*1S1 ^ID ^3?ob D^DTt, Megillah 7 a). In this homiletic saying we may
perhaps see a trace of a tradition that the Sopherim refused to sanction the
establishment of the festival of Purim. We observe, by the way, that this
saying seems to confirm the suggestion in chapter IV, that the existence
of the Book of Esther may have caused trouble to the Jews in the East
in a certain period, ' inciting envy against them among the nations'.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY II5

reading on the day of this Festival. Both Rabbi Joshua
and Samuel in decreeing that 'the Book of Esther does not
defile the hands '/' were undoubtedly displeased with the
non-religious style of the book, and considered such a defect
just as bad as the scepticism of Ecclesiastes.''^ Looking
upon Mordecai and Esther as saints in Israel, and on the
compilers of that book as having been inspired by the Holy
Spirit, the non-religious character of that book was beyond
their comprehension. They may have believed that the
Sopherim did not dare to represent Ahasuerus as an
instrument of the God of Israel, and therefore omitted
all religious elements. Those rabbis, however, did not
approve of such a procedure. In their opinion, if a book
that records such a signal rescue of Israel had to be devoid
of all religious elements, the records of that event ought
not to have been put in writing, but handed down by
tradition.''^ This is the real meaning of the Talmudic inter-
pretation of those rabbis' opinions : ' The story of Esther

'7 The saying DH^H nX NCDO I^N inOX ' the Book of Esther does
not defile the hands', is mentioned only in the name of Samuel, not in that
of Rabbi Joshua. Since, however, we are informed that ' Samuel holds
the opinion of Rabbi Joshua ', that Esther ought not to have been recorded,
we must assume that in the latter's opinion, Esther does not belong to the
sacred Books, and thus does not defile the hands (see ibid.).

''^ As to Ecclesiastes, there are divergent opinions: 'Rabbi Meir says:
' Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, but there is disagreement concerning
Canticles'; Rabbi Jose says: 'Canticles defiles the hands, but there is
disagreement concerning Ecclesiastes'; Rabbi Simeon says :' Ecclesiastes
belongs to the decisions in which the School of Shamai was more lenient
than the School of Hillel, but Ruth, Canticles, and Esther defile the hands'

(.Dn^ti'n -i^:ra npi^nci nn\n nx ncdd irx n^np idin tnd ^an
u-i n^npa npi^noi Dn\-i nx ncdd on^L'-n i^c -idix >dv ""a-i
-y^^^ nn b^a. hhr^ n^3 noinoi ^ndc' nn ^hpo nSnp "idix pyof
DnM nx pxDOD nnoxi on^c-n), ibid., &c.

" See note 73.

I 2

Il6 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

was composed to be read, but not to be written down '/"
The latter agreed with their colleagues that ' the compilation
of the story of Esther was made by the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit ',^^ but were unwilling to admit that the Holy
Spirit had inspired them to omit the name of God, seeing
in this omission a certain faint-heartedness. The other
rabbis, however, looked upon it from a different point of
view, holding perhaps that the story is the more religious
in its spirit, because of its being so entirely free from the
phraseology of religion.^^

Bearing in mind the religious conceptions of Mordecai
and Esther, we understand why Sirach did not enumerate
them among 'the Fathers, of the world '.'^^ To any un-

*« 2)n^b n-icNj i6\ nnp^ mow nnox, Megiiiah 7 a.
" n-iDNj ^ipn nna nnoN, t'bid.

*' See also Stanley, History, III, p. 2or.

»3 Wildeboer, p. 17a, and other commentators conclude from the fact
that Sirach did not mention Mordecai and Esther, that their story was
unknown in his time. Jampel, however, calls attention to Sirach's omission
of Daniel and Ezra. But these omissions do not invalidate tha critics'
objection. The existence of the historical Daniel cannot be denied, as we
have for it the testimony of Ezekiel (28. 3) : ' Behold, thou art wiser than
Daniel '. But there can be no doubt that the latter was not a contemporary
of Ezekiel, as he is represented with Noah and Job as an example of a God-
fearing man (14. 14, 20). If he was not a pre-historic personality, he must
have lived in the hoary antiquity. The Book that bears his name is no
doubt younger than Sirach. As to Ezra, Sirach was not a ' Bible-critic '.
In his eyes Ezra was merely the copyist of the Mosaic Law and a holy man,
but no more holy than the prophets Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi, whom
he also omitted to mention. Ezra, in Sirach's opinion, was only the leader
of about fourteen hundred immigrants and one of the great teachers of the
people. But having built neither the Temple nor the walls of Jerusalem,
he did not leave a lasting memorial for future generations. Of Nehemiah
he could say that he raised the walls of Jerusalem and restored the home
of Israel. But Sirach could not have omitted the names of Mordecai and
Esther who played such an important part in Jewish history, if he had
considered them saints in Israel.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY II7

prejudiced mind it must have been obvious that they did
not belong in this assemblage. In a later period, however,
the Book of Esther having become popular, it would have
been blasphemy to criticize the conduct of these saviours
of Israel. The rabbis had no other course but to represent
them as Jewish saints, and endeavoured to the best of their
ability to defend and justify all their actions.

Il8 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

CHAPTER VI

The nature of the danger recorded in the Book of Esther — The intro-
duction of anthropomorphic images into the Zoroastrian rehgion —The reform
against Zoroastrianism — Religion and state — Zoroastrianism as the supreme
rehgion of the Persian empire -Anahita as the representative and mani-
festation of Ahuramazda — The effect of the reform — A Persian tradition
— The reform affected the Jews -The religious persecutions— The strictly
religious Jews — The festivals of Anahita — Historical reminiscences of the
persecutions.

In the preceding chapter we have discussed the term
'Jews' (nmn""), and found that it designates adherents of
the Jewish religion, regardless of their extraction. This
definition is borne out by historical facts. All dangers
and persecutions the Jews experienced, from the time of
Antiochus Epiphanes down to the present, were solely
due to their religion, and not to their race extraction.
Jews never suffered, as we already observed, if they con-
formed to the religion of the country where they dwelt,
because such a step wiped out the mark that distinguished
and separated them from the Gentiles. Jews living in a
country for many hundreds of years were always considered
aliens. But if one among them abandoned his religion
he became at once a full-fledged citizen.

The danger impending over the Jews recorded in the
Book of Esther was no exception in that respect. This
also had a purely religious character. The current opinion

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 1 19

concerning the personality of Haman and his detestation
of the Jewish race is absolutely erroneous. If a man is an
inveterate enemy and a zealous persecutor of a certain
religious creed, which he regards as pernicious to the welfare
of his country, it does not follow that he is a wicked
character. Haman was not worse than many Christian
and Mohammedan potentates who, actuated by zeal
for their own religions or by political reasons, fanati-
cally persecuted their Jewish subjects, but who in other
respects by no means showed vile dispositions. Haman
never thought of destroying a whole race without cause
on their part. His decree was not aimed at the Jewish
people, but at the Jewish religion, and such a danger could
be easily averted by renouncing it. His intention was the
destruction of an idea, not of the individual who adhered
to it. The fate of being exterminated was of course
inevitable, if the Jewish people should remain stubborn
and refuse to part with their religious belief. But the
decree was of no effect if they ceased to be 'Jews' (DHiri'').
However, that religious persecution was not due to his
personal aversion to the Jewish religion. It was dictated
by the policy of the Persian empire, with which the Jewish
religious conceptions came into collision.

Under the reign of Artaxerxes II an important inno-
vation was introduced into the Persian religion. The
Babylonian priest and historian Berosus informs us that
the Persians knew of no images of gods until Artaxerxes II
erected images of the goddess Anahita in all the centres
of the Persian empire.^ The statement of Berosus is con-
firmed by the cuneiform inscriptions." Those of the former

' Mullen's Fragmenta llisioricotum Gmecontm, 16.

* Die Alipersisclien Keilinschrifttn (Weissbach und Bang\ p. 45.

I20 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

kings name only Ahuramazda, but Artaxerxes II, in his
inscriptions, invokes Ahuramazda, Anahita, and Mithra.
The last two gods belonged to the old popular belief, but
were abandoned by the true Zoroastrians.^

This innovation, having been against the spirit of
Zoroastrianism, could not have met with the unanimous
approval of the Persians. Now Zoroaster's religion could
have been preserved in purity only within a limited circle.
• The common people required religious food of a more
sensual and vigorous character', as Ed. Meyer observes.*
Nevertheless, that limited circle was no doubt sufficiently
numerous and influential to resent and oppose such an
innovation. The erection of sanctuaries for Anahita in all
the centres of the Persian dominion, even among non-
Iranians as in Sardes and Damascus, indicates that
Artaxerxes II desired to introduce the worship of this
, Iranian goddess throughout his empire. What may have
'caused Artaxerxes II to depart from the ways of his
predecessors ? It could not have been a mere fancy for
overthrowing the old established principles of the Zoroas-
trian religion. Some important object must have been
involved whose attainment he deemed necessary for the
consolidation of his empire.

Religion was always intimately connected with the
worldly power. All the institutions of the government
were permeated by religious ideas.^ The king was merely
the representative of the tutelary deity of the state.
Accordingly the rank of the deity depended upon that

5 Cf. Ed. Meyer's article ' Artaxerxes ', Eiicycl. Btit. and G. A., HI, 127.
* Ibid., p. 126.

'■' On tliis subject see especially Jastruw's Religious .hfifcts and Bclic/a in
Ba/iy/uiiia diid ^hsyria, 191 1, chapter V.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 121

of the king by whom it was represented, rising and faUing
with the fortunes of its representative. In one case, however,
the deity assumed such a high position that it became the
protector of the state which had raised it from obscurity,
and its rank remained independent of that of its repre-
sentative. Such was the case of the Babylonian god
Marduk who was originally an insignificant local god of
Babxlon. But he became the head of the Babylonian
pantheon, and was identified with the former Sumerian
chief god, Enlil of Nippur, because Babylon had become,
under the reign of Hammurabi, the capital of the Babylonian
empire. This city, though politically no more of im-
portance, after the passing of the Hammurabi dynasty,
nevertheless retained its high position as the seat of
Bel-Marduk. The king who seized the hand of the god
on the New Year festival considered himself the greatest
monarch, and claimed by virtue of his position the rule
of the world. The various Babylonian cities were united
by a religious idea.

The constitutions of the governments of the Euphrates
Valley present in that respect no exception to the general
rule. The same fundamental idea of the body politic
existed in most ancient states. Religion was in antiquity
the basis of the political community. The state existed
only through the gods. In claiming to fight for the glory
of the gods and not for its own aggrandizement, the state
could hold its own against other powers, and increased
thereby in strength and prosperity.^ The theocratic con-
stitution of Israel, as ordained by its Lawgiver, though
never fully realized, was no novelty. The institutions of
ancient Greece, as the Amphictyonic Council and the

•^ See Ed. Meyer, G. A., Ill, p. 167.

122 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

Olympics, which were of paramount importance for the
unification of the various Greek states and the preservation
of their independence in the Persian Wars, were of purely
religious origin. The mighty empire of the Caliphs was
founded upon Islam. The mediaeval Christian rulers pur-
sued the same policy. Thus religion was in all periods
considered the best cement for joining heterogeneous races
into one united nation.

However, the Persian empire was different from other
governments of antiquity. Here we do not find that
intimate relationship between Temple and Palace. Although
the Achaemenian kings had been the very representatives
of the Zoroastrian religion and identified with all its
movements,'^ the Persian empire was not founded upon
a religious idea. The conglomerate of the heterogeneous
elements of which it consisted was kept together by force
of arms, the effect of which could only be transitory. The
Persian rulers felt themselves powerful enough to hold
the conquered countries in obedience without the aid of
religion. As a rule, they did not interfere with the creeds
of their subjects, and made no attempts to disseminate
their own religion in their dependencies. On the contrary,
though considering the polytheistic religions, in which the
gods were represented in human and animal shapes, puerile,
the Persian kings treated them with all reverence. We
must, of course, except the conduct of the demented
Cambyses in Egypt.

When Artaxerxes H ascended the throne, the authority
of the empire in the interior provinces was badly shaken.
Insurrections frequently occurred, and the disintegration

' See Jackson, ZoroasUr, ' On the Date of Zoroaster '.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 1 23

of the empire seemed imminent. Though its foreign
relations were better than before his accession, this was not
due to its power, but to the discord of the Grecian states.
According to Plutarch : ' The Greeks who forced their way,
as it were, out of the very palace of Artaxerxes, showed
that the grandeur of the Persians was mere parade and
ostentation '.8 The liberal policy pursued by the Persian
kings, which at the time of their vigour largely contributed
to the building up of the empire, as the subjugated countries
soon became reconciled to its rule," was now, as the Persians
were becoming somewhat enervated, the very source of its
weakness.^" The Persian empire lacked an idea suitable
to cement the divergent races into one united nation.

We may safely assume that the Persian patriots and
the king's councillors were fully aware of the gradual decay
of the empire, and devised various remedies to check its
progress. One of the councillors, acquainted with Oriental
history, and thus knowing how religious ideas were utilized
for political purposes, and what powerful instruments they
are for the consolidation of governments, suggested the
religious idea as the best remedy for the unification of
the empire: religion should form the link between king
and subjects. If Zoroastrianism, of which the king was
the visible representative, should be proclaimed as the

8 Plutarch, Artaxerxes, XX. i.

9 Ed. Meyer, G. A., Ill, p. 94.

10 We have a somewhat analogous case in the Turkish empire. At the
height of their power, the Turks were rather tolerant towards their subjects
and did not impose upon them their religion and language. Owing to this
policy, the subject nations were soon reconciled to their rule. If they had
not been tolerant, the European Christian nations would have united
themselves against them, and we may doubt whether they would have
prevailed over a united Europe. But at present the policy that was
formerly the source of (heir success, is the very cause of their downfall.

124 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

supreme religion of the empire, all the subjects being
enjoined to accept it, the authority of the king, on account
of its religious character, would be respected everywhere,
and the common cause of religion would ensure the loyalty
of the subjects.

However, that plan was not feasible without funda-
mentally modifying the doctrines of the Zoroastrian
religion, which, as we have seen, was purely spiritual,
without images, temples, and altars. The acceptance of
the principles of this religion, which forbade the worship
of idols and rejected all other divine beings beside
Ahuramazda as spurious deities, was incompatible with
the continuation of all other polytheistic religions through-
out the Persian empire. The introduction of such a
religion could not be made compulsory without simul-
taneously oppressing all other idolatrous creeds. Such
a measure would undoubtedly have been the cause of
a general uprising among the polytheistic subjects, and
unfailingly would have caused the downfall of the Persian
empire. The people, accustomed from immemorial times
to the worship of visible gods, were incapable of compre-
hending a religion without physical representations. This
religion could not appeal to the people, even if it should
modify its monotheistic principle, and grant to them the
permission to continue the worship of their own deities
as manifestations of the supreme god Ahuramazda. There
was indeed the winged circle, which the Zoroaslrians were
able to admit as a religious emblem without sacrificing
any principle.^' But no temple was ever erected to
Ahuramazda, as Ed. Meyer points out,'- even after the

'" See chapter V. " G. A., Ill, p. 123.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 1 25

Zoroastrian religion became corrupt. The Zoroastrinns
seemed to have held and strictly adhered to the principle
that the God of heaven and earth could not be worshipped
in the limited space of a house.^'' Besides, the simple
worship of this god, consisting in keeping up the Holy Fire,
had nothing alluring and attractive for the people. Yet
the Zoroastrian religion could not be made popular without
images, temples, and altars.

The Daevas, the gods of the old Iranian religion, which
Zoroaster declared to be spurious deities, were at a later
period, but already in the time of Herodotus,^* introduced
into the Zoroastrian religion, though not yet represented
by images. The highest among these Daevas were Anahita
and Mithra, equivalent to the deities Ishtar and Shamaslf"
in the Babylonian pantheon. Anahita, and. as Marquart
contends,^^ in conjunction with Mithra, were, under the

1' The same idea is expressed also by the exilic Isaiah : 'The heaven is
my throne, and the earth is my footstool ; where is the house that ye built
unto me? and where ife the place of my rest?' (66. i), and also in the
prayer of Solomon : ' Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot
contain thee ; how much less the house that I have builded ' (i Kings 8. 27).
We need not see in this idea Persian influence or vice versa, as it is simple
enough to originate among various people independently. We shall further
refer to the fact that the Babylonian supreme god Anu does not seem to
have ever possessed a centre of his own, and it may be due to the same idea.

^* See Herodotus I, 131, where he states that the Persians believed in
elementary gods, which is certainly not in accordance with Zoroaster's
doctrines.

'5 Fundametite, p. 37. It is noteworthy that Plutarch, Artaxerxes,
XXIII, 7, states that Artaxerxes paid homage to no other goddess but Hera.
This goddess is evidently identical with Anahita, though the latter is
identified by him with Artemis, XII, 4. We need not assume that he
contradicts himself. Anahita has been identified with the Babylonian
goddess Ishtar who appears in various manifestations ; as Belit ihiiii,
'l^Iistress of the gods', she corresponds to Hera; as daughter of Anu, to
Pallas Athene ; as goddess of vegetation, to Demeter and also Persephone ;

126 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

reign of Artaxcrxes II, selected to be represented as
manifestations of Ahuramazda. Anahita was originally
a goddess of vegetation, but later became goddess of
fertility, and was represented with all the attributes of
\^ Ishtar. The main feature of her cult was prostitution.^"
A divinity of this kind strongly appealed to the sensual
propensities of the people, and was readily accepted
everywhere by the polytheistic inhabitants of the Persian
empire as chief deity and representative of the supreme god
Ahuramazda. If Marquart's view, which seems to be
corroborated by the cuneiform inscriptions of Artaxerxes,
is correct, we may assume that the Mithra- Feast became
about the same time the chief Persian festival, in which
the king used to get drunk and performed the national
dance of the Persians.

The introduction of that new element into the Zoroas-
trian religion was not due to the predilection of the king
for Anahita. This was done as a,.^oli-Ux:al_measu re for the
consolidation of the empire. Hence it was not left to
the free will of the people whether they should imitate
the example set by the king. The worship of that goddess
was made compulsory. The supremacy of Anahita actually
meant the supremacy of the ruling race. Her worship was
made a test of loyalty. Those who refused to recognize
her were marked as disloyal subjects. Marquart is un-
questionably right in seeing in the erection of the images

as sister of the Sun-god, to Artemis ; as goddess of fertility, to Aphrodite.
AH these attributes may have been taken over by Anahita. Plutarch may
have not known it, and speaking from a Greek religious point of view,
dilTerentiatcs between Anahita of Susa who may have been worshipped
as Hera, and between Anahita of Ecbatana who may have been identified
with Artemis.

'« See Justi, History, p. 95, and Ed. Moyer, G. A., Ill, p. 126 f.

THE ROOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 127

of that goddess in all the provincial capitals of the Persian
empire a royal law enjoining on all the inhabitants the
worship of Anahita.'^

Did that reform of the Zoroastrian religion produce
the desired effect of more firmly uniting the various races
of the Persian empire ? This may or may not have
been the case. We know only that it did not prevent
that empire's final downfall. Rut we may reasonably
doubt whether even united and in their full vigour
the Persians could have prevailed against the military
genius of their conqueror. However, that innovation
was of paramount importance for the dissemination
of the Zoroastiian religion. We may assume that the
successful introduction of the latter, and in its wake of
the Persian language, among the Turanians in Armenia
and Cappadocia^* was chiefly due to this reform of
Artaxerxes II. In Armenia, Anahita had temples at
Artaxata and Yashtishat in Tauranitis, and especially in
Erez in Akilisene, the whole region of which was con-
secrated to her.^'^ Here she had a golden statue, and
Strabo states that the daughters of the noble families used
to go there and prostitute themselves to strangers before
their marriage.-*^ She was worshipped likewise in Pontus
and Cilicia.^^ In Lydia she left numerous traces of her
presence, and became amalgamated with Cybele.^^ The
Zoroastrian religion, which even among the Iranians could
be kept in purity only in a limited circle, could hardly

^'^ FuftdameHie, p. 37.

1* See ibid., p. 38, and especially the article 'Armenia (Zoroastrian)' in
Hastings' Encydop.

^'' See the article ' Anaitis ', ibid.

«» Strabo's Geography, XI, 14, 16. 2' Ibid., XI, 8 ; XII, 3.

" See Rev. Arclicol., 3rd Series, VI, 107 ; VII, 156.

128 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

have gained adherents outside of Iran without undergoing
a complete change. Formerly there was a gulf between
the popular religion and that of Zoroaster, as the common
people, though Zoroastrians, by no means abandoned the
old Iranian Daevas.-^ This gulf was now being bridged
over by the innovation of Artaxerxes II, which sanctioned
the popular religious conceptions, and introduced them
into the system of the Zoroastrian religion. Both Zoroas-
trianism and Christianity succeeded in gaining adherents
and establishing themselves by conforming more or less
to the ideas and customs of the people.

Jackson, in his Zoroaster, observes: 'Tradition, ac-
cording to Brahman Yasht, asserts that Ardashir the Kayan,
whom they call Vohuman, son of Spen-dat, and whom we
know as Ardashir Dirazdast, or "the long-handed", is the
one " who made the religion current in the whole world ".
Actual history agrees with this, in so far as it shows that
Artaxerxes Longimanus, or " long-handed ", was an ardent
Zoroastrian ruler. From the pages of history we, further-
more, learn that by the time of the last Achaemenians^
at least, Zoroastrianism is practically acknowledged to have
become the national religion of the Iranians '.-* In the

2^ It is seen by the Persian proper names compounded with the names
of various Iranian gods, as Ed. Meyer points out, G.A., III, p. 126.

** P. 133 f- A similar view is expressed by Darmesteter, Aves/a, p. Iv :
'New progress marked the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus'. He goes
even so far as to contend : ' It was he who blended the worship of Anat-
Mylitta with that of the Iranian Anahita (the ascription of that innovation
to Artaxerxes Mnemon, by Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromata 1) must rest
on a clerical error, as in the time of Herodotus, who wrote under Longi-
manus, the worship of Anahita had already been introduced into Persia)'
(note 3). But Darmesteter's contention rests on a logical error. Berosus
(apud Clem.) does not state that the worship of Anahita was introduced
by Artaxerxes II. He merely states that the latter was the first who

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 1 29

light of our observations, the matter will be viewed
differently. The later Persian scholars, and even the
compilers of the Zend-Avesta which, as Renan observes,
is a Talmud rather than a Bible,^^ had no more exact
knowledge of Persian chronology than the Talmudic Rabbis.
The tradition of the dissemination of the Zoroastrian
religion being due to Ardashir is undoubtedly correct, but
the king of that name was not Artaxerxes Longimanus,
but his grandson Artaxerxes Mnemon. Besides, we cannot
find any historical source that presents the former king
as an ardent Zoroastrian. Concerning the reference of
Brahman Yasht to Vohuman son of Spen-dat we may
perhaps see in it an obscure tradition referring to Haman
{=■" flliavos) son of Hamdatha.^^

taught the Persians to worship anthromorphic images, in erecting statues
of Anahita. Darmesteter evidently overloolced the fact that Herodotiis
himself, who informs us of the worship of Anahita by the Persians, dis-
tinctly states that the Persians knew of no images of the gods. Moreover,
the same statement is given in his Exhortation to the Grtcks, V, i, and it is
unlikely that he should have committed twice the same error.

26 In his History, VII, 14.

28 Vohuman is rendered into Greek as Omanos, as Strabo, in his
Geography, XI, 14, states : ' There were founded both the sanctuaries of
Anaitis and of the associated gods, Omanos and Anadatos \ The latter
names remarkably resemble Hainan and Hamdatha. Strabo further
writes : ' These things were customary in the sanctuaries of Anaitis and
Omanos ' (XI, 16). The eleventh Persian month Vohumanah is called in
Cappadocian 'no^ai/ia (Lagarde, Purim, p. 33). Spenda-dat means 'given
by the Holy Spirit' (Justi, Iran. Namenb.). Haoma, which is the most
sacred and most powerful offering, comprising the life of the whole vegetable
kingdom, and by drinking of it man will become immortal on the Day of
Resurrection (Darmesteter, I.e., p. 69) may have been the symbol of the
Holy Spirit. Thus Hom-data and Spendadat may be synonymous names.
Pseudo-Smerdis, whom Darius in his Behistun-inscription calls Gaumata,
is by Ctesias called Sphenda-dates (see chapter IX). Thus it seems that
Spenda-dat is a priestly title, and not a proper name. In the light of these
observations, Cassel's view, quoted above (chapter II), that Haman and his

H. K

130 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

The limited circle of the true Zoroastrians no doubt
resented that innovation and corruption of the Persian
religion, and must have denounced it as heresy. But the
latter may have submitted sooner or later. We cannot
say to what extent they went in their zeal for the pre-
servation of the purity of the Zoroastrian religion. They
may or may not have sacrificed themselves in their oppo-
sition to that innovation. But we can with all certainty
assert that the only part of the populace which absolutely
refused to comply with the royal will and become idolaters
were the strictly religious Jews. The latter were, of course,
marked as disloyal subjects. Defying the authority of
the empire was nothing short of high treason, and could
not be tolerated. The ofificials had to enforce obedience
to the royal decree, without exempting any person, and
could not grant special privileges to the Jews.

We have already observed that as long as the Persian
religion was undefiled by idolatrous practices, the Jews
in all probability boasted in the presence of the Persians
and their ofificials that their own religion was closely akin
to or identical with that of Zoroaster. The Persians could
not but be flattered by the compliment paid to their own
religion, it being of such a high character that non-Iranians
pride themselves in having similar religious conceptions.
This established good will and friendship between Persians
and Jews. The favours granted to the Jews by the
Persian kings may have been due to that fact. Now the
condition was different. In refusing to worship Anahita,
the Jews showed that the Persian religion was not^gopd
enough for them. This could not fail to arouse the hatred

father belonged to the tribe of the Magians, is rather probable. Their
names may have been priestly titles and not proper names.

THE BOOK "OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 13I

of the gentiles. It was of course the cause of arguments,
and frequently led to personal attacks. The officials who
had continually to punish the Jews for their stubbornness,
and to settle the quarrels between them and their enemies,
considered them a constant source of annoyance, a turbu-
lent, disloyal elemien^tjjp_ong_.a4ieacefuia«d loyal populace.

This was a period of religious persecutions, similar to
those the Jews experienced under the reign of Antiochus
Epiphanes, and frequently in the Middle Ages. Yet the
former persecutions were somewhat different from the latter.
The Jews were not ordered ' to forsake their own laws ' ''^'^,
but to recognize the supremacy of Anahita, and to worship
her. The latter was the more dangerous to the Jewish
religion. Seeing in the worship of Anahita a mere formality,
many Jews pretended compliance with the will of the king
without regarding such a step as apostasy from Judaism.
These Jews, though bitterly resenting the force that com-
pelled them to pay respect to idols they abominated,
practically did not suffer any inconvenience, and still
remained on friendly terms with their neighbours. The
only victims of those persecutions were the strictly
religious Jews.

We have seen that in post-exilic times the only mark
of 'Jews' (Dmn^) was the rejection of idols, and under
Persian rule, that mark was obliterated. The business
documents of the Persian period show that a large number
of Jews of that time were engaged in commerce. We may
well assume that this was the only course open to them
for providing means of subsistence. A nation, as a rule,
is not disposed to admit large numbers of foreigners into
its country to take possession of the soil and to settle as

^■^ I Mace. I. 41.

K I

132 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

peasants, unless as bondmen. And not every man is able
to be an artisan. But primitive nations readily welcome
people who serv^e as middlemen between producer and con-
sumer. Men of that calling do not live crowded together,
but settle, whenever afforded an opportunity, in localities
where competition is not too keen. Thus scattered in
small numbers throughout the provinces of the Persian
empire, the Jews were scarcely noticeable, as long as they
peacefully attended to their own affairs. The succeeding
generations of the immigrants were in all probability not
different in language, dress, habits, and many even in their
names, from the people among whom they dwelt. Now
and then some neighbours learned incidentally that those
people had a peculiar creed of their own. But a casual
observer would have held them to belong to the strict
Zoroastrians. Even the keen-eyed Herodotus who noticed
every feature of the Oriental peoples, did not know the
Jews as adherents of a special creed. With the corruption
of the Persian religion, the Jews were thrown back into the
former state under Babylonian rule. Those who refused
to participate in the worship of Anahita, pleaded that the
faith they professed prohibited the worship of idols, and
thus became known as adherents of a different creed. A
ifibarrier was now being erected between Jews and Gentiles.
|The former could not faithfully adhere to their religion,
[without being recognized as 'Jews' (□'"Tin"').

If there is any reliance on historical analogy, we may
accept it as an indisputable fact that the innovation of
Artaxerxes II introduced into the Persian religion was
the cause of Jewish persecutions. It would be of no con-
sequence whether there were records testifying to those
events or not. We must bear in mind that the real

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY I33

sufferers were the zealous, pious Jews, who formed only
a very small portion of the Jewish people. The perse-
cutions were, in all probability, occasioned at the time
of the high festivals of Anahita,-^ when the Jews, in refusing
to participate in the festivities, sharply contrasted with the
rest of the people. Only those denounced by malignant
neighbours suffered the penalty of the law. The Jews
settled in small towns and villages where there were no
sanctuaries of Anahita, could easily under some excuse
stay away from the festivities without exposing themselves
to any danger. The hatred caused by the refusal of the
pious Jews to recognize the divinity of that goddess
naturally reacted upon all the Jews, who were looked at
askance by the people and the authorities. However, if
they held their peace, and did not express any opinion
averse to the Persian religion, they could not be legally
punished. The execution of a number of Jews in the
various centres of the Persian empire was not so important
an event as to be recorded by historians.

But we have, as it would appear, some record of those
Jewish persecutions by the Persians. Hecataeus, according
to Flavius Josephus, in his Polemics against Apion, states
that the Persians erected temples and altars in Palestine,
and attempted to turn the Jews away from their religion. '-^'■^
This statement refers of course to the reform of the
Zoroastrian religion by Artaxerxes II.^° The historian
Graetz, in his History of the Jews^^ describes that event

">■* See chapter VII. 2* Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.

3" Willrich {Judaica, p. 92) docs not believe this statement, and naively
asks: 'Who should have attempted in the Persian period to do so?'
He ought to have read Graetz's History of the Jews and his references to
Berosus before dealing with Jewish history.

^' German edition II, p. 208, and his notes, pp. 412 ff. ; Engl, edition I,
p. 408.

134 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

as follows: 'The relations between the Judeans and the
Persians were at the same time somewhat disturbed. The
latter, influenced by foreign example, began to practise
idolatry. The goddess of love, who under the different
names Beltis, Mylitta, or Aphrodite, was constantly brought
under the notice of the Persians, exercised a powerful
influence upon them. The victories they had achieved,
and the riches they had acquired inclined them to sensual
pleasures. They were, therefore, easily enthralled by the
goddess and induced to serve and worship her. As soon
as they had adopted this deity, they gave her a Persian
name, and included her in their mythology. Artaxerxes II
sanctioned her worship, and had images of her placed
everywhere in his great kingdom, in the principal cities
Babylon, Susa, and Ecbatana, as well as in Damascus and
Sardes, and in all the towns of Persia and Bactria . . .
Thus the spiritual link which had bound the Persians to
the followers of Judaism — their common abhorrence of
idolatry — was broken. . . . Having compelled his own
people to bow down to this newly adopted goddess of love,
Artaxerxes tried, as it appears, to force her worship upon
the Judeans ; the latter were cruelly treated in order to
make them renounce their religion, but they chose the
severest punishment, and even death rather than abjure
the faith of their fathers.' This account of that event,
though not exact in details in the light of our investiga-
tions, is in the main correct. Graetz did not see the real
object of the introduction into the Persian religion of the
cult of that goddess, nor the reason for enforcing her
worship upon the Jews. It was certainly not due to a
mere fancy of the king to make her worship obligatory on
all inhabitants of the Persian empire. The departure from

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 135

the policy of his predecessors not to interfere with the
creeds of their subjects was urged upon this king for
political reasons.

However, Hecataeus was acquainted with the circum-
stances of that event only as far as it concerned the Jews
of the province Judea. Here was the centre of the cult
of Jahveh. The whole province almost exclusively in-
habited by a people which detested idolatry was forced
to the worship of idols.^^ The disturbances caused by
these proceedings must have been sensational, and excited
wide-spread interest. Egypt, which a (ew years before the
accession of Artaxerxes H recovered its independence from
the Persian empire, and was continually in a state of war
whh the latter, must have watched with keen satisfaction
the unsettled conditions in the neighbourland, and we may
reasonably conjecture that it incited the Jews to rise
against their oppressors and promised them its assistance.
But the Jews may have profited by the experiences of their
past, well knowing that the friendship of Egypt was just
as responsible for the downfall of the states of Israel and
Judah as the armies of Assyria and Babylonia,"^ and
preferred to suffer rather than to rise in arms and * to trust
in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt '.^^ Hecataeus

82 As to the Samaritans, though they were worshippers of Jahveh, they
were not yet pure monotheists, and still continued ' to serve their gods and
to fear Jahveh ', as the author of Kings described their religion. At any
rate, their religious conceptions were not different from those of the former
Israelitish inhabitants (see 2 Kings 17. 34-41). The change in their
religious conceptions belongs to a later period.

3* Both prophets, Isaiah (20. 5, 6 ; 30. 3, 4) and Jeremiah (37, 7), warned
the Judeans not to rely upon the promises of the Egyptians, and not to rise
against the Assyrians and Babylonians, and their state would have survived
if they had accepted this advice.

3^ 2 Kings 18. 21.

336 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

who flourished in the fourth century B. C. E., and Hved
in Egypt as the close friend of Ptolemy I, was a reliable
authority on the events of that period in Judea. But he
had no information concerning the same kind of perse-
cutions in the interior provinces of the Persian empire.
Here the persecutions were not directed against a people
but against individuals who resisted the royal decree. If
numbers of them were on certain occasions imprisoned
and executed, events of this kind were not so rare as to
attract special attention.

While we have no external testimony for the latter
persecutions, we are fortunately in possession of a biblical
record testifying to that effect. We find such a record,
evidently based on a true tradition, in the Book of Daniel,
in the third chapter. The narrative, embellished with
miraculous and anachronistic features, states : ' The king
Nebuchadnezzar made a golden image of large dimensions
and set it up in the Babylonian city of Dura. Then he
assembled the princes, the governors, and the captains,
the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and
all the rulers of the provinces, to be present at the dedica-
tion of that image and the performance of the rites. Then
he proclaimed by heralds that all people, nations, and
languages should fall down and worship the golden image
at the sound of the music of the solemn service; and
whosoever should not comply with the command, should
the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery
furnace. Therefore all the people did as the king com-
manded. But Chaldeans came and accused certain Jews
to have no regard for the king's commands, refusing to
serve his gods and to worship the golden image. Then
these Jews were brought before the king, but even in his

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 1 37

presence they remained stubborn, still refusing to do his
command. Then they were bound and cast into the
burning fiery furnace, but the fire had no power over
them.' ^^

Extremely divergent opinions are held concerning
the historicity, contents, and tendencies of the Book of
Daniel. But there can be no disputing that its author
was of high intellect and well acquainted with Oriental
customs. This account, however, seems so singular as to
reflect upon the intellect of its author. Does it stand
to reason that any polytheist should ever have refused
to worship an idol, unless threatened by being cast into
a fiery furnace? But divesting this account of all ana-
chronistic and miraculous elements, it presents a plain
historical tradition of the innovation of Artaxerxes II
introduced into the Zoroastrian religion ; it describes how
this king — as ruler of Babylon styled Nebuchadnezzar —
erected a golden image of Anahita in Babylonia, how he
forced the Zoroastrians under the penalty of death to bow
down to it, and the royal command was complied with
by all except the strictly religious Jews. This tradition
presents the antecedents of and the prologue to the Book
of Esther. It bears at the same time testimony to the
monotheistic character of the Zoroastrian religion and
the high religious principles of its adherents, that only the
choice between life and death compelled them to submit
to the royal will. We may well assume that they deeply
resented this command and secretly sympathized with its
Jewish victims. How exact in some points this tradition
is may be seen by the fact that this golden image is said
to have been set up in Diaa = Der = Durilu, in North

36 Dan. 3. 1-31.

138 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

Babylonia, in the neighbourhood of Babylon. This locality
was from ancient times the centre of Ishtar with whose
attributes Anahita was invested. Just as the supreme
Babylonian god Anu never possessed a centre of his own,^*'
but was always worshipped in conjunction with his
daughter Ishtar, who was the representative of her father,
so Ahuramazda was worshipped through his manifestation
Anahita, and never possessed a temple of his own. There
was indeed a burning fiery furnace. But it was not for
the purpose of casting into it the recalcitrants to the
worship of Anahita. This was the Holy Fire, the symbol
of Ahuramazda. The Holy Fire would have been defiled
by casting into it human beings. In this tradition we thus
have an authentic record of that event, and of the Jewish
persecutions in the East of that period.

It is of interest to find that the Talmud regards the
danger impending over the Jews as punishment for their
transgression in having submitted to the worship of the
image described in the Book of Daniel. It is not im-
possible that the Talmud had some dim tradition as to
the connexion of those two events. It is stated : ^^ 'The
Jews of that period deserved destruction for having bowed
down to the image erected by Nebuchadnezzar ; but as
they merely pretended to worship it, God intended to
•scare them as a punishment for their cowardice.'

'^ The city of Erech was properly the centre of Nnna-Ishtar, not of Anu.

S'^ Megillah 12 a. But the Rabbis, led astray by Daniel's chronology,
believed that the event of Purim occurred within the seventy years of the
captivity, and that Ahasuerus reigned not long after the death of Nebuchad-
nezzar (cf. ibtd. 16 a).

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY I39

CHAPTER VII

The author of the reform — The success of the reform among the
Persians — The resistance of the Jews^Tlie contrary effect of the per-
secutions upon them — Their plea — Esther's relationship to Mordecai — His
identity among gentiles — The necessity of his having some position at the
court— His discovery of a conspiracy — His attitude towards the persecuted
Jews — His refusal to bow down to the prime minister — His confession of
being a Jew— The prime minister's hesitation to punish him — His action
and the creed of the Jews — The significance of the casting of lots — Tlie
simultaneity of Purim with a non-Jewish festival— The epagomena — Haman's
difficult task— The Jews in Palestine— Haman's accusation — His aim— The
sanguinary style of his decree — His promise of ten thousand talents —
His wealth — The king's investigations — The early promulgation of the decree
— Its being reconsidered under the influence of wine.

In the preceding chapter we learned from the pages
of history that there was a Jewish persecution under the
reign of Artaxerxes II. Turning to the Book of Esther,
we are confronted by the fact that the chief executive of
that king was an inveterate enemy of the Jews. We may
thus safely conclude that those Jewish persecutions occurred
at a time when this Jewish enemy stood at the head of
the Persian government. But the persecutions could not
have been due to a personal enmity of the prime minister
towards the Jews. They were merely the outcome of the
greatest movement in the spiritual life of the Persians since
Zoroaster. On the other hand, we find that this minister

140 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

occupied an extraordinarily high position, without seeing
any cause for his elevation. Considering all these facts,
we are justified in looking for a logical connexion between
the innovation of Artaxerxes II, the exalted position of
his prime minister, and the enmity of the latter towards
the Jews. This connexion we find in seeing in that prime
minister who so severely persecuted those who did not
willingly submit to the Zoroastrian reform the very author
and originator of this idea. The author of the Book of
Esther had no intention of writing Persian history. His
sole aim was to explain the origin of Purim. He, there-
fore, wrote only the facts absolutely necessary for our
information, ' of that which they had seen concerning this
matter, and which had come unto them '. As to the other
facts he refers us to ' the book of the chronicles of the
kings of Media and Persia '. Moreover, the Book being
compiled for the Jews of the Persian empire, the author
could not touch upon the antecedents of that event, and
refer to the cause of that prime minister's elevation, the
corruption of the Zoroastrian religion, and the resistance
of the Jews to that worship, without deeply insulting the
adherents of that religion and endangering thereby the
existence of the Jews.

The plan of reforming the Persian religion, by which
it should gain popularity and be more easily disseminated
among the subjects of the Persian empire, certainly did
not originate in the muddled brains of an effeminate
monarch, but was devised, as already suggested, by one
of the royal councillors. It was no doubt a very clever
device for the purpose of establishing Zoroastrianism as
the religion of the Persian empire. However, the intro-
duction of that innovation was extremely dangerous.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 14I

Failure to realize it might have been disastrous to the
dynasty, or at least, to the king. The Holy Wars, described
in the Sacred Books of the Zoroastrians, which, according
to Jackson and others,^ occurred in the sixth century B.C.E.,
could not have been forgotten in the course of two
centuries. The great festival of the Magophonia established
to commemorate the overthrow of Pseudo-Smerdis, who
evidently had intended to abolish the Zoroastrian religion
and to reintroduce the old Iranian popular belief, was, as
Ctesias informs us,^ still celebrated at that period. Some
satraps, under the pretext of defending the purity of the
Zoroastrian religion, might have caused an insurrection.^
The plan could not have met with the unanimous approval
of the privy council. The strict Zoroastrians could not
have been a party to the corruption of their religion, and
naturally advised against that reform. The biblical tradi-
tion discussed above shows that the nobility and the
officials were bitterly opposed to that innovation, and
submitted to it only under the penalty of death. Many
officials, though indifferent to religious principles, may have
shrunk from being associated in the execution of that plan,
knowing well that, if it should fail and cause disaster, the

^ Jackson, Zo'-oasfer, p. 174; Alfred Jeremias holds the same opinion
{The Old Testament in the light of the Ancient East, I, pp. 161 ff.) that
' Zoroaster's theology dales from the sixth century'.

2 Ctesias, Persica, 15.

* We have already pointed out that the letter of Cyrus to the Lacedae-
monians, in which he boasted of being instructed in the doctrines of the
Magi, is not without significance. The Lacedaemonians had no concern
whether Cyrus knew more of the religious doctrines than Artaxerxes. But
he meant to indicate that in his enterprise he could reckon upon the assistance
of the priesthood and the ' Church ' party (see chapter IV, n. 21), Ardashir,
who overthrew the empire of the Philhellenic Parthians and founded the
New-Persian empire was a Magus (^Darmesteter, /. c, p. 55).

142 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

king would hold them responsible, and willingly sacrifice
them, to appease the anger of the people, as usually
happens.

Impressed by the magnitude of the plan, and being
convinced by the reasons advanced, that it was the best
remedy for the prevention of the empire's dissolution,
Artaxerxes entrusted the execution of the plan to its
author. Such a sweeping and far-reaching plan could not
have been carried through by a minister with limited
powers. The satraps and governors of the provinces who
were not favourably inclined towards the innovation might
have interfered with his ordinances, and ignored them.
The royal princes might have been too proud to receive
orders from an inferior in rank. Therefore, committed to
that policy, the king was bound to bestow upon this
minister the highest rank, exalting him over all princes,
grandees, satraps, and governors of the empire. Thus it was
not a favour, but a grave task, conferred upon this councillor.
By his elevation he was made responsible for the success
of his advice. If the contrary of his intentions should
occur, and the policy inaugurated by him should cause
insurrections, he was utterly ruined. This councillor, of
EsUiera. r. course, we identify with ' Haman, the son of Hammedatha,
whom the king promoted and advanced, and set his seat
above all the princes that were with him '.

This councillor, however,appears to have been thoroughly
acquainted with the religious sentiments of the Persian
common people. The Iranians, though Zoroastrians and
not worshippers of anthropomorphic images, never entirely
abandoned the gods of the old popular belief. This fact
is borne out by the numerous Persian proper names of the
sixth and fifth centuries, which arc compounded with

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 1 43

names of old Iranian deities.^ The close intercourse with
the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and other polytheistic
nations for a considerable period was not without influence
upon the religious conception of the Iranians. The latter
became gradually reconciled to the idea of representations
of the divine beings in which they continued to believe.
Therefore the latter did not meet with any serious opposi-
tion among the Iranians. The strict Zoroastrians represented
by the intellectual class, and many of the dignitaries, as
it seems, though of considerable influence, formed only
a small portion of the population, as Zoroaster's religion
was too spiritual to attract real converts. None of them
were courageous enough to raise the standard of rebellion
for the religious cause. The polytheistic nations of the
empire, which regarded the ruling Iranians as enemies of
the gods, could not but be pleased with the religious
change.

Nevertheless, the success of this reform was not quite
complete. Resistance arose among a part of the population
with which the prime minister never reckoned. In his
official career, the Jews could not have been unknown to
him, but like all the Persians who came in contact with
them, he looked upon their religion as a variety of Zoro-
astrianism, and was not interested in finding out its exact
nature. The Jews for their own sake had good reason for
upholding and corroborating these incorrect opinions, as
we already observed.^ Therefore, it was to be expected
that the Jews, like all other Zoroastrians, would submit

* See chapter VI, n. 23.

^ Marquart, Fuudaiiientc, p. 37, remarks : ' It is probable that the Jews
represented to Artaxerxes their God as being essentially identical with
Ahuramazda, hence his sympathy for the Jews' (see chapter V, note 51).

144 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

to the religious reform. However, the Jews formed so
insignificant a fraction of the inhabitants of the Persian
empire that it may be seriously doubted whether the prime
minister thought of them at all, and whether their sub-
mission or resistance ever entered into the calculations of
his scheme.

But the resistance of the Jews was by no means im-
material to the success of the innovation. Numerically
and in all other respects they were at too great a dis-
advantage to apprehend on their part any serious opposition,
not to say, an insurrection. But one spark may set a
building aflame where there is combustible matter. The
dissatisfaction of the strict Zoroastrians with the corruption
of their creed might have been stimulated by the example
set by the Jews, and might have found vent in a Holy
War, and this was certainly a subject of serious appre-
hension. Being informed of the resistance of the Jews,
the prime minister instructed the officials to adopt the
strictest measures against them. Receiving continuous
reports from all parts of the empire of their obstinacy,
his mind could not have been well disposed towards them.
At first he may have tried rather lenient measures to
render them submissive. But seeing the futility of bending
them to his will in that way, he had no course but to break
their stubborn resistance by imposing upon them the most
severe sentences. The condemned, of course, gave vent to
their imprecations on the author of their doom. Thus it
happened that this prime minister became a persecutor of
the strict adherents of the Jewish religion, and was looked
upon as ' an enemy of the Jews '.

The prime minister was under the delusion that a
number of executions in various sections of the empire

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 145

would have the salutary effect of frightening the rest
into obedience. But the efifect of these executions was
contrary to his expectations. The Persians had not yet
had the experiences of religious persecutors, that blood is
the best fertilizer for the growth of a religious creed. One
martyr made numerous converts. As in former days,
under Babylonian rule, the courage, devotion, and fervour
of the martyrs reawakened the religious conscience slumber-
ing in the hearts of many indifferent Jews. Many of the
latter who by their conduct had not even been recognized
as Jews, now openly declared their adherence to the Jewish
creed, protesting against the cruel treatment of their co-
religionists, and denouncing the author of those persecutions.
We may doubt whether they went to the utmost limit
of sacrificing themselves for their religion. But they were
at least willing to share the disadvantage of being known
as adherents of an unpopular creed. There may have been
others less indifferent who. moved by the example set by
their brethren, became strictly religious, and were ready
to share the fate of the latter. The Talmud appears to
be right in observing, that the Jews had again voluntarily
accepted the Jewish religion, in the days of Ahasuerus.**

In former days, the Jews had been eager to demonstrate
to the Persians that their own religion was closely akin
to that of the latter. This policy had now to be abandoned ;
for if the Jewish religion was based upon the same
principles as that of Zoroaster, there was no ground why

* Shabbath 88 b. The Talmud, however, in all probability did not know
of these persecutions, and merely based its saying upon the verse: 'The
Jews confirmed and took upon themselves ' (IX, 27), which they interpreted :
'They confirmed now (the Law) which they had taken upon themselves
long ago ' (-133 •li?3pC' HD IC^p).

II. L

146 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

it should not undergo the same change. The logical con-
clusion would have been that the opposition the royal
decree met with on the part of the Jews, was not due to
the fundamental principles of their religion, but to the
obstinacy and disloyalty of its adherents. The Jews could
plead their innocence only by demonstrating that their
own religion prohibited the worship of idols, that 'their
laws are diverse from all people '. They could easily refute
the accusation of being disloyal subjects by pointing out
that they had always recognized the divinity of Ahura-
mazda, the supreme God of the Iranians, and still continue
to do the same, being thus more loyal to the Persians
than all their polytheistic subjects who formerly had not
the least regard for the Persian religion. This plea was
irrefutable, but more harmful to their cause than silence.
The Jews thus assumed the part of ' Defenders of the
Faith ', insisting upon the purity of Zoroaster's religion.
Now intolerance toward the creeds of the non-Iranians was
not a part of the scheme of that innovation, as the recogni-
tion of Anahita did not restrain them from continuing
to worship their own deities. The idea of toleration,
however, did not work as far as the creed of the Jews was
concerned. The prime minister perceived that the religious
conceptions of these people were inimical to and incom-
patible with the execution of his measures. He saw in
this religion the root of the evil which must be eradicated.
It was against Persian political principles to be intolerant
towards other religious beliefs, and he may have been
reluctant to depart from them and apply measures for the
suppression of the Jewish religion. The latter, however,
the fundamental doctrine of which was : ' Thou shalt have
no other gods before me ... for I the Lord thy God am

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY I47

a jealous God ', could not expect tolerance from the
believers in other gods, the existence of which it denied.
But as long as those who resisted his ordinances were
merely found sporadically, no great harm was done, and
he was loath to use extreme measures against the practice
of that religion. He saw that this fundamental doctrine was
adhered to only by a small fraction of the Jews, and believed
that with their extinction, it would be in abeyance, and
no longer detrimental to the innovation. But the con-
dition became more and more aggravated. This strictly
monotheistic conception gained converts everywhere. An
example of this kind we find in Mordecai.

The author of our story informs us : ' Esther had not Esther 2.
showed her people nor her kindred '. Does the author
intend to state that Esther kept secret not only her Jewish
extraction but also her kinship to Mordecai ? How could
she have done so, since she was taken from Mordecai's
house, and he went every day to inquire of the eunuchs
about her?'' If Mordecai was known to be a Jew, and
anxious that Esther should conceal her connexion with
the Jews, was he not afraid lest by his constant solici-
tude for her welfare the secret might leak out ? The
author could not be guilty of so flagrant a contradiction.
This statement undoubtedly meant to imply that Esther
concealed the fact that she belonged to those who were
adherents of the Jewish religion. Since, however, Esther
was actually of Jewish lineage, the author used the para-

' Owing to the current interpretation of the Book of Esther, this question
has not yet found a satisfactory solution. Haupt, Critical Notes, p. 135,
thinks that by some diplomatic questions Mordecai could have obtained
some special information concerning Esther without revealing the fact that
she was his cousin and foster-daughter. But this is impossible, since she
was taken from Mordecai's house, as Paton, p. 175, and others object.

L Z

148 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

phrase ' her people and her kindred '. Thus Esther kept
secret her Jewish reh'gion.^ But Mordecai did exactly the
same. He was not known among the Gentiles to be a Jew.^
Thus there was no reason why Esther should have con-
cealed her kinship to Mordecai. It was by no means
necessary to be of pure Persian lineage to be regarded as
Persian. Herodotus states that the children of Metiochus,
the son of Miltiades, were accounted Persians.^'' If Greeks
could be so easily changed into Persians, why not Jews?
Mordecai, like many other Jews of that period, was in dress,
habit, language, and, in all probability, even in his name,^^
not in the least different from any other Persian. Having
been an indifferent Jew, he was looked upon by his neigh-
bours and casual acquaintances as a genuine Persian.

An obscure private citizen can easily conceal his identity,
but not a high official who is constantly in the eye of the
public which is naturally curious to learn all about his
personality and pedigree. Esther, soon after her elevation
to the rank of queen, procured for her cousin an office
at the court. She might have done so, informing the king
that Mordecai was related to her, without dwelling upon
the fact that the latter was her cousin and had adopted
her as his daughter. This she did after the downfall of
Haman. Both Mordecai and Esther were anxious to
conceal their identity, which could only be effected if
the former remained in a humble position, fearing that
the king on being informed of their close kinship might
appoint the queen's adopted father to a high position. We

* See chapter V, n. 63. ^ See chapter V.

10 Herodotus VI, 41.

" We may reasonably assume that Mordecai had a Persian name (see
chapter IX). The same is true of Nchcmiah, cf. Marquart, Fimdamente,
P-3I'

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 149

may assume that even then the king was willing to bestow
upon him some considerable office, but Esther, under some
pretext, may have declined it.'*'^ However, there is no need
to assume that Mordecai owed his office at the court
to the king's favour. The queen had only to hint at such
a request to the chief of the eunuchs or to one of the high
dignitaries to procure for Mordecai this position. Thus
Mordecai became one of the guards, ' sitting in the king's
gate '.

Was there any urgent need for giving Mordecai a
position at the court? Mordecai, being a descendant of
a wealthy family, was not in need of this position for his
sustenance. Nor was he ambitious to pride himself on
being a court official. We have seen that Mordecai's desire
that Esther should captivate the king's heart was not due
to his personal ambition, but to the forethought that in
time of need she might be helpful to the Jewish people.
This plan showed, as we have observed, his solicitude for
the welfare of his brethren but little regard for their tenets.
This plan required that Mordecai should be in the proximity
of the queen. As an attendant of the royal court, it was
possible for him, by means of the eunuchs, in case of an
emergency, to be in communication with the queen without
attracting attention.

As one of the body-guards in charge of the gate of the Esthers,
royal palace, Mordecai was, of course, in intercourse and ^^ ^^'
on friendly terms with other attendants and eunuchs about
the person of the king. Thus, on one occasion, he discovered
a plot against the life of the king. This plot may be
identical with the conspiracy against the life of Artaxerxes,
which, if Aspasia, the concubine of Cyrus, did play any

'^ Sec Casbcl's reflections upon this poHcy, p. 65.

150 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

part in it, must have occurred not many years after
the battle of Cunaxa, as was already suggested in the
fourth chapter. In that case, the servant who, according
to Plutarch, divulged that conspiracy, may be identical
with Mordecai. Our text is here, owing to an error of
a copyist, somewhat confused. We have to read : ' In those
days, when the virgins were gathered together, the second
time, and while Mordecai sat in the king's gate, two of the
king's eunuchs, Bigthan and Teresh, of those which kept
the door, were wroth ' ('Dn-ir:^ n^JK' mhn2 Y2pr\2 nr\n n^c>a
PIDH nr:B'» n^on 'ono ^jb' onni inn p]vp n^»n -iyK'3 2^') ^^.
Our author intends to give the date of that conspiracy:
it occurred at a time when virgins were gathered again.
We have seen that gatherings of this kind were an old-
established institution at the Persian courts, for the purpose

1^ No commentator has as yet explained this passage. Wildeboer thinks
that when a company of girls arrived people crowded into the court to see
them, and that Mordecai took that opportunity to penetrate further into the
palace than he could ordinarily go. Siegfried explains this clause as due to
the clumsiness of the author. See the various views by Paton, pp. i86 ff.
But while seeking the explanation how Mordecai could have discovered
the conspiracy at the time of the gathering of the virgins, they overlooked
the main difficulty of that passage. This can have no connexion with the
conspiracy, since it is separated from the latter's description by verse 20 :
' Esther had not yet shown her people nor her kindred, &c.' However,
a close examination of that passage shows that it is indeed misplaced. We
notice in the first place that the clause ' Mordecai was sitting in the king's
gate' is repeated twice in the verses 19 and 21. Moreover, after the words
Dnn ^^^2 we would expect "J^Dn ''\W2 ''211JD r\2t'2, according to the
author's style (cf. 5^'TlC'nN "^btZT] n^tiO DHH D''D''n). Therefore we
suggest that some copyist omitted to write in verse 21 the clause J*3pn3
n^JK' Di/ina, and in order to show that it belongs after DnH Q-O^^, he
wrote on the margin perpendicularly, there not being enough space for
horizontal wiiting, both clauses '\]}^2 ^KT "'DmiDI fl'-JB' mSnn Y2pr[2
*]/JDn ; and another copyist inserted them in a wrong place, in verse 19.
Thus originally they had some connexion with the conspiracy.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY I51

of replacing the faded beauties of the harem.^* We may
assume that they always occurred when the various
governors of the provinces sent to the court a sufficient
supply. We are not distinctly informed of the nature
of that plot. In the conspiracy of Darius, mentioned by
Plutarch, the conspirators intended to murder Artaxerxes
in his bed-chamber. In our case, the conspirators were
' of the keepers of the threshold ' (sjOn n»tr»), who evidently
guarded the entrance to the king's private chambers. This
may be corroborated by the fact that they were eunuchs,
while it was not a requirement of those ' who sat on the
king's gate' to belong to that class. Therefore we may
conjecture that it was a conspiracy of the same kind.
However, there is a possibility that the clause, ' when the
virgins were gathered together, the second time ', is more
than a date, and has a deeper meaning. Did the con-
spirators intend to murder the king by pretending to
introduce to him one of the newly arrived virgins ? We
may perhaps think of how Alexander of Macedonia, the
son of Amyntas, destroyed the Persian embassy by intro-
ducing to them beardless youths dressed in garments of
women.^^ We may even imagine that one of the virgins
may have been a party to the conspiracy in order to avenge
the death of some relatives. We may recall the case of
Phaedima, the daughter of Otanes, who played a very
important part in the overthrow of Smerdis.^'' Having
been one of the guards, and on intimate terms with the
other attendants, Mordecai may have been invited to join

'* See chapter IV, note 12.

'^ Herodotus V, 20. Similar stories are told by many ancient writers,
see G. Rawllnson, Herodotus, vol. IV, p. 190, n i.
'6 Herodotus III, 69.

152 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

the conspiracy. The fact that he disclosed it reflects no
credit upon Mordecai. The king's murder would have
ended all his hopes and expectations of Esther's high
position for the benefit of his brethren. He had more
interest in the king's life than had any one else. The king,
of course, could not know this, and we may safely con-
jecture that the latter, as a reward for his deed, was willing
to appoint him to a high office commensurate with his
merits. But Mordecai, as we have seen, could not have
accepted this honour.^'^ The chief executive at that time
saw no reason to promote Mordecai against his will, and
was certainly well pleased with Mordecai's modesty.
Nevertheless, his deed being recorded in the royal archives
as that of *a benefactor of the king', it was a valuable
asset of which Mordecai could make use in time of need.

Considering that Mordecai was so anxious to advance
the welfare of his brethren, the question naturally arises :
Why did he not request Esther to intercede with the
king on behalf of the persecuted Jews? Not having
been strictly religious, Mordecai considered the recog-
nition of Anahita a mere formality, and disapproved
of the fanaticism of the strictly religious Jews. He saw
in their obstinacy an act of self-destruction. We must
bear in mind that, as already observed, Haman in all other
respects did not interfere with the practices and observances
of the Jewish religion. Moreover, Mordecai knew what
importance the king attached to the innovation recently
introduced into the Zoroastrian religion, seeing in it a
panacea for his diseased empire, and had no expectation

" Paton, p. 192: 'Why Mordecai should not have been rewarded at
once, but his services merely recorded in the annals, is hard to understand.'
Similarly Siegfried and others see in it a defect of composition.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY I53

that Esther's intercession with the king would be of any
avail. In doing so, Esther might have endangered her
position, and would have been of no further use to the
Jewish cause. But notwithstanding his disapproval of
the zeal of his brethren, blood is proverbially thicker than
water, and his heart bled at the sight of their misery.
Its author being the prime minister, Mordecai naturally
heartily detested the butcher of his brethren.

All commentators on the Book of Esther have laboured
in vain in seeking a rational explanation for Mordecai's
refusal to bow down to Haman, a homage certainly due
to the chief executive and highest grandee of the empire.'^
Modern exegetes, who see in the events narrated in this
book pure fiction, regard this point as one of the principal
defects in the composition of our story. We do not blame
them, as the historical events of that period which form
the background of our story and the antecedents of
Haman's position were not known to them. But in the
light of the present exposition it is clear that Mordecai
in his state of mind could not have acted in any other
way. Paying homage to the relentless persecutor and
murderer of his brethren was for Mordecai out of the
question. No Jew with a spark of honour could have
stooped to so base an action. Thus it was not vanity
that prevented Mordecai from doing obeisance to the prime
minister. But we might still contend that it was imprudent
of Mordecai to insult the prime minister, who was entitled
to the honour o^ TrpoaKvvqa-LS, according to the Persian law,
from all his subordinates. ^'^ Mordecai should have spared

^^ The old explanation that Haman claimed divine honours is of course
fancy (see the various views by Paton, p. 196 f.).

!'•' Our author clearly states that it was a special command of tlie king.

151- THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

himself that humiliation by resigning his position at the
court, and would thus not have to face the prime minister.
The Talmud actually blames Mordecai for his conduct.'^"
However, we have to bear in mind that just at that period,
when the conditions of the Jews became more and more
precarious, it was more than ever necessary for Mordecai
to remain in the proximity of Esther. He saw in his mind
the time approaching when Esther's intercession would
be the only means of rescuing his people. But even if
Mordecai's conduct was unwise, the very fact that he dared
to challenge Haman proves how deeply he was affected
by the sufferings of his brethren. Carried away by his
passionate hatred towards the persecutor of his people,
he was unable to consider the inadvisability of insulting
the former, and was even careless about his own safety.
This conduct, if imprudent, redounds even more to his
honour as a Jew than the great service he later rendered
to the Jewish cause. In exposing his own life, Mordecai
fully identified himself with the strict adherents of the
Jewish religion.
Esthers. 2. Thus while 'all the king's servants, that were in the
king's gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman : for the king
had so commanded concerning him, Mordecai bowed not,
nor did him homage'. His odd behaviour could not pass
unnoticed. His fellow keepers of the gate could not

Herodotus tells us about the method of salutation by the Persians : ' Where
the difference in rank is great, the inferior prostrates himself upon the
ground.' Our author may mean that Haman was by his elevation, according
to the Persian law, entitled to receive that salutation from all officials.
However, it may have been a special command of the king that Haman,
who occupied such a high position, should be saluted in that way by every-
body ; the king may have intended to show that he had appointed him
as his alter ego, and that his authoniy is like that of the king.
20 Megillah 13 a.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY I55

Conceive of a man in his sound mind committing such an
action by which one could easily forfeit his own life, if it
were reported to the authorities, and were naturally curious
to learn the reason of his strange behaviour. ' Then the
king's servants, which were in the king's gate, said unto
Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king's command-
ment?* It seems that at first he gave them an evasive
answer or no answer at all, as he still kept secret the fact
of his being a Jew. But as they became importunate, and
repeated the same question ' from day to day ', Mordecai
finally broke his silence, and disclosed to them the real
reason for his behaviour. His fellow keepers were to a
certain degree responsible for his disrespectful behaviour,
and threatened to denounce him to the proper authorities
in case he should still refuse to explain it. Now he had
to throw off his disguise, and frankly declared ' that he
was a Jew ', an adherent of the Jewish religion.^^ It was
a sufficient reason, and his fellow-keepers readily understood
that as a man of honour he could not be expected to do
homage to the persecutor of his co-religionists. But being
responsible for his conduct, they may have advised him
to leave the court and not expose his and their lives to
the penalty of the law. They did not know that he
accepted that office for the purpose of being near to the
queen. He seems to have confided to them the fact that
he saved the king's life, and assured them that being one
of 'the benefactors of the king' (euepyerr/y ^aaiXecos'^-) he
would not be punished, and could, if the worst happened,
invoke the king's protection. It was a slim chance.
Religious questions may have formed the daily topic of

^' It is clearly seen that he was not recognized as a Jew.

22 See Herodotus III, 140 ; VIII, 85, and Diodorus XVII, 14.

156 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

their arguments, in which Mordecai exasperated his fellow
officers by his opinions. The latter, to insure their own
safety, had no other course but to report Mordecai's
conduct, and convince themselves of the truth of his
immunity, and in that case they would no more annoy
him with their interference: 'and they told Haman, to see
whether Mordecai's words would stand ', that is to say,
his assurance that he would not be punished. ^^
Esthers 5. Why did Haman hesitate to punish Mordecai, as
transgressor of the royal command, for his disrespectful
conduct? The fact that Mordecai had saved the king's
life could not have given him full licence to disobey
consciously and persistently the royal command. The
modern exegetes indeed regard this part of the story as
highly improbable.^* It is no surprise that they are hot
able to comprehend this point. They labour under the
delusion that the term 'Jews' (Dnin"") was a racial designa-
tion. It is perhaps due to the conditions of the Jews
in the Christian era which left its impressions on their
mode of thinking, that they cannot dissociate the idea
of the Jewish religion from that of the Jewish race. They
do not consider the possibility of a man being by descent,
language, habit, and in all respects a genuine Persian, and
nevertheless, as far as religion is concerned, a real ' Jew '
('•Tin''). This misconception lies at the bottom of all im-
probabilities and impossibilities we are confronted with
in the actions of Mordecai and Esther. In the opinion
of the modern commentators, Haman could not have been

-* Mordecai must have declared that he would continue to do so with
impunity. This is the meaning of the passage : ' to see whether Mordecai's
words would stand' ODTID nm nDm).

^* See Siegfried, p. 139 ; Paton, p. 74, and other commentators.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY I57

aware of the relationship between Mordccai and Esther,
if he knew that the former was a Jew. For if he was
acquainted with both facts, he could not doubt that Esther
was a Jewess, and the whole story would be impossible.
Seeing, however, that Esther was taken from Mordecai's
house, and their relationship could not have remained a
secret, and Haman knowing likewise that Mordecai belonged
to the Jewish race, the commentators cannot but condemn
our story as impossible. Therefore we dwelt, in the fifth
chapter, on this point to demonstrate that in post-exilic
times, among Jews and gentiles alike, the term 'Jews'
(D'"TiiT) had a merely religious significance. Haman, who
had trouble with the Jews and was naturally interested
in them, was not unacquainted with the fact that there
were many among them of non-Jewish origin. Mordecai's
adherence to the Jewish religion was a private matter.
He could have belonged to the highest Persian nobility,
and be nevertheless by religion a ' Jew ' (''"iin'').^^ He did
not identify the idea of the Jewish religion with that of
the Jewish race. Such an idea never entered into his
calculations. He was not interested in racial problems,
but in the religious question. listher was innocent of
Mordecai's adherence to the Jewish religion, and he knew
that as queen she deported herself with the devotion of
a true believer in the Persian religion. There is no doubt
that Haman could have executed Mordecai for having
persistently disregarded the royal command. Artaxerxes,
who was so jealous of his authority, as we have seen in
the fourth chapter, would certainly not have been lenient
towards Mordecai, even if he was ' one of the king's bene-

2^ In a later period, Izates, the king of Adiabene, embraced Judaism
(Flavius Josephus, Antiquities, XX, 4).

158 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

factors'. But Hainan was too sagacious to act hastily
in this case. He knew that Artaxerxes was completely
under the influence of the harem. Assuming that the
queen was naturally attached to her relative, Haman was
afraid lest some day the queen might avenge his death.
He could not have forgotten how Stateira, in order to
avenge the death of her brother Teriteuchmes, had put
Udiastres to a death too cruel to be described,^^ and how
Parysatis, by her intrigues, had destroyed all the nobles and
eunuchs who saved the life and the throne of Artaxerxes
in the battle of Cunaxa, in order to avenge the death of
her son Cyrus. It was even dangerous to harm a relative
of the favourite women of the king. Therefore Haman's
policy was to be on good terms with the queen, and he
did not dare to punish her relative. Subsequently, how-
ever, seeing from the special distinction with which the
queen treated him that it was impossible that she should
care much for her relative, or that she should have approved
of his disrespectful conduct towards him, Haman did not
hesitate any longer to inform the king of Mordecai's
disobedience to the royal command, and to ask his per-
mission for Mordecai's execution.-'^

26 Ctesias 57.

2^ Notwithstanding being all-powerful, Haman had to ask the king's
permission for Mordecai's execution, and could not act on his own responsi-
bility. Herodotus I, 137, informs us : 'The king shall not put any one to
death for a single fault. . . . But in every case the services of the offender
shall be set against his misdoings ; and if the latter be found to outweigh
the former, the aggrieved party shall then proceed to punishment'. Cf also
the story of Sandoces who was taken down from the cross, because Darius
thought that the good deeds of Sandoces toward the royal house were more
numerous than his evil deeds, as told by Herodotus VII, 194. Haman as
chief executive learned of Mordecai's act in saving the king's life. But
that fact was not an absolute protection. So did Tissaphernes, to whom
Artaxerxes owed his life and throne, and who was nevertheless executed.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 159

However, the conduct of Mordecai meant more than Esiiicra.e.
an insult to the dignity of the prime minister or a trans-
gression of a royal command. His disrespect was a protest
against Haman's policy. His endeavours to consolidate
the empire by bringing the various inhabitants of the
Persian "empire into closer relations with the Persians was
openly denounced and condemned. This was a matter for
grave reflection. If his authority was defied in the very
palace of Artaxerxes, how could he expect his ordinances
to be obeyed in the provinces ? Mordecai's conduct opened
his eyes. He now fully realized that the numerous execu-
tions he had ordered did not produce the effect of frighten-
ing the Jews into obedience. Mordecai was not an
eccentric individual, but a type of the Jews. He now
clearly perceived that the religion of the Jews, unlike other
religions, is detrimental to the welfare of the empire, as its
existence was incompatible with the newly inaugurated
innovation of the Zoroastrian religion. The Jewish faith
being at the root of the evil, it had to be extirpated, by pro-
claiming its adherents traitors and criminals, even those who
had hitherto not resisted the worship of Anahita, but still
declared themselves to be ' Jews ' (nniiT), and lived accord-
ing to the observances of the Jewish religion. Haman now
became the prototype of Antiochus Epiphanes. For the
first time, the Jews were ordered 'to forsake their Laws'.

On the vernal New Year Festival, celebrated in Persia Esther 3. 7.
as well as in Babylonia,^^ in which the gods determine the

** Haupt {Purint, p. 3) remarks: 'The Persian Spring-festival ... is no
doubt based upon the Babylonian New Year's festival. It was celebrated
at the vernal equinox '.

^' The gods were believed to assemble themselves in the chamber of

l6o THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

lots ^" to ascertain by divination the fate of the Jevvs,"^ and
the favourable month and day for their extermination.

Was the casting of the lots so significant an event as to
afford a sufficient explanation for the name of Purim?^'-^
Astrology, according to Maimonides/" borders on idolatry.
But this expression is too mild. Astrology is to all intents
and purposes identical with idolatry. The belief that the
planets influence the fate of man can be sustained only by
identifying them with the gods of the pantheon.^* The
chief office of the Babylonian priests was divination, the
most prominent of which was that based on the observation
of the phenomena of the heavens. Diodorus, in dealing
with the wisdom of the Chaldees, writes : ' The chiefs of
these gods, they say, are twelve in number, to each of
whom they attribute a month and a sign of the zodiac '.^^
The belief in constellations actually meant the recognition
of the powers of the gods. If the people had seen in the
planets inanimate heavenly bodies moving in obedience to

fate under the presidency of Bel-Marduk to determine the destinies of man.
Cf. Zimmern's theory on Purim {Keilinsclirtflen tind das Alte Testament,
1902, p. 514; Zeitscliri/t fur altt. IVt'sseiifch., 1891, pp. 152 ff.). In Persia
the determiner of fate was of course Ahuramazda. It goes without saying
that upon the identical idea is based the Jewish New Year Festival which
is held to be the day in which the fate of Israel is determined,

^0 Haupt {Purim, p. 19) shows many parallels to the custom of casting
lots on New Year.

SI Haman did not only wish to discover an auspicious day and month
for the execution of his plan, but also whether that plan would be approved
by the gods. If he had not found an auspicious day and month, it would
have shown that the gods disapproved of his plan.

32 Haupt {Purim, p. 3) and others deny it.

S3 See Maimonides' letter to the men of Marseilles (cf. Steinschneider's
Hebrdische Uebersetzungen des Mittelaltcrs, 1893, 931).

** Cf. Jastrow's Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice, chapter V.

S6 Diodorus U, 3.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY l6r

an inexorable law in nature, they never would have
believed them to portend future events. Therefore, the
prophet Jeremiah, in contrasting the power of the God of
Israel with that of idols, prefaces his exhortation with the
words : * Thus saith the Lord : Learn not the way of the
heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for
the heathen are dismayed at them '.^^ The belief in the
signs of heaven was contrary to that in the God of Israel.
As long as idolatry flourished, astrology was generally con-
sidered to be an idolatrous practice. In a late period,
however, astrology assumed a different aspect. Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam could easily demolish the statues
and images of the gods held to govern the planets. But
the belief that those heavenly bodies govern the fate of
man could not be eradicated. Therefore, in order that the
popular belief should not contrast with the established
religions, it was tacitly admitted that the movements of the
stars predict future events. And as astrology could hide
itself under the wings of its scientific sister astronomy, and
still cater to the superstitions of the people, it was a
profitable profession, became a legitimate science, and was
practised by Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans alike,^'^
without investigating its nature and origin. Thus astro-
logy is not a remainder of polytheism, but its fundamental
factor. The Jewish astrologers about the first century
B.C.E., and probably also later, were well aware of the fact
that their practice was identical with idolatry, and in order
to absolve their conscience, substituted for the heathen
deities as governors of the planets angels under the names
Shanishi-cl (= Shainash), Kokab-cl (= Ishtar), Shabti-el

^* Jer. lo. 2.

'^ Cf. the article 'Astrology' (Blau and Kohlcr), in \.he Jczvish Encyc.

n. M

l62 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

(= Ninib), &c.,'''^ who were in their names and functions
the very images of the old gods of the pantheon. Thus to
ascertain fate by divination and to select a favourable day
and month for the execution of some enterprise means the
practice of idolatry, as it presumes that each day and
month stands under the rule of one of the gods. Though
passages in the Talmud express the same notion that each
of the seven days of the week is governed by planets,"'' this
could not have been the old Rabbinic conception. There
is indeed a ' Baraitha ' that distinctly states that this kind
of divination was prohibited, in declaring that the biblical
commandment, ' Ye shall not use enchantment ' refers to
that ' by means of the stars ' (nUDi33 . . . itJ'mn i6).^^ But
though these Rabbis condemned this practice, they could
not stamp it as pure idolatry, since it was generally prac-
tised. It was different in the fourth century B.C.E., when
the belief in divination was tantamount to that in the
power of the gods, and monotheism and astrology were
recognized as incompatible.

Now Haman's intention was to extirpate the Jewish
monotheistic religion. The casting of the lots wa§ the act
of divination performed by the priests to inquire after the
will of the gods. We may surely assume that this per-
formance was not done secretly, but was solemnized in the
temple with sacrifices and a stately service in the presence
of the public. The execution of Haman's intention greatly
depended upon the goodwill of the Gentile population,

'® See the book Enoch, I, 6, 7 ; VII, 3. We are told that Barakicl
taught astrology ; Kokabel, the constellations ; Ezekael, the knowledge of
the clouds : Arakiel, the signs of the earth ; SItamshiel, the signs of the
sun ; and Sariel, the course of the moon.

S9 Shabbath 156 a.

*<> Sanhedrin 68 b.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 163

and he had to demonstrate that his action was commanded
by the gods. Thus it was generally known that, according
to those lots called in th'^ Hebraized form ' Purim ',*^ the
fate of the Jews was sealed. Any expression of sympathy
for the cause of the Jews among the Gentiles was silenced
by the word ' Purim', indicating that no man may interfere
with the will of the gods. It became, as we may say in
modern parlance, the slogan of the enemies of the Jews.
The conflict of Haman with the Jews was actually a
struggle between Monotheism and Polytheism.'*^ Thus we
can well conceive that those who instituted the commemo-
ration of those events used the very battle-cry of their
enemies as an appropriate name of that festival,^^ expressing

*■ It is improbable that Haman cast the lots out of superstition.

*^ Cassel, p. 101, sees also in the casting of the lots a contrast between
Judaism and paganism.

*^ The question whether a Persian word pitr, ' lot ', is found, is irrelevant.
What do we know about the old Persian language? The language of the
Avesta had never been the Persian idiom. They are merely related
dialects, but for the most part independent. As to Pahlavi, the language
used in Persia under the Arsacides and Sassanides, it is a middle dialect
between the ancient and modern Persian languages (Darmesteter, /. c,
p. xxxiv). We may reasonably assume that our author would never have
connected />«;' with 'lot' if he had not known that it has that meaning in
the Persian language. Thus the emphatic assertion of Haupt {Purim, p. 16)
and others that ' there is no Persian word ptir, meaning ' lot ', is rather
daring. But we need not assume that pur is an original Persian word.
There is no getting away from the fact that we have an equation pur =
abnu, 'stone' (S" 114; Briinnow 6972). Now it is generally admitted
that the Hebrew word ?~113 'lot', which our author identifies with piir,
is etymologicaJly identical with Arabic J^. 'pebble'. P. Jensen was the
first who suggested that pur, ' lot ' is connected with cuneiform pur, ' stone '
{Liter. Centralbl., 1896, No. 50, col. 1803), and he is no doubt right.
Zimmern's objection that pviru in the cuneiform language means ' a sacrificial
bowl or table' = pashshuru {KAT., p. 518) does not invalidate Jensen's
suggestion. The words puru and abnu mean *a stone jug' (cf. Prince,
Materials to a Sunierian Lexicon, 1908, p. 63). But tiie very fact that only

M 2

164 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

at the same time how deceptive the belief in the planetary
gods is and thereby decrying their power. However, it is
possible that the word ' Purim ' is etymologically closely
connected with the name of the old Persian festival
Farwardigan. The latter may have sounded in the lan-
guage of the old Persians more closely to the Hebraized
form 'Purim'. Hitzig had already compared the latter
with the modern Arabic Ph?ir, the name of ' the new
year'.** The casting of lots on the Persian new year
festival may have been a general custom which Haman
also used for determining the fate of the Jews. The latter
by adopting the name of the Persian new year as that of
their own day of commemoration may have intended not
only to commemorate the danger they had escaped but
also to disguise the very nature of this festival in order not
to offend the Persians.

a stone jug is called pum, evidently shows that it bears this name on account
of its material, and proves that puru must have been a synonym of abnu,
'stone'. Granting, however, that piiru means only 'a sacrificial bowl or
table', what do we know about the method of casting lots among the
Babylonians and the Persians ? Who may tell whether the lots were not
put in a sacrificial bowl or upon a stone altar? We can well conceive that
such a sacred act of divination, inquiring after the will of the gods, should
have been performed in sacred vessels. We may call attention to the fact
that stone vessels, according to the Rabbis (Mishnah Parah I, 2), cannot
be defiled, and are used where absolute purity is required, as for ' the
Water of Separation made of the ashes of a red heifer' (Num. 19). The
Persian laws of purification, and perhaps also those of the Babylonians,
may have been similar to those of Israel (cf., however, Vendidad, Fargard,
VII, X'>. The Vulgate indeed translates: missa est sors in itrnant quae
Hebraice dicitur phur (cf. also Haupt, Purim, p. 20). When the Persians
took over the New Year festival from the Babylonians, the customs con-
nected with it and their terms were taken over at the same time. Thus the
Persian word pur may be a Babylonian (and originally a Sumerian) loan-
word.

** In his Gcschichk Israels, 1869, p. 280.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 165

The lot fell upon the month of Adar. It has been
contended by numerous scholars that Purim originally was
a non-Jewish festival.*^ We believe that this contention is
essentially correct. It seems, indeed, that there was a great
Persian festival simultaneous with the P'east of Purim. We
have already observed that the persecutions of the Jews, as
a rule, occurred at the time of the high festivals of the
Persians. All the year round people do not concern them-
selves with religion. PI very man has his affairs to attend
to, and cares little for the creed of his neighbours. It is
different at the seasons of the festivals. The people, in
high spirits, are fully devoted to their own creed and
zealous for the honour of their gods. They see the Jews
indifferent to their festivities, which indifference is, of course,
interpreted as depreciation, and feel insulted. Their pride
is hurt and their honour outraged. Some Jews may have
been dragged by force to the temples, and murdered if they
resisted. Others might have been compelled to express an
opinion concerning the divinity of Anahita, and if it was
unfavourable, might have been executed. We must bear
in mind also that debauchery was always characteristic of
festivities among common people. Being full of intoxi-
cants and bereft of their senses, they were capable of
committing atrocities. If Haman wanted the people to

*^ Ernst Meier, Geschichie dcr poctischen National- Literaittr der Hcbrder,
1850, p. 506; Julius Fiirst, Kanon des A. 71, p. 104; Hilzig, Geschichie des
Volkes Israel, 1869, p. 280 ; Zunz, ZDMG., XXVII, p. 606 ; J. von Hammer,
Jahrb. f. Liter., XXXVIII, p. 49; Lagarde, Pttnm ; Renan, Histo)y, VII,
14 ; Schwally, Leben nach dern Tode, 1893, p. 42; Hommel in Weisslowitz's
Prim und Dcneisch, 1890; Zimmern, KAT., p. 514 f. ; Jensen, in Wilde-
boer's Commentary, p. 173; Mcissner, ZDMG., L, p. 296; Winckler,
Altorieutal. Forschungen, II, pp. 91 ff., 182 ff., &c. For the discussion of
various views see Paton, pp. 84-94.

l66 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

rise against the Jews and exterminate them, he had no
better opportunity to achieve his aim than on the day of
some great festival. At any other time it was doubtful
whether the people could be induced to murder the Jews
in cold blood. Subsequently, when the Festival of Purim
was establibhed, there was no fear that this celebration
might offend the feelings of the Gentiles, as it was simul-
taneous and to all appearance identical with the Persian
festival. On the contrary, by its introduction, the danger
of future persecutions was minimized. That fact sheds
a good deal of light on the attitude of the Sopherim
towards the Festival of Purim, as we shall see further in
Chapter IX. Now we have already suy;gested that the
Book of Esther would never have been recorded if there
had not been the fear that the event of Purim would sink
into oblivion, and the festival would assume a non-Jewish
character.'"' We see now that the fear of such a possibility
was not unfounded. The Festival of Hanukkah frequently
coincides with Christmas, though these festivals have not
the least connexion. And among some modern Jews the
former festival recedes into the background and assumes
the character of Christmas. Exactly the same would
have happened with the Festival of Purim, and with
more reason.

What kind of festival may the Persians have celebrated
in the month of Adar ? The worship of Anahita being the
cause of the Jewish persecutions and of the decree for their
extermination, it is safe to conjecture that it was one of tiie
festivals of that goddess. Al-Beiuni states that the Sog-
dians celebrated the five days of the cpogoincna at the end
of the year."*" According to Paul de Lagarde, these five
<8 See chapter V. ^"^ See Lagarde, Purim, p. 38.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 167

days were dedicated to Anahita.*^ Lagarde and also
other scholars believe that it was an 'All-Souls' Feast'.'*'
But we have the testimony of Strabo, who lived about
a thousand years before Al-Beruni and knew the Zoroas-
trian religion while it still flourished better than did the
Mohammedan author, that Anahita was a goddess of pros-
titution.^0 The festival of a goddess of that kind was not
of a very solemn and noble character, as Lagarde would
have us believe, and it must have resembled a carnival
rather than a festival of the dead. Lagarde contended
that the Festival of Purim is identical with that of the
epagomena ^^ We accept this theory, though Lagarde him-
self later abandoned it."^'-^ We find a distinct trace of such
a connexion with the epagomena in the Mishna, which
states: 'The Megillah may be read on the eleventh,
twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth days of Adar,
not earlier and not later'." These five days of which
there is no trace in the Book of Esther,^* seem to corre-

^8 See Lagarde, Ptirint, p. 53.

" Ibid., p. 32. Schwally (,cf. n. 45) and similaily Spiegel {Eranische
Alierihumskunde, 1878, p. 577).

0" See chapter VI. However, we have already pointed out the fact
that the Babylonian goddess Ishtar corresponded also to a chthonic deity,
and the same may be true of Anahita (see chapter VI, n. 15). But there
can be no doubt that in Armenia at least, Anahita was a goddess of prosti-
tution,

51 Bertheau-Ryssel, p. 372 and Paton, p 86, raise a great many objec-
tions to that theory, which are not unfounded.

52 Gott. Gel. Ans., 1890, p. 403.
^3 Mishnah Megillah 2 a.

B« Now it is true the Mishnah explains very plainly how it happens that
the Megillah may be read on these five days. But this explanation may
date from a late period. The Talmudic deduction from the term 'in their
times' (Dn"'JJ3n), instead of 'in their time' (DJCD) is hardly to be taken
seriously (see the Talmudic discussion on that subject).

l68 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

spond to the five days of the epagomcna. Now it must be
admitted that the dates of these two celebrations do not
exactly agree, as the epagomena^ according to the Jewish
calendar, must have been celebrated by the Persians from
the seventh to the eleventh of Nisan.^' However, we
scarcely know anything about the customs of the Persian
festivals in antiquity, and who may assert that these five
days of the Persian and Jewish festivals were not simul-
taneous? It is noteworthy that Pseudo-Smerdis seized the
throne on the fourteenth of Adar.^"^ This also suggests
that there was some festival on that day. The worship of
Anahita properly belongs to the old belief of the Magi.
Hence on the day of the festival of this goddess, the
Magians attempted by the means of Smerdis to overthrow
Zoroaster's religion, and to re-establish their own former
religion." Thus the Magians who cast the lots and in-

55 The Persians had a year of 360 days which, with the five epagomena,
constituted a solar year of 365 da^s. But the Jews have a lunar year of
354 days. Thus there was a difference of eleven days between the Jewish
and Persian first of Nisan. But we must consider that our knowledge of
the Persian Calendar in the Achaemenian period is extremely scanty, as
may be seen from the names of the months on the Behistun inscription
which do not show the least resemblance to those of the Avesta, Sogdians,
Chorasmians, and the Neo-Persians (see Lagarde, Purim, pp. 29-32).
The probability that there is some connexion between the epagomena
and the Festival of Purim cannot be denied. If the former had been
celebrated on the days of Passover, we might say that the Jewish festival
was changed to the fourteenth of Adar, in order not to conflict with the
other festival. Since, however, the epagomena were celebrated at the
beginning of Nisan, the Jews could have done the same. Who knows
whether the epagomena were not celebrated in the middle of the twelfth
month ?

56 The fourteenth of Viakhna (Behistun inscription, col. I, 15) is identical
with the fourteenth of Adar (cf. Ed. Meyer's Forschtingen , p. 472 f.).

5' Geo.gc Rawlinson rightly contended that the accession of Pseudo-
bmerdis, whereby the Medes regained their ancient supremacy, was not

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 169

formed Haman that Adar would be the favourable month
for the execution of his plan chose the time which Haman
himself would have chosen, without the means of divination.
Thus, in the first month of the twelfth year of Arta-
xerxes' reign, in the year 393 B.C.E., Haman planned to
exterminate all the Jews of the Persian empire. It was
no easy task for Haman to inform the king that the policy
inaugurated by him caused so much annoyance that he
was forced to use the most extreme measures against those
who opposed him. If the religious innovation had encoun-
tered the opposition of a warlike people, the downfall of
Haman would have been inevitable. Artaxerxes would
have sacrificed him rather than uphold his authority and
thereby cause a holy war. At that period he needed his
army for other purposes. It was before the Peace of
Antalcidas. The Jews, however, were powerless and de-
fenceless. But what about the Jews in Palestine ? Haman
did not consider them at all. It goes without saying that,
if the Jewish religion had been abolished, the existence of
the temple in Jerusalem would have become impossible.
It would have been either demolished or changed into
a heathen sanctuary. From the statement of Hecataeus of
Abdera we know that the Palestinian Jews suffered greatly
under those persecutions, as described in the sixth chapter.^^
The condition of the Jews in Judea was then hardly better
than in the time of Nehemiah. They were still surrounded
by hostile neighbours who were ready to attack them and
to wipe out their semi- independent state. Jerusalem was

a national revolution, but the ascendency of the Magian religion Herodotus,
vol. II, p. 457). A similar opinion is expressed by Marquart {^Fundamenle,
p. 48), and approved by Ed. Meyer (G. A., Ill, p. 123).
•>^ Josephus, Cotilia Apiuiieni, I.

170 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

now surrounded by a wall. However, the latter could
only protect the city from a sudden attack on the part of
hordes, and not against a regular army. There was no
need for Haman to decree the destruction of the Judean
state. The latter owed its existence to the grace of the
Persian satraps. This province would have been lost if
the Persians had withdrawn their protection and left it to
the tender mercies of their hostile neighbours.^^ Therefore

5' The question whether Ezra was a contemporary of Nehemiah is not
solved yet, and is still a matter of dispute. Ed. Meyer {Entst. d. Jud.,
pp. 89-92) seems to have proved that they were contemporaries. However,
Batten {Esra, in the Intenintional Critical Commentary, New York, 1913,
p. 28), still contends that Ezra belongs to a later period than Nehemiah.
Several of his arguments are not conclusive, and were already discussed
and refuted by Ed. Meyer. But there is one point of evidence against the
latter's view that deserves serious consideration. We find that Ezra went
into the chamber of Johanan, the son of Eliashib, to spend the night there
(Ezra 10. 6). The succession of High-priests described in Nehemiah
(12. 22) shows that Johanan is identical with Jonathan {ibid., 12. 11), and
that he was the grandson of Eliashib, as Stade, in his Geschichte dcs Folks
J rael, II, p. 153, has already proved. If Eliashib was a contemporary of
Nehemiah, Ezra seems to have lived two generations later, as Batten
expresses himself ' exactly where he belongs, in the reign of Artaxerxes II '.
However, even this point is not absolutely convincing. It is not quite
impossible that ihe Johanan, to whose chamber Ezra retired, is not identical
with that Johanan who, according to Elephantine Papyri, was High-priest
in Jerusalem in 407, as Wellhausen {Gott. Gel. Nachr., 1895, 168) indeed
suggests. Or it is not impassible that the compiler who revised the Ezra
Memoirs, may have changed the name of the chamber, because in his time
it was known under the name of 'the chamber of Johanan, the son of
Eliashib', as Ed. Meyer thinks. Neither of the two opinions is quite
satisfactory. In either case we will have to encounter a great many
difficulties. But one of them must be true. If Batten is right, this fact
will shed considerable light on both the Books of Esther and Ezra, and it
will be seen that both are closely connected. The prayer of Ezra shows
that the conditions of the Jews at his time were still unsettled, and that
their existence was precarious. Batten further admits that there is no good
reason whatever to doubt the genuineness of the edict of Artaxerxes II
concerning the promulgation of the Law. Then the Law must have been

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 17I

Haman in his decree did not allude to the Jewish province
in Palestine. He aimed chiefly at the Jews living dispersed

promulgated about 396, exactly at the time of Esther. We may notice,
by the way, that the fact that the Law just now received official recognition
may shed some light on the religious indifference of the Jews of that
period. We might even assume that the Talmudic saying: 'The Jews
received the Law again in the days of Ahasuerus' (^Shabbath 88 b), rests
upon true tradition. But these are minor points. However, there are
others of more importance. We see Ezra in high favour with Artaxerxes H.
But we do not find the least reason why the king should have favoured
him. If he had been an official, like Nehemiah, he would have informed
us of this fact, as did Nehemiah. On the other hand, looking at the events
of the Book of Esther, it seems strange that a Jewish woman occupying
such a high position, who might, without disclosing her identity, confer
many a boon upon her people, by predisposing the king in their favour,
should remain quite indifferent to their welfare. But we notice a remarkable
coincidence. In the seventh year of Artaxerxes II two events happened :
In that year a Jewish woman became queen, and in the same year the
Jewish Law received official recognition. Is it indeed a mere coincidence?
Would it not be more logical to see a close connexion between these two
events? Esther on her elevation may have called the king's attention to
a people whose religion was identical with that of the Persians, and may
have expressed the opinion that it would be good policy to support that
creed, as the spread of the Persian religion in the Western countries would
join them closer to the Persian empire. This opinion coincided with an
advice urged upon him by one of the councillors to make Zoroastrianism
the supreme religion of the empire, and thus prevent its disintegration.
It is therefore reasonable that the same king who was desirous of dissemi-
nating his own religion for a political purpose should promote the Jewish
religion which he believed to be identical witii his own. Hence Ezra, the
priest and chief teacher of the Eastern Jews, was entrusted with the task
of promulgating the Law. He must have known to whom he was indebted
for that favour. But the man in whose eyes intermarriage with Gentiles
was an unpardonable crime could not tell that he owed his own position
to such an intermarriage. Moreover, it would have been wrong to disclose
the secret of Esther and expose his benefactress to danger. In accepting
Batten's date, another problem could be solved. The edict clothed Ezra
with power to punish the disobedient with death, banishment, confiscation
of property, or imprisonment (Ezra 7. 26). Nevertheless he was unable to
effect a single divorce, except by a pathetic appeal to the people. Something
must have happened in the meantime which deprived Ezra of his power.

172 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

among the other races, who might by their rebellious con-
duct incite others to imitate their example. If the Jews
had lived together in large numbers, they might, indeed,
have risen in arms against their oppressors, as they did in
a later period, under the Romans in Cyrene. But scat-
tered and dispersed in all provinces of the empire the Jews
were incapable of offering resistance. '^°

The elevation of Haman occurred shortly after Esther had become the wife
of Artaxerxes. We therefore conjecture that the decree concerning the
worship of Anahita and the refusal of the Jews to submit to it, put an end
to Ezra's power. We may further conjecture that the great fast the Jews
observed on the twenty-fourth of Tishri occurred in Ezra's period, not in
that of Nehemiah. There was not the least reason why under the reign
of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the Jews should have fasted ' with sackcloth
and earth upon them' (Neh. 9.1. They certainly could not have com-
plained: 'They, have dominion over our bodies and over our cattle, and
tvc are in great distress\ They had their own Jewish governor, who was
the king's favourite, and certainly did not oppress them. But a short time
after the arrival of Ezra and promulgation of the Law, the news about the
great danger to the Jewish religion reached the Jews in Judea, and Persian
officials were sent into the land to erect a sanctuary to Anahita. Therefore
they fasted and made a covenant among themselves to resist with all power
the execution of that decree. Therefore 'the seed of Israel separated
themselves from the strangers' ; for 'no strangers ought to know that they
intended to resist the royal decree '. This was not, as Batten (p. 363)
observes : ' Because the pure-blooded son of Abraham was alone a fit
object for Jahveh's favour'. However, it must be admitted that the two
dates of Esther and Ezra do not agree in every detail. Ezra arrived in the
fifth month of the seventh year of Artaxerxes at Jerusalem, and Esther
became queen five months later. But the Boo'is of Ezra and Nehemiah had
been, as Ed. Meyer and Batten pointed out, often revised. Thus we cannot
expect the dates to be correct in every detail. It is possible that the edict
of the promulgation was given in the seventh year, but Ezra's arrival at
Jerusalem occurred in the fifth month of the eighth year of that king's
reign. The preparations for such an enormous expedition must have taken
a year at least. Thus if we accept Batten's date of Ezra in the light of the
present writer's exposition of the Book of Esther, all these events will be
viewed differently, and numerous problems will be solved (cf. chapter V,
n, 51).

'i" No commentator has as yet satisfactorily explained the pass.nge :

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 1 73

' And Haman said unto King Ahasuerus, There is a Esthers.
certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the
people in all the provinces of thy kingdom ; and their laws
are diverse from all people ; neither keep they the king's
laws : therefore it is not fit for the king's profit to suffer
them.' Haman's accusation of the Jews and his advice to
decree their extermination were worded very carefully and
diplomatically. But his accusation was absolutely true.
He did not slander them. And we indeed know from the
Behistun inscription^^ and from Herodotus*^- that the most
disgraceful deed for a Persian was to tell a lie. Haman
prefaced his accusation by allaying the king's fear and fore-
stalling any reproach, that by his advice he had plunged
the empire into anarchy, in stating that the people which
defies the king's authority is not dangerous in itself to the
peace of the empire, being scattered and dispersed in all
the provinces of the empire. But by its disobedience it sets
a bad example to others and destroys the king's authority.
Our author seemingly does not state that Haman expressly
mentioned the name of the people he accused. That he
actually did mention it, we may deduce from the peculiar
expression "iJ-'\ literally 'its being', and thus referring to a
preceding noun.''^ The author gives only the substance of

'There is one people scattered and dispersed among the people'. This
cannot be a part of the accusation. Such a condition is surely no crime,
but a misfortune. Nor can it refer to the barrier of the Law, as Paton,
p. 203, explains. The latter idea is expressed in the following sentence :
'Their laws are diverse from all people'. Hence that passage expresses
the idea of disregard ; their condition is so pitiful as not to fear their
resistance.

^1 Behistun inscription, col. 54 ff.

^2 Herodotus I, 139.

^^ The expression 135J''' does not mean ' there is '. The same form occurs
also elsewhere three times (Dcut. 29. 14; i Sam. 14. 39; 23. 23), where

174 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

Haman's report, which, of course, exhaustively dealt with
the Jewish problem. Herodotus or any Greek writer would
have used for this report a full chapter.

If we had no proof that Haman aimed at the destruc-
tion of the Jewish religion and not of the Jewish race, we
could deduce his intention from the words of his accusa-
tion in stating : ' their laws are diverse from all people ;
neither keep they the king's laws '. The first part of this
statement is no accusation. It is no concern of the king,
whether the laws of this people are peculiar or not, as long
as they do not interfere with the laws of the empire. But
Haman asserted that those laws are contrary to those of the
empire, and prevent them from complying with the latter.
Thus, there must have been Persian laws inconsistent with
those of the Jews. Here we have a further corroboration
of our description of the events of the period in which
the Jewish religious conceptions came into conflict with the
Persian laws. But if the Jewish religion is obnoxious to
the welfare of the empire, it cannot be tolerated and must
be suppressed, and the king would certainly have answered :
' Let them abandon their religion, and if they refuse, you
have my permission to destroy them.' This is exactly what
Haman requested the king to do, in continuing to say:
' It is harmful to the king's authority to be indifferent
toward their transgression of the Persian laws '.
Esther 3. Haman certainly was an enemy of the ' Jews ', as the
author styles him (Dn1^^^ imV;, but not of those of Jewish
extraction, as soon as they ceased to be ' Jews ', in abandon-
ing their religion. Now it is true the style of Haman's

it refers to a preceding noun. See chapter HI on the impossible assumption
that the king should have condemned a people to extermination whose
name he did not know.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY I75

decree is so sanguinary as to represent him as the very
embodiment of wickedness. But Haman is not responsible
for that style, nor is the author of the Book of Esther.
The heaping of synonymous expressions, * to exterminate,
to kill, and to destroy' (naxh anni? TOt^n^) is inconsistent
with the terse style of edicts. Haman's decree must have
been worded differently. Our author was a good historian
and well acquainted with the style of edicts. Even if
Haman had intended to exterminate the Jewish people
without regard to their religion, there was no reason for the
murder of little children. They could have been sold as
slaves, and thus be of more profit to Haman or the people.
Those exaggerations are certainly due to late interpolators,
as suggested in the first chapter. The Greek version of our
story has, no doubt, the original text of this passage. For
it tersely states, as we should expect, dcpavicrai to yevos
rSiu 'lovSaicou. Accordingly, the original Hebrew text of
this edict must have been oninM (oy) riN nns'i? , ' to destroy
(the people of) the Jews ', or a similar phrase. It is inter-
esting to notice how consistent both the Hebrew and
Greek versions are. The former ex[:)lains the hatred of
Haman towards the Jews, by the statement : ' And he
thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone ; for they
had showed him the people of Mordecai '. We have
already remarked that this improbable explanation is a
late interpolation at a time when the real cause of Haman's
action was no longer known. A man who is able to
destroy a whole race on account of a single individual who
insulted him, is certainly to be credited with any inhuman
monstrosity. The Alexandrian translator, however, did not
know of that passage, and in accordance with this, the
version of Haman's decree is not sanguinary.

176 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

Esthers 9- Having convinced the king that the conduct of the Jews
could not be tolerated, Haman submitted this proposal :
* If it please the king, let it be written that they may be
destroyed : and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver
to the hands of those that have the charge of the business,
to bring it into the king's treasuries'. If the Jews were
disloyal subjects and according to law deserved to be
exterminated, why should Haman promise ten thousand
talents for the royal permission to rid the empire of
criminals ? Though the victims of the persecutions may
have numbered many thousands, nevertheless they repre-
sented, as we observed, merely a very small portion of the
Jewish communities throughout the wide dominions of
the Persian empire. We have no census of the Jews of
that period, but at a very conservative estimate, they must
have numbered many hundreds of thousands.*'* The aver-
age Jews submitted with a bad grace to the innovation, as
the Rabbis correctly perceived, since they saw in the
worship of Anahita a mere formality forced upon them,
and had no inclination to expose themselves to persecu-
tion by their refusal. Thus the friendly relations between
them and the Gentiles were not disturbed. This being so,
it was doubtful whether Gentiles in many localities, seeing
no reason for the wholesale massacre of their Jewish friends
and neighbours against whom they felt no animosity, would

8* About 140 j'ears before that event, the Jews wlio returned from the
captivity numbered 42 360 (Ezra 2. 64). The larger part of them had no
inclination to leave Babylonia and expose themselves to the laborious task
of rebuilding the home of their ancestors. It is a low estimate to assume
that about 100,000 stayed behind, who preferred to move into the interior
provinces of the immense empire, where as merchants they had the best
opportunity of accumulating riches. Thus within 140 years they may have
increased to a number of many hundred thousands, at the lovyest estimate.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 177

not resent those edicts and prevent their execution. The
Jews, assisted by the population, could easily offer resis-
tance against the force entrusted with the execution of those
edicts. Therefore, to be sure of success, Haman appealed
to the lowest passion of the people — greed. The lower
strata, which form everywhere a considerable, if not the
major, portion of the populace, are always willing to go to
any extent, if they arc afforded an opportunity of enriching
themselves at the expense of their wealthy fellow-citizens.
The Jews being mostly engaged in commerce were reputed
to be very wealthy. In granting permission to the popu-
lace to keep the property of the Jews, Haman could reckon
with full certainty on the carrying out of his edicts to the
letter.^^ But how could he dispose of their property ? If
the Jews were condemned for their disloyalty, they were
traitors, and their goods had to be confiscated to the trea-
gjjj-y. 66 Thus it was necessary to reimburse the treasury
for the loss it would have sustained by Haman's largess to
the populace.

Have we ground to consider — as many commentators
do^^ — the sum of ten thousand talents as an estimate of the
Jews' wealth, which would amount to about eighteen million
dollars, an exaggeration and incredible ? As far as the
Jews' wealth is concerned, the estimate was far too low.
Concerning Haman's ability to supply that sum of his own
means, if we believe Herodotus that the Lydian Pythius
offered Xerxes for his campaign against the Greeks ' two

"'' Paton, p. 209, correctly explains : ' This is oflered as an inducement
to the people to attack the Jews.'

'''' The property of criminals was confiscate! bj' the State. See
Herodotus III, 129, and Josephus, Aiiiiquities, XII, i. 4.

" Cf. Haupt, Purint, p. 6 ; Paton, p. 206, and others.

H. N

lO, II.

178 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

thousand talents of silver, and of gold four million Daric
staters, wanting seven thousand ',^^ which would amount to
about twenty-four million dollars,®^ we have no reason to
doubt the statement of our authorJ° We may recall the
immense fortunes the Roman governors amassed in a few
years. The Persian satraps had the same opportunities.
Haman was no doubt a satrap before he became prime
minister. We may assume that his father and his pro-
genitors had served in the same capacity. Thus he may
have possessed untold riches.
Esther 3. ' And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it

unto Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the
Jews' enemy. And the king said unto Haman, ' The silver
is given to thee, the people also, to do with them as it
seemeth good to thee .' By Haman's offer, the king
became convinced of his unselfish motives, and fully
granted his request to rid the empire of those internal
enemies. We might, perhaps, doubt the statement of the
king's generosity in bestowing upon Haman a gift of ten
thousand talents. But we find a similar statement by
Herodotus of Xerxes' generosity, who declined the offer
of the Lydian and said : ' The seven thousand staters which
are wanting to make up thy four millions I will supply, so
that the full tale may be no longer lacking and thou mayest
owe the completion of the sum to me. Continue to enjoy
all that thou hast acquired hitherto '.'^

<^« Herodotus, VII, 27-9.

"^ Cf. G. Rawlinson, Herodotus, vol. Ill, p. 25, n. 1. According to
Cassel, p. no, however, the sum that Pythius offered to Xerxes would
be 9,986 talents, thus about equivalent to that offered by Haman to
Artaxerxes ; for five darics = one mina, and 100 minas = one talent. As
to the immense riches of the satraps, cf Herod. I, 192.

'^ Similarly G. Rawlinson in his commentary on Esther, 1873.

"' Herodotus VII, 29.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 1 79

However, did the king actually believe Haman's accu-
sation and give him full permission to deal with the Jews
as he deemed proper, without any further investigation ?
The Persians were certainly reputed in antiquity for their
high sense of justice, as Xenophon represented them in his
historical romance Cyropaedia?'^ Thus how could we
believe that Artaxerxes condemned a whole people with-
out being certain of their guilt ? Our author was not an
orator, like the Greek writers, as we observed, and con-
densed Haman's accusation into a few sentences. Haman
naturally dwelt thoroughly on that subject, and laid before
the king the reports of the governors and officials concern-
ing the disloyal conduct of the Jews and the disturbances
everywhere, and corroborated each point of his accusation
by absolutely reliable documentary evidence, and, perhaps,
also by the personal testimony of many satraps and
governors. Convinced of the guilt of the Jews by that
evidence, and persuaded by the prime minister of the
futility of any other remedies to reduce them to obedience,
the king could not but grant Haman the permission to
exterminate them.

The letters commanding the Jews' extermination were Esther 3.

12-14.
written on the thirteenth day of the first month and ' were

sent by posts into all the king's provinces, to kill ... all

Jews ... in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the

twelfth month, which is 'the month Adar, and to take

the spoil of them for a prey. The copy of the writing for

the commandment to be given in every province was

'^ Cf. I, II, 6, 7, 15 ; I, III, 16-18. Though Xenophon actually meant to
depict the Lacedaemonians, nevertheless he never would have dared to
attribute those virtues to the Persians if they had not had a high reputation
for the conception of justice.

N 2

l8o THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

published unto all people, that they should be ready
against that day.' Why did Haman promulgate the decree
about a year before its execution ? Seeing that the modern
commentators consider Haman an inveterate enemy of the
Jewish race, we expect to find the explanation of that early
promulgation of the decree as being directed to enhance
the sufferings of the Jews by keeping them in suspense as
long as possibleJ^ Other commentators believe that it was
done to give the Jews an opportunity to leave the country.'*
The latter explanation is certainly strange. We cannot
impute to scholars ignorance of geographical knowledge
and of the extent of the Persian empire at that period.
Seeing that those scholars identify Ahasuerus with Xerxes,
the whole of Asia, with the exception of the Ionian free
cities and islands, and Egypt, were under Persian dominion.
Where could the Jew^s have found a refuge if they had left
the Persian empire? Where could the Jews living in
Parthia, Bactria, Sogdiana, &c., have gone? Those of
Asia Minor might have sought a place of escape in the
Ionian free cities. Would the latter have admitted them ?
Certainly not as free citizens. At the time of Artaxerxes,
the Jews of the province of Judea could have escaped to
Egypt, as their people did two hundred years before.
However, the early promulgation of the edicts greatly
redounds to the honour of Haman. He was loath to
commit that wholesale slaughter, if he could avoid it. His
intention was to give the Jews ample time for reflection
whether it would not be more advisable to desist from
their obstinacy and to abandon their exclusive position
among the nations, in parting with their singular creed.
That early promulgation is a further confirmation of our
" So Bertheau-Ryssel and others. '^ So Keil, Rawlinson.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY l8l

exposition of those events, that Haman's object was the
destruction of the Jewish religion, which could not be
accomplished without destroying the adherents of this
creed.

' The posts went out, being hastened by the king's Esther ;
commandment, and the decree was given in Shushan, the
palace. And the king and Haman sat down to drink ; but
the city of Shushan was perplexed.' The statement that the
king and Haman sat down to drink has a deeper meaning
than generally assumed. The modern commentators are
on the wrong track in explaining : ' It is meant as a very
effective piece of contrast. Orders have been sent out that
will throw the empire into confusion, but the king and his
prime minister enjoy themselves after finishing this trouble-
some business.' "^ This passage again shows how minutely
our author was acquainted with Persian customs. Hero-
dotus states : ' It is also their general practice to deliberate
upon affairs of weight when they are drunk ; and then on
the following day when they are sober, the decision is put
before them by the master of the house in which it was
made ; and if it is then approved of, they act on it ; if not,
they put it aside. Sometimes, however, they are sober at
their first deliberation, but in this case they always recon-
sider the matter under the influence of wine.' "^ Thus our
author means to state that the decision to exterminate the
Jews was made when the king and Haman were sober, and
it was reconsidered under the influence of wine. In the
light of this explanation we understand the meaning of the
clause : ' and the city of Shushan was perplexed '. This
passage has not yet found any reasonable explanation.
The exegetes cannot believe that the Gentile population

''* See Paton, p. 21 r. "* Herodotus I, 133.

l82 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

of the capital would have felt any great grief over the
destruction of the Jews. Now the news reached the people
that there was a deliberation concerning the destruction
of the Jews, and that it was agreed upon. Still it was not
certain whether this decision would not be set aside in the
second deliberation under the influence of wine. Thus the
people were perplexed and kept in suspense ; their curiosity
was aroused. Some held that the decision would stand,
and some denied ; some approved and some disapproved it.
The passage apparently is not in the proper place. We
have, perhaps, to read : ' The king and Haman sat down to
drink and the city of Shushan was perplexed ; the posts
went out, hastened by the king's commandment, and the
decree was given in Shushan the palace ' (13K''' pni i^Dni
njni mm i^nn -ima o^aim inv^ n^vin nana ii^^vc' i^yni nintrb
nTnn pW2). However, the reference to the second de-
liberation under the influence of wine may have been an
afterthought of our author.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 183

CHAPTER VIII

The effect of the decree upon Mordecai — His sources of information —
The numerous Jewish eunuchs — Esthers attitude towards the calamity of
the Jews — Mordecai's message — Esther's arguments — Mordecai's threats —
Esther's compliance— Her omission to request an audience of the king — Her
difficult task — Her diplomacy — Her invitation of Haman — The advice of
Haman's friends — The gallows — The incident of the honouring of Mordecai —
The king's inquiry — His suspicions of the prime minister's disloyalty — The
king's apparel — A lesson in modesty — The king being ignorant of Mordecai's
creed — Haman's reflections — The deliberation under the influence of wine —
Esther's accusation of Haman — The king's indecision — Haman's plea with
Esther — The king's ridiculous accusation of Haman — The covering of
Haman's face— His denunciation by Harbonah — A parallel between Tissa-
phernes' and Haman's fate — The partiality of the Jewish point of view.

Ix the preceding chapter we have dealt with the events
which led to the promulgation of a decree for the ex-
termination of the Jews that almost sealed their doom.
The reform of the Zoroastrian religion and the Jews'
resistance to the worship of Anahita being incontestably
historical facts, there is no room for doubting the historical
character of the danger impending over the Jews recorded
in the Book of Esther. Based upon these facts, it has
been pointed out at the starting-point of our investigation,
that even if the Book of Esther had never been written,
historians might have found out that at the period in
which we place that event the Jews were threatened with
complete extermination, and that the main question is not
whether such an event ever did happen, but how the Jews
escaped that danger. But the reality of their escape
cannot be questioned either. Yet there is no external

1-4.

184 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

evidence to account for this event. Thus, without the
story of the Book of Esther this fact would be historically
unexplainable. The solution of this historical problem
begins with the fourth chapter of our story.
Esther 4. The description of Mordecai's conduct on perceiving
the doom of his people seems to indicate that he did
reproach himself for his imprudent conduct toward the
prime minister, seeing in it the cause of the disaster, and
in repentant mood, as an expression of his regret, ' rent
his clothes, and put on sackcloth with ashes, and went
out into the midst of the city, and cried with a loud and
a bitter cry '. Such an interpretation would be indeed
permissible, if Haman's decree had been due to private
motives : his personal hatred of Mordecai. But it has
been sufficiently proved that this was by no means the
case. Thus, concerning this point also the conception of
the commentators is erroneous. Mordecai might have
acted in the same manner, even if he had never come in
contact with Haman. The third verse of this chapter
distinctly states : ' And in every province, whithersoever
the king's commandment and his decree came, there was
great mourning among the Jews, and fasting, and weeping,
and wailing ; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes '. It
is thus seen that many other Jews who never came into
collision with the author of the decree, and had no reason
for self-reproach, did exactly the same. Being at the
court, Mordecai knew that Haman's decree was not
actuated by personal revenge. It was not to be expected
that the ineffectual fines, imprisonments, and executions
of those Jews who refused to recognize the godhead of
Anahita should go on for ever. A crisis was inevitable.
Being the first to learn of Haman's decree, Mordecai went

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 185

into the city to inform his brethren of it, and to deliberate
with them on the proper measures to be taken for its
repeal. Here he bitterly complained to the population
at the wrong done to the Jews, and no doubt vehemently
denounced the prime minister for his inhuman decree,
.appealing to the compassion of the populace, in whose
hands the destiny of the Jews lay. This may be the real
meaning of the passage : ' And he cried with a loud and a
bitter cry ' (niDi r^b)!}^ npi'I pyr^l).^ Not being decently dressed,
Mordecai could not enter the king's gate : ' for none might
enter within the king's gate clothed with sackcloth '.- It
might appear as if Mordecai had become indifferent to
public opinion, being unconcerned whether the people
should ridicule his behaviour or not, when he was making
a spectacle of himself, in sitting before the king's gate

1 The exegetic addition of the Greeic version : ' Saying, an innocent
people is condemned to death ', is well conceived, since Mordecai could not
have acted in that manner, without expressing the reason for his grief in
some way. As a matter of fact, after mtDI riPHJ npVT p]})"*) we would
expect •^■Cm ', cf. Gen. 27. 34 .... n^N^I IND IV m?31 H^i: HpyV pVn .
For the various additions of the Targumin, see Paton, p. 213 f. Cf., how-
ever, Cassel, p. 134.

2 The royal court was not a lounging place for beggars and tramps, and
only richly or well-dressed people were permitted to enter there. We are
not distinctly informed whether Mordecai did make any attempt to enter
within the gate and was refused admittance by the guards. But he evidently
did not. If he had claimed admittance as an official in this strange attire,
he probably would have been arrested for debasing his official dignity.
Cassel, p. 137, thinks that sackcloth was a sign of mourning for the dead,
which was considered ceremonially unclean, and for this reason Mordecai
could not enter the palace. So also Paton, p. 214. But it was well known
that Mordecai did not mourn for a dead person. We might as well maintain
that no weeping person could have entered within the king's gate. We
may perhaps suggest that being an official, Mordecai had to wear a certain
court dress or the military dress of the guards, and therefore could not enter
attired in sackcloth.

l86 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

dressed in sackcloth. It seems more likely, however, that
Mordecai's very intention was to arouse the curiosity of
the people by his sensational conduct. He was well aware
of the fact that the condition of the Jews was hopeless,
if Esther could not be prevailed upon to intercede for them
with the king. But he could not communicate at will
with Esther. His only means of communication with her
was to send her occasionally a message through one of
her confidential eunuchs, if he happened to see one, or
when she desired to communicate with him. Therefore,
Mordecai expected that his strange conduct attracting
general attention would not fail to reach one of her con-
fidential eunuchs, who, of course, would inform his mistress
of it. The latter's curiosity being aroused, she would
certainly send somebody to him to learn the reason for
this conduct. Then there would be an opportunity to
inform her of Haman's decree, and to request her to inter-
cede with the king on behalf of the Jews.
Esther 4. ' So Hathach went forth to Mordecai unto the broad
place of the city, which was before the king's gate. And
Mordecai told him of all that had happened unto him,
and the exact sum of the money that Haman had promised
to pay to the king's treasuries for the Jews to destroy
them. Also he gave him the copy of the writing of the
decree that was given out in Shushan to destroy them,
to show it unto Esther, and to declare it unto her; and
to charge her that she should go in unto the king, to make
supplication unto him, and to make request before him,
for her people.' According to this statement, Mordecai
had been informed not merely of the decree published in
Susa, which was generally known, but also of the circum-
stances of the issuing of this decree, which could scarcely

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 187

have been generally known. The question now arises :
What secret sources of information were at the disposal
of Mordecai that enabled him to inform Esther, how
Haman had obtained his decree ? For the answer to this
question, which has an important bearing on the veracity
of other passages of the Book of Esther, it is necessary
to enter into a discussion of the institution of the eunuchs
in the Persian period.

It would seem reasonable to regard the statements
concerning Haman's casting of the lots, his speech to
Ahasuerus, and his deliberations with his friends, of no
more historical value than the speeches Herodotus ascribed
to Otanes, Megabyzus, &c., on the occasion of Darius'
election,^ This is, indeed, the consensus of all modern
commentators. A due consideration of the historical con-
ditions, however, will make it evident that the statements
of the Book of Esther ought to be judged differently from
those of Herodotus. We know from Herodotus that
Babylonia's annual tribute to the Persian empire was a
thousand talents of silver and five hundred boy-eunuchs.*
Now it seems improbable that there should have been a
large number of eunuchs of Persian origin,^ as Herodotus
states : ' Next to prowess in arms, it is regarded as the
greatest proof of manly excellence to be the father of
many sons. Every year the king sends rich gifts to the
man who can show the largest number.' ^ The same idea

3 Herodotus III, 80. 81 ; see G. Rawlinson, II, p. 393, n. 3.
< Ibid., Ill, 93. In view of the fact that Herodotus visited Babylonia
during the reign of Artaxerxes I, his statement on this point may be accepted
as strictly historical.

5 Ed. Meyer {G.A., III, p. 41) thinks that there were also Persian
eunuchs. It is possible that by way of punishing officials or even common
people, their children were condemned to be made eunuchs.
^ Herodotus I, 136.

l88 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

has survived in Persia to the present day. Sir Henry
Rawlinson observes: 'The greatest misfortune, indeed,
that can befall a man in Persia is to be childless.' ' There-
fore it is unlikely that any Persian would have voluntarily
offered one of his children to be made a eunuch. This
class consisted, as a rule, of foreigners, who as Ed. Meyer
points out, very often adopted Persian names.^ The state-
ment of the Book of Daniel that the foreign boys who
were made eunuchs at the court of Nebuchadnezzar were
taught the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans, and
were given Chaldean names,'^ merely records a general
custom of antiquity, and it is very likely that the same
custom prevailed among the Persians, so that the eunuchs
were given not only Persian names but also a Persian
education.

However, the Persians were not the only race who
looked upon childlessness as a curse and disgrace. The
same was true of the Semites. ' What wilt thou give me,
seeing that I am going childless ', complained Abraham.^''
To pass away childless is a punishment for certain kinds

'' In G. Rawlinson's Herodotus I., p. 214, n. 8.

» G.A., III, p. 41.

8 Daniel 1. 4, 7. However, of the names mentioned there as being
given to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, only the first Belteshazzar
seems to be a genuine Chaldesjn name, corresponding to cuneiform Balaii-
shar-umr • Protect the life ot the king !' while the last name Abed-nego, if
corrupted or intentionally changed from Abdi-Nabu 'Servant of Nebo ',
would be properly West Semitic or Aramaic, and Shadmch and Meshach
seem to contain the Persian hypocoristical affi.x. ke, and if so are not
Chaldean. As a ir.atter of f ict, the latter name Meshach seems to be identical
with the Hebrew name, il//5/irtf/ presenting the abbreviation Misha with the
attached suffix ke.

10 Gen. 15. 2. The imputation is, of course, that there is no compensation
for a calamity of that kind.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 189

of incest. ^^ Childlessness being considered the greatest
calamity, the exilic prophet comforts the eunuchs with the
following words : ' Neither let the eunuch say : Behold,
I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord concerning the
eunuchs that keep My sabbaths, and choose the things
that please Me, and hold fast by My covenant : Even unto
them will I give in My house and within My walls a
monument and a memorial better than sons and daughters ;
I will give them an everlasting memorial that shall not
be cut off' .^^ The practice of adoption defined by many
laws in the Code of Hammurabi ^^ shows that the Baby-
lonians as well as the Hebrews considered it a misfortune
to be childless. And it is scarcely probable that this
conception had undergone a change in the Neo-Babylonian
period. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the Babylonians
would have been willing to sacrifice annually five hundred
boys to be made eunuchs.

The Jews who rejoiced at the downfall of the Babylonian
empire, and were, of course, the most loyal subjects of
the Persians, were naturally hated by the Babylonians.
The tax-collectors, being most likely Babylonians, and not
Persians, we may certainly assume that the Jews were
forced to contribute a disproportionate share to the number
of the boy-eunuchs. These victims, however, were not only
not lost to the Jews, but were of the greatest benefit to
them. Notwithstanding the Persian names and education
they were given, they remained, as far as possible, either
secretly or openly, adherents of the Jewish religion. It

11 Lev. 20. 20, 21. 1- Isa. 56. 3-5.

'3 Code of Hammurabi, col. XVI, rev. 31 ; col. XVII, rev. 23. Abraham's
complaint, ' one born in my house is to be mine heir' (Gen. 15. 3}, is to be
understood by way of adoption, which is in accordance with the Babylonian
laws, but not with those of Israel.

190 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

is very likely that they acted as the mediators between
the Persians and the Jews. We may assume that most
of the favours granted to the Jews by the Persian rulers
were due to their influence.^* Some of them may have
been leaders in Israel. Marquart's suggestion that Nehemiah
could not have been cup-bearer of Artaxerxes, if he had
not been a eunuch,^^ is very reasonable. The fact that
the exilic prophet considered it worth while to deliver a
Divine message to the eunuchs leaves no room for doubt
that this class was numerous, and did not consist of a few
scattered individuals. ' The everlasting memorial ', that
the prophet promised them was scarcely the reward for
their observance of the Jewish laws. They must have
earned ' the everlasting memorial ' in other ways. How
could he have promised them ' a monument and a memorial
in the house of the Lord, and within His walls ', if they
did not greatly contribute to the erection and existence
of ' this house and these walls ' ?

The eunuchs were better acquainted with the minutest
details at the court than any Persian and Greek. The
Persian kings were always surrounded by eunuchs.^'' Some

" Ed. Meyer {G.A., III, p. 41), states as follows: 'Among the court
officials, the eunuchs played a great part. Many of them had been raised
to highly confidential positions at the court, or were entrusted with important
offices in the provinces. In the later period, under the rule of the favourites,
they frequently exercised a decided and fatal influence on the policy of the
empire'. Now seeing that the eunuchs as a rule were of foreign descent,
we may certainly assume that the Jewish eunuchs were not less influential
than others.

'5 Fundamenie, p. 36. The fact that Nehemiah attended the king as
butler in the presence of the queen (Neh. 2. 6), leaves little room for doubt
that he was a eunuch. Besides, the personal attendants of the Persian
kings were, as a rule, eunuchs, and Nehemiah was most probably no
exception.

i'^ Even in the battle of Cunaxa we find Artaxerxes II and his brother

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 19I

eunuchs of Jewish origin may have been present at the
casting of the lots, at Haman's audience with the king,
at his deliberations with his friends, &c. There is no
improbability involved in the assumption that the com-
pilers of the Book of Esther did base the details of this
narrative upon the testimony of eye-witnesses.^'^ The
compiler may have been a eunuch himself who either in
his youth was an eye-witness of these events or relied
upon the testimony of fellow-eunuchs who were present.
There were, no doubt, Greek eunuchs as well,^* and many
notices concerning Persian events found in the works of
Greek authors may have been derived from these eunuchs.
However, the latter were indifferent to the events that
occurred at the Persian court, if they did not have a special
bearing upon Greek affairs, and upon other points their
information could scarcely have been exact, while the
Jewish eunuchs were deeply interested in events, involving
the fate of their own people. Moreover, it is even
questionable whether a strictly religious Jew who wrote
for a religious purpose does not deserve more credence

Cyrus surrounded by eunuchs, as Satibarzanes, whom the king sent out to
search for water, Mesabates, who cut off Cyrus' head and hand, Pariscas,
the chief eunuch of Cyrus, and the eunuchs who were mourning over his
body.

" Cf. chapter IV. Paton, p. 213, finds no way of accounting for
Mordecai's secret sources of information than by accepting the interpretation
oftheTargum: 'Through Elijah the high-priest ', Now it would be little
short of arrogance on our part to insinuate that scholars who write com-
mentaries on the Book of Esther are so little acquainted with Persian history
as not to know of the important part the eunuchs played in that period.
But it is due to the fact that the modern commentators regard our narrative
as a romance written in the second century b. c. e., and for this reason do
not consider it probable that the author had a proper knowledge of Persian
customs and institutions.

" Herodotus VI, 32.

192 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

than a Greek eunuch who recounts harem-stories for the
diversion of some Greek traveller. The eunuch Hathach
who acted as messenger between Esther and Mordecai was
no doubt a Jew, and so was the eunuch Harbonah who
informed the king of the gallows erected for Mordecai.
They had, of course, to conceal their Jewish religion,
as most of them did, especially in that period, but were
nevertheless devoted to the Jewish cause. Thus it is seen
that there is no historical improbability involved in assum-
ing that Mordecai's knowledge of the circumstances at the
issuing of Haman's decree was due to reliable sources of
information.

The messages that were exchanged between Mordecai
and Esther seem to indicate that the latter was more
concerned for her own safety than at the calamity of the
Jews. We cannot reproach her for her point of view.
Mordecai lived in the midst of his people. Seeing con-
tinually their misery, his heart softened, and his indifference
to the Jewish religion gradually melted away. Esther,
however, was in a different position. Having been brought
up in a lax religious spirit, her elevation to the rank of
a queen, and the separation from her own people, could
not have improved her religious principles. In the seclusion
of the harem, only rumours of Jewish persecutions reached
her, which could not make upon her so deep an impression
as upon Mordecai who saw these persecutions with his own
eyes. Furthermore, we must consider that Esther was
now confronted with a most difficult task. She could not
intercede with the king on behalf of the Jews, without
confessing her origin. In pretending to be a Persian
woman, she had obtained her rank under false pretences.
If she had been certain that the king was still deeply in

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY I93

love with her, the fact that she had concealed her origin
might have been a matter of little apprehension, as ' love
covereth all sins '. The fact, however, that the king could
bear the separation from her for thirty days, might have
been taken as a sure sign that his love was on the wane,^^
and that some other lady of the harem had attracted
his fancy. Therefore, Esther's reluctance to accede to
Mordecai's request is no proof of a callous disposition, and
does not impugn her character. She hesitated to expose
her position and, perhaps her life, for the cause of her
people, without being convinced of her ability to help
them.

On being informed of her cousin's strange conduct,
Esther rightly guessed that it must have been caused by
some unprecedented calamity of the Jews, ' and exceedingly
writhed in anxiety'. Mordecai's policy of concealing his
connexion with the Jewish people, and especially after her
elevation, for the purpose of guaranteeing her safety, was
well known to her. But the fact that Mordecai acted
in so sensational a manner was a sure indication of some
unforeseen occurrence that left him no choice but to identify
himself with his persecuted brethren. This being the case,
Esther now became apprehensive for her own person.
She correctly assumed that she would be called upon to
intercede with the king for her people and thus be forced
to reveal her own origin and religion.

It is not without reason that Esther did not ask for
any explanation, on being informed of Mordecai's strange
conduct, but merely ' sent raiment to clothe Mordecai, and

^3 Keil, p. 639, likewise suggests that Esther thought that she was not
m special favour with the king for the reason of not having been summoned
to him for thirty days.

H. O

194 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

to take his sackcloth from off him '. She did this for the
purpose of enabling him to enter the king's court, where
her messenger might confer with him secretly and not in
the presence of all the people — not, however, 'for the
purpose of communicating with him personally'.^*' Esther
was still inclined to continue as long as possible the old
policy of concealing her origin and religion. Mordecai,
however, desired just the contrary, that Esther should
imitate his example and throw off her disguise. Her
intercession with the king being now the only hope of the
Jews, he insisted upon staking her position and even her
life for the achievement of their deliverance. Therefore
Mordecai refused to accept the raiment sent by Esther,
by this refusal plainly indicating his unconcern at en-
dangering her position by his conduct.
Esther 4. ' Then called Esther for Hathach, one of the king's
^~^' eunuchs, whom he had appointed to attend upon her, and
charged him to go to Mordecai, to know what this was,
and why it was'. Thereupon Mordecai informed this
messenger, in the first place, of his personal affairs, ' of all
that had happened unto him '. He explained to him the
reason that had forced him to reveal his identity. From

20 This is the interpretation of Siegfried, p. 156, Wildeboer, p. 186, and the
same view is held by Paton, p. 217, who observes : * The author assumes that
Mordecai could hold an interview with Esther, provided that he were properly
dressed '. This, however, is decidedly wrong. Our author knew Oriental
customs better than to assume anything of that sort. Otanes could not
communicate with his own daughter Phaedima personally, as we know
from Herodotus III, 68-69. Moreover, if the sackcloth was the only
hindrance to a personal interview with Esther, why did not Mordecai
accept the raiment that Esther sent him? He surely could not have been
so unreasonably stubborn in that respect to let the chance of a personal
interview with Esther pass on account of the sackcloth that he was wearing
as a sign of mourning.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 195

the fact that Esther had no previous knowledge of
Mordecai's contact with Haman we may conclude that
they had not been in communication for a considerable
time.^^ Mordecai further informed Hathach of 'the exact
sum of the money that Haman had promised to pay to
the king's treasuries for the Jews, to destroy them '. Now
this fact Mordecai could not have learned from the decree.
The offer of Haman being a private matter between him-
self and the king, and furthermore being renounced by the
latter, in saying ' the silver is given to thee ', could not
have been mentioned in the decree. This supports our
contention that Mordecai had been informed of the cir-
cumstances at the issuing of the decree by one of the
Jewish eunuchs who was present at Haman's accusation
of the Jews and thus knew of this offer. The latter offer,
Haman's willingness to indemnify the royal treasury for
the loss it would sustain by leaving the property of the
Jews to the Gentiles who would be willing to execute
the royal decree, made the condition of the Jews wellnigh
hopeless, as was pointed out in the preceding chapter.
Their property given to the Gentiles, they could nowhere
reckon upon their assistance. In informing Esther of
Haman's offer, Mordecai's intention was to impress upon
her mind the utter hopelessness of her people's condition.
Otherwise, Esther might have comforted herself with the
thought that the population would neither permit nor be
a party to the execution of so inhuman a decree, or that
the king would not be indifferent to the loss of the royal
treasury and would repeal the decree. Finally, Mordecai

-' This would bear out our contention that Mordecai could not com-
municate with Esther except by means of her confidential eunuchs, when he
occasionally saw one of them.

O 2

196 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

handed over to Hathach ' the copy of the writing of the
decree that was given out in Shushan to destroy them,
to show it unto Esther, and to declare it unto her '. This
was not done for the purpose of convincing Esther of the
actuality of the danger impending over the Jews, but for
another reason. There must have been, as we shall further
see, a special decree for the capital of the empire which
was more severe than that given out for the provinces. ^^
Esther 4. However, notwithstanding the urgency of Mordecai's

IO-I2.

request and the knowledge of all these facts, Esther was
not wilh'ng to comply with his entreaties : ' That she should
go in unto the king, to make supplication unto him, and
to make request before him, for her people '. She explained
that there were two reasons that prevented her from under-
taking this task. On the one hand, it was impossible to
enter the royal inner court without being expressly sum-
moned by the king, and, on the other hand, the supplication
to the king would be of no avail in having the desired
effect, as apparently the king no longer cared for her^ since
he could stay away from her for a period of thirty days.
However, notwithstanding these drawbacks which did not
augur well for the success of her petition, Mordecai still
insisted upon her intercession with the king. From his
own point of view, Mordecai had to insist upon his demand.

22 See chapter IX. Paton, p. 218, is wrong in translating nb T'jriP
'and to explain to her', and suggesting that Esther was unable to read
Persian, so that Hathach had to both hand over the decree to Esther and to
interpret to her its contents. Paton evidently overlooked the fact that
Hathach was charged with a twofold message, firstly to show her the
decree, and secondly to repeat to her Mordecai's report concerning his
own experiences with Haman and the money that the latter had offered the
king, and if so, our author could not have expressed himself differently :
'The copy of the decree .... to show it unto Esther and to report to her'
the other matters. Thus nb TJnb refers to ''2Tin li? H"),

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 1 97

Esther's supplication was the last and only hope of the
Jews, though under the circumstances pointed out by her,
her success in prevailing upon the king to avert the danger
impending over them was somewhat questionable. Never-
theless, Esther's refusal to accede to Mordecai's demand
was not without justification either. The proverbial saying,
a drowning man will catch at a straw, may be true. But
we ought to consider that, if the straw had a mind of its
own, it would certainly refuse to be caught at and drawn
down. Being convinced of the futility of her attempt at
saving her people, Esther rightly refused to expose and
sacrifice herself in vain.

Seeing Esther determined on not incurring any danger Esther 4.
unless sure of attaining her purpose, Mordecai saw no
other course but to force her to that step by threats,
saying: 'Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape
in the king's house, more than all the Jews. For if thou
altogether boldest thy peace at this time, then will relief
and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place, but
thou and thy father's house will perish '. By these words,
Mordecai meant to imply that by holding aloof from her
people, Esther would not escape the fate she feared by
interceding for them. Seeing no means of preserving their
religion, the Jews would, of course, for the time being, be
compelled to abandon it, rather than sacrifice their exis-
tence for its sake, and would hope for a change in govern-
ment or in its policy, when they could avow it again. —
Most of the Jews did the same under similar circumstances
at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. — In this way, they
would be saved, without her intercession. But, having been
forsaken by her in the hour of their despair, the Jews
would certainly avenge themselves, and reveal to the king

198 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

the deception practised upon him. Then she and her
accomphces in this fraud, 'her father's house', namely
Mordecai himself and his family, would lose their lives.--'
Consequently, it would be less dangerous to confess freely
her deception, and to throw herself on the king's mercy. In
order to encourage her, Mordecai suggested the possibility
that she might have been providentially raised to this
exalted position for the purpose of saving her people in
this emergency, saying : ' and who knoweth whether thou
art not come to royal estate for such a time as this ? '
The sceptical expression * who knoweth ' (yiv "'O), is quite
in keeping with Mordecai's character as outlined above.
He does not seem to trust implicitly in Providence, or
perhaps doubts the justice of the Jewish cause.
Esther 4. Being impressed with Mordecai's argument, that the
refusal to endanger herself by revealing her origin and
religion, for the sake of her people, would inevitably lead
to her destruction, Esther chose the lesser evil, in following
Mordecai's advice, saying : ' If I perish, I perish ', in any
case (TnaN TnaN ncw^l). However, she did not believe in
the advisability of this step and despaired of the success
of her mission. Now religion is the last refuge in despair,
even among people of sceptical disposition. Esther was in
this respect no exception, saying : ' Go, gather together all

2^ Mordecai scarcely referred to a special divine judgement inflicted upon
her for neglecting her duty toward her people, since her father's house
could not be punished on account of her wrongs. Siegfried, p. 158, is
evidently mixed up in his interpretation, and seems to have read flN HDyi
nSNn "I''3X n^31 • now, however, thou and thy fathers house will perish
with the Jews '. He seems to have overlooked Mordecai's observation that
' then will relief and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place '. As
to his remark, why no allowance is made for the possibility that the king
will make an exception in Esther's favour, it rests on the current interpreta-
tion that Haman's decree aimed at the destruction of the Jewish race.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY I99

the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me,
and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day ; I also
and my maidens will fast in like manner.' Esther in
imposing fasting upon her maidens, of course, refers to those
of Jewish origin.^^

Esther's action as described in the opening verses of Esthers,
the fifth chapter, seems incomprehensible. There does ^~^'
not seem to be any valid reason why Esther should have
gone to the king without being summoned, and should thus
have exposed herself to the danger of being killed on the
spot, in which case she would have been of no further use
to the Jews, and her sacrifice would have been in vain.
Was there no way of requesting an audience of the king ?
Surely the king was not so unapproachable that no message
could reach him ! However, after due consideration, we
cannot but approve of Esther's action. Her acting in that
way was dictated by a psychological reason. She assumed,
as seen above, that the king was no longer in love with her,
and that one of the other ladies of the harem enjoyed his
favour. Now it is one of the most unpleasant tasks for
a man who has been in love with a woman to inform her
that he does not care for her any longer. He would rather

-* Among the maids at the court were also some of Jewish origin whom
Esther had chosen for her special attendants, as she could rely upon them
not to betray her origin. There is no reason why Esther could not have
chosen among the girls of Susa those who were to her liking, and naturally
those of Jewish origin. Paton, however, prefers an interpretation that is
absolutely improbable, in observing : ' Although the maids given by Hegai
must have been heathen, yet Esther values the help of their fasting ; and
they are loyal enough to her to be willing to undertake it '. But does it
stand to reason that Esther was forced to keep those seven maidens whom
Hegai had given her five years before that event and before the king had
chosen her as successor to Vashti, and thus was limited exactly to the
number of seven and was not permitted as queen to enlarge her household ?

200 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

go to any extent to avoid her than to meet her and tell her
the truth frankly. In this respect there is no difference
between a king and a common man. Human nature
always remains the same. Herodotus tells us that when
Xerxes fell in love with his niece Araynta, he dreaded
Amestris who might detect his love.^^ Artaxerxes H was
in this respect not different from Xerxes. If Esther had
requested an audience of the king, the latter might, to
avoid facing her, have given an evasive answer, on the plea
of being too much occupied with affairs of state. Even
if the king should grant her an audience, being prepared
for her coming, and having time for reflection, he might not
be greatly impressed with her appearance. In this case,
her confession, that she did not have a right to her exalted
position, might give the king a just cause and the best
chance of getting rid of her. Therefore, Esther resolved
upon taking the king by surprise. Coming unawares upon
him, she hoped — perhaps against hope — that her unequalled
beauty would re-awaken his passion for her. Considering
it from this point of view, we must admit that Esther was
a clever woman, and displayed in this stratagem more
sagacity and better knowledge of human nature than
modern critics who see in this part of the story a defect
of composition.^^

However, even if the preliminary step turned out
favourably, as Esther had expected, the intercession itself
was nevertheless an extremely delicate problem that had

25 Herodotus IX, 109.

2* See Wildeboer, Siegfried, Paton, and others who refer to Herodotus
III, 72, 77, 84, 118, 140, who states that people might send in a message to
the king and request an audience. Paton especially observes : ' Either the
author does not know Persian custom, or he intentionally suppresses his
knowledge in order to make Esther's going to the king more heroic ' (p. 220).

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 20I

to be handled very cautiously. Esther was well acquainted
with the weak side of the king's character, knowing that he
was capricious and easily accessible to personal influences.
Though in her company, the king would be completely
under her influence and willingly grant her request, out
of her sight, in the presence of the prime minister, whom
he would consult on that matter before giving a final
decision, he would yield to the minister's influence. Further-
more, Haman could not but suspect that the disrespect
of the queen's relative toward his person was not without
her approval. Consequently, Haman was on his guard
against her. But, at the same time, he was careful that
none of his actions should give her any cause for intrigue,
and therefore, as seen above, hesitated to punish Mordecai
for his disrespect toward him, though legally he was
justified in doing so. But if Haman should get information
of Esther taking the part of the Jews and belonging to
the same creed, his suspicion would be turned into a
certainty. In this case, retreat was impossible for him.
An open war between the queen and himself, similar to
that between Parysatis and Tissaphernes,-' would have
been unavoidable. By his influence, he might frustrate
her attempts to meddle with the affairs of the empire.
Furthermore, he might impress upon the mind of the king
that his authority was at stake, if it should be known
among the people that the chief wife of the king was a
woman of Jewish origin. Considering the king's weak
and vacillating nature, the outcome of such a combat was
uncertain. Therefore, Esther resolved upon disarming
Haman's suspicions by pretending the highest esteem and
friendship for his person. And by matching her influence

■-"' Plutarch, Artaxerxes XXIU, i, 2.

-5-

202 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

against that of the prime minister, she aimed at bringing
about his downfall in her presence.
Esther 5. Seeing Esther coming to him uninvited and thus

exposing herself to the danger of being killed on the spot,
the king naturally assumed that it must be a matter of
high importance, demanding immediate attention that
impelled her so to act, and therefore inquired into the
cause of the matter : ' What wilt thou, queen Esther ? for
whatever thy request, even to the half of the kingdom, it
shall be given thee '. Strange as it might seem, Esther's
request was extremely modest. In reply to the king's
extravagant offer: ' If it seem good unto the king, let the
king and Haman come this day unto the banquet that
I have prepared for him '. Was the king not amazed at
her answer that she had exposed her life for the purpose
of inviting him personally to a banquet ? No ! As we
know from Herodotus quoted above, it being the general
practice of the Persians to deliberate upon affairs of weight,
when they were drunk, Esther in accordance with the
Persian custom prepared a drinking bout for the considera-
tion of an affair of high importance. Now Haman, of
course, had among the eunuchs his friends or spies who
supplied him with information of all the happenings at the
court. Esther's invitation could not be kept a secret either.
If he were informed of this affair, Haman might have
surmised the nature of the intrigue. In order to show
that she had no secrets from him, Esther requested the
king that the prime minister should be present at the
deliberation. His presence at the banquet was quite in
order, seeing that the dehberation concerned affairs of
state, and this part of her request was no surprise to the
king. It was probably not the first time that Haman had

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 203

been admitted to the king's table to dine with the queen.
Plutarch states that, at the time of Stateira, Artaxerxcs II
did that honour to two of his brothers.^^ Therefore we
may well assume that the king did the same honour to
the prime minister ' whose seat was set above all the

princes '.

However, Esther did not underestimate the prime Esther 5.
minister's sagacity, and there might still have lingered
in his mind some suspicion that the queen's invitation was
merely a trap to cause his downfall unexpectedly. Though
it was unlikely that Haman should still entertain any
suspicion of her disposition toward his person, Esther did
not want to take any chance, and therefore pretended that
her mind was not yet fully made up concerning the request
to be deliberated upon, and again invited both the king
and Haman to another banquet for the next day. This
second invitation left no doubt in Haman's mind that he

28 Plutarch, A fiaxerxeSfW, 5. Even without reference to Plutarch, it would
seem highly improbable that the king should not have been able to deliberate
with his own chief councillor in the presence of his own wife. Butit israther
strange that none of the modern commentators, who presumably investigated
all the historical sources bearing on this subject and to whom Herodotus'
description of Persian customs could scarcely have been unknown, can find
a plausible reason for Esther's request : ' let the king and Haman come this
day unto the banquet that I have prepared for him', instead of asking for
the life of the Jews. Nor do they explain the reason why Haman should
have been invited with the king. They believe that the true reason is
purely literary : ' The author needs time for the humiliation of Haman and
the exaltation of Mordecai before the final blow falls '. Did the statement of
Herodotus with regard to the' customs of the Persians that ' it is also theii
general practice to deliberate upon affairs of weight when they are drunk'
escape their mind? If not, did it never occur to them that Herodotus'
statement applies exactly to the case under consideration which had to be
deliberated under the influence of wine, and that it was natural that the
grand vizier should be present at the deliberation which concerned an affair
of state? See, however, note 17.

204 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

was a great favourite with the queen, and he now became
fully convinced that she had not the least regard for her
relative. He might even have concluded that the queen's
very intention of showing him this great honour was for
the purpose of impressing upon his mind that she had been
no party to the disrespectful conduct of her cousin toward
his person, and that she heartily condemned his behaviour.
Thus, any fear that she might avenge his just punishment
was dispelled. Nothing now stood in the way of meting
out the penalty to the wilful offender against the king's
command.

On coming home, Haman called for his friends, his
favourite wife, and numerous sons, who were high officials,
and laid the matter before them, informing them how
secure now his position was. Though he had been exalted
above all grandees, nevertheless he did not feel quite at
his ease, seeing the disrespect shown to him by the queen's
relative, and being afraid that it was done with her know-
ledge. To punish him as he deserved was not without
danger. Now, however, the circumstances were different.
There was no need for him any longer to combat the
influence of the harem. Being a favourite of the queen,
he could use also her influence with the king for his
purposes.
Esther 5. These reasons seeming plausible enough, the consensus

of Haman's advisers was, not to put up any longer with
Mordecai's impertinence, and not to defer his punishment
for flagrantly flaunting the king's command, saying: 'Let
a gallows be made of fifty cubits high, and in the morning
speak thou unto the king that Mordecai may be hanged
thereon'. Critics consider the statement that the gallows
prepared for Mordecai was fifty cubits high an exaggeration,

14

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 205

and it has been suggested to read ' five cubits ' (nios ti'cn),
instead of ' fifty cubits '.-^ This suggestion, however, is
gratuitous. Our author certainly knew the usual height
of gallows in the Orient better than all the commentators.
If his intention had been to indicate that the gallows
Haman erected was of the usual height, there would have
been no need to inform us how high it was. But the actual
existence of exaggerations in our story is undeniable, and
we have seen that they are not original but additions
of a later period, and the same may be true of the
statement concerning the height of the gallows. However,
while in our passage this statement may be out of place,
and was perhaps taken over from 7. 9, there is no reason
to doubt its truth, that Haman actually erected a gallows
fifty cubits high for the purpose of punishing Mordecai in
a spectacular manner. Mordecai's offence could not but
arouse publicity, and therefore his punishment should fit
the crime. Furthermore, it might prove a warning to the
Jews to part with their creed and convince them of the
hopelessness of their condition, seeing that even the queen's
relative could not escape his fate in his encounter with
the author of the decree. Finally, such a public execution
would impress upon the mind of the population the firm
position of the prime minister, so that none would dare
to interfere with his decree and prevent its execution. For
those reasons Haman erected the gallows on some high
structure, so that everybody could see it.

Haman's downfall could have been effected without the
incident described in the sixth chapter, which shows how
Mordecai was unexpectedly honoured. This incident is

28 Haupt {Purim, p. 6) observes that he would be inclined to make this
suggestion, if the story were not fictitious.

2o6 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

admittedly highly impressive, as it shows a singular instance
of the irony of fate. The man for whom Haman erected
the highest gallows, received at his own hands the highest
honours. But, after all, this is merely an incident, and
not a necessary link in the chain of natural circumstances.
If the story were fiction we might see in the insertion of
this incident a slight defect of composition. The dramatic
effect and the contrast would have been more impressive
if Haman had been overthrown at the height of his power
and ambition. Owing to this incident, however, Haman's
humiliation foreshadows his downfall, and the reader is
prepared to see his final doom. Yet our author is by no
means averse to dramatic effects to impress the mind
of the reader. His story is construed according to the
laws of cause and effect. None of his sentences, as far
as original, are superfluous or illogical. However, fact is
proverbially stranger than fiction. Our author records
an historical event, and was not a writer of fiction, and
thus could do nothing against facts. The incident of the
sixth chapter actually did occur, and also greatly contributed
to cause Haman's downfall.
Esther 6. While Haman was busy at home preparing the gallows

for Mordecai, and anticipating the satisfaction of revenge
on his adversary, a trivial incident occurred at the court
that frustrated his intention and was the cause of his own
humiliation. ' On that night could not the king sleep ;
and he commanded to bring the book of the records of the
chronicles^"; and they were read before the king. And

30 Paton, p. 244, remarks : ' This is not a natural way to pass a sleepless
night ; with his numerous wives, the king might have found something
livelier'. But this is rather a naive observation. An oriental king may
sometimes become sick and tired of his numerous wives and not care for the
pleasures of the harem.

1-3-

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 207

it was found written that Mordecai had told of Bigthana
and Teresh, two of the king's eunuchs, of those that kept
the door, who had sought to lay hands on the king
Ahasuerus.' VVe may assume that it was that part of
the chronicles wherein his personal affairs were recorded,^^
and therefore it was quite natural that also the deed of
Mordecai who had revealed the conspiracy of the chamber-
lains against the life of the king was mentioned therein.
Now it is scarcely probable that the deed of Mordecai was
merely mentioned incidently among the other events. But
it is more likely that a Jewish eunuch played the part
of Providence in that incident,^^ and intentionally read
Mordecai's deed before the king, as the latter in his bed-
chamber was undoubtedly surrounded by eunuchs, and
not by other courtiers. On being informed of Mordecai's
deed, the king inquired: *What honour and dignity hath

3' Mordecai's deed, as we are distinctly told, ' was written in the book
of the chronicles before the king ' (Esther 2. 23). The peculiar expression
* before the king ' indicates that this ' book ' was reserved for the private
use of the king and thus was kept in his apartments and not in the archives.
This clause would thus indicate that there were other Persian annals of
a general character. We may well assume that the king was especially
interested in matters concerning his own person and kept a record of them
for future reference. Hence ' the book of records ' formed a special division
of 'the chronicles', and is thus identical with 'the book of the chronicles
before the king '. If so, D''rD\n niT m^n^TH 1DD is to be rendered ' the
book of the records o/tbe chronicles'. Haupt '^Critical Notes, p. 161), how-
ever, sees in D^Cn ^*13T a gloss. But then, it must have been added to the
text before its rendering into Greek, as the Greek version has ixvrjfiuavva luiv

^2 Paton, p. 245, permits himself the philosophical observation : ' This is
the way that things happen in ' story-books not in real life '. However,
taking into consideration the important part that eunuchs played in that
period, this miracle can find a rational explanation, since the Jewish eunuchs
may well have played the part of Providence in this incident. See, how-
ever, note 17.

2o8 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

been done to Mordecai for this?* Then said the king's
servants that ministered unto him : ' There is nothing done
for him '. The answer was correct. The king did not ask
whether any reward had been offered to him for this deed,
and the servants probably could not have said anything
about it. They knew only of the fact that Mordecai was
still in the same position as before the conspiracy. How-
ever, we have seen that Mordecai might easily have obtained
a high office on Esther's elevation, but had preferred to
remain in obscurity, lest his identity should have become
known, and for the same reason he could not but decline
any reward offered him for having saved the king's life.
Esther 6. The king was, of course, deeply hurt to perceive how

'^"^' little his life was valued in the eyes of his ministers, that
the man who had saved it had been left unrewarded. It
was a point of honour with the Persian kings to reward
magnificently those who conferred benefits on them. The
omission in this case could be due only to the negligence
of his prime minister. The latter ought to have known
all meritorious persons in the empire, even those whose
deeds dated back to a period before he had been placed
at the head of the government, and ought to have recom-
mended them for their due rewards. The neglect to do
so was some indication that his loyalty to his sovereign
was not so firm as he pretended it to be, and was evidently
due to his personal ambition, being jealous of the merits
of other men, and being afraid lest they should gain favour
in the eyes of the king. He fully deserved, if not punish-
ment, at least a lesson in modesty and self-abnegation,
becoming a minister claiming to care only for the welfare
of the empire. Reflections of this kind may have been,
as events proved, in the mind of the king.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 209

The councillors used to come to the court early in the
morning to be at the king's disposal. Thus it was in order
that the king should inquire : ' Who is in the court ? ' as
some or one of the councillors were sure to be there. But
the author explains that the presence of the prime minister
at the king's levee was only on rare occasions, and this
time it was due to the fact of ' having come into the outer
court of the king's house to speak unto the king to hang
Mordecai on the gallows that he had prepared for him '.
On being summoned into the inner court, the king asked
him : ' What shall be done unto the man whom the king
delighteth to honour ? ' The question was, of course, a snare,
and Haman was caught in it. This is seen from the fact
of his not being told the name of the person for whom this
honour was intended. This evidently indicates that the
king did not trust him to be fair toward everybody.
Recalling to his mind the honour shown to him by the
queen the day before, Haman firmly believed that she had
influenced the king in his favour to heap new honours
upon him, and therefore said in his heart: 'Whom would
the king delight to honour besides myself?'

Of special significance for the incident under considera-
tion is a story of Artaxerxes II narrated by Plutarch :
' One day as the king was hunting, Tiribazus showed him
a rent in his robe ; upon which the king said, " What
shall I do with it ? " " Put on another and give it to me ",
Tiribazus answered. " It shall be done so", said the king,
" I give it to thee, but I charge thee not to wear it."
Tiribazus, though not a bad man, was vain and giddy, and
disregarding the restriction, soon put on the robe, at the
same time tricking himself out with some golden trinkets
fit only for queens. The court expressed great indignation.

2IO THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

because it was a thing contrary to Persian laws and
customs ; but the king only laughed and said to Tiribazus :
" I allow thee to wear the trinkets as a woman and the
robe as a madman ".' ^^ We thus see that it must have
been a rare distinction to wear apparel the king had worn.
Esther 6. This rare distinction of being arrayed with the apparel

which the king used to wear, Haman proposed for the man
whom the king intended to honour. On hearing Haman's
proposal, the king was now fully convinced of his prime
minister's unbounded ambition, as it was obvious that the
highest grandee of the empire could not have proposed
an honour of this magnitude for any other man but himself.
If reflections of the kind suggested above crossed his mind
on the information that the man who saved his life re-
mained unhonoured, the king was now more than ever
resolved upon lowering Haman's pride, and to his amaze-
ment, commanded him to bestow personally the honours,
he had proposed for himself, upon the man whom he was
about to denounce to the king, and for whose execution
he intended to request permission. Now the royal com-
mand to do this honour personally exceeded the proposal
of Haman, as the latter was not merely ' one of the king's
most noble princes ', but the highest among them ' whose
seat was set above all the princes '. If he had not intended
to humble Haman's pride, the king would certainly have
commanded one of the other grandees to bestow these

23 Plutarch, A riaxer.ves V, 3, 4. Now it might, indeed, have been against
Persian customs to wear the garment of the king, and therefore it was
a special distinction, since the king, as we have seen, was not restricted by
any custom. Tiribazus, of course, did not have any claim to being dis-
tinguished in that way. Paton, p. 248, also refers to the story of Plutarch,
and remarks that from this it appears that to wear the king's own robe was
accounted one of the greatest favours.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 211

honours upon Mordecai. Serving as page and herald to
any other man was certainly not becoming the grand vizier
of the empire. But if the king doubted his devotion, and
was chagrined at his overbearing pride, Haman's proposal
as amended by the king was the best course of teaching
him modesty and justice toward everybody.

This incident, as narrated by the author of 6ur story,
involves no improbability, and there is no apparent reason
why it should be discredited. However, this is far from
being the current opinion of critics due to a term used
here that seems to be out of place. Modern biblical com-
mentators have a special predilection for textual emenda-
tions. Words or passages under consideration that do not
square with their interpretations are frequently considered
errors of copyists, and as such emended. Their interpre-
tations and emendations may or may not be wrong, but
the method they apply is certainly sound and justifiable,
even from a strictly conservative point of view. The
biblical text may have been inspired, but the copyists who
handed it down were certainly not. The word of God
was written down by honest. God-fearing men, but they
were not infallible, and though they may have been careful
and sagacious they were liable to commit errors like any
other careful writer. The Book of Esther, however, is
treated differently from all other sacred writings. Though
generally regarded inferior to the latter, and by most of
the modern critics not looked upon as sacred narrative
at all, nevertheless if this book contains words absolutely
inconsistent with and contradictory to the story, the
modern critics cling tenaciously to them, and do not ascribe
such a palpable fact to errors of copyists, for the purpose
of demonstrating that this story could not have happened.

212 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

Esther 5,
13-

Esther 6.
13-

Esther 6.

A striking instance of that kind may be seen in the fifth
and sixth chapters of our story. On his return from the
queen's banquet, and assembling his friends to deliberate
with them on his position and Mordecai's punishment,
Haman states among others : ' Yet all this availeth me
nothing, so long as I see Mordecai tJie Jeiv sitting at
the king's gate '. Thus it is evident that Haman's friends
were acquainted with the fact that Mordecai was a Jew.
Nevertheless, after Haman's humiliation, and on recounting
' to all his friends every thing that had befallen him ',
the same friends told him : ' If Mordecai be of the seed
of the Jeivs, before whom thou hast begun to fall, thou
shalt not prevail against him, but shalt surely fall before
him '. Here, again, we see that Haman's friends before
this incident had not known that Mordecai was a Jew.
Furthermore, on Haman's proposal of the honours that
should be bestowed upon the man whom the king intended
to honour, the king commanded him : ' Make haste, and
take the apparel and the horse, as thou hast said, and do
even so to Mordecai the Jeiv, that sitteth at the king's
gate '. Does it stand to reason that the king should have
honoured a member of the people who had been accused
of disloyalty, and whose extermination he had decreed
a few days before that incident ? ^* This difficulty could
find its solution only by means of the preposterous ex-
planation that Ahasuerus had not known the name of the
people whose extermination he had decreed. There is

-^ So also Wildeboer and others. According to Haupt, Critical Notes,
a considerable part of the Book of Esther, in the Massoretic text, and often even
in cases where the latter agrees with the Greek version, consists of glosses,
and thus there is no reason why the same should not be true of the term

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 21 3

no need for entering into a discussion of such an in-
terpretation, as we have dealt ah-eady in the third chapter
of our investigation with this impossible view. Rut there
can be no doubt that those difficulties and improbabilities
would automatically disappear, if we see in the term ' the
Jew\ in both places under consideration, a slip of the
pen on the part of the copyists.

The name of Mordecai, in his lifetime, and also later,
among the Jewish people, was ' Mordecai the Jew ' O^nno
niiTH), perhaps, because Mordecai was an un- Jewish name,
or for some other reason. It was pardonable on the part
of the Jews to emphasize their connexion with the man
who had occupied the highest position in the empire,
whose exterior and conduct neither before nor after the
event narrated in our story distinguished him as a member
of the Jewish people. The present Jews do exactly the
same, pointing out with special pride the Jewish descent
of some high officials or renowned scholars, who on the
point of religion have scarcely anything in common with
Israel. The copyists were so used to this designation
' the Jew ' (niiTn), that they inserted it in wrong places.
Ahasuerus had not the slightest notion of Mordecai's
Jewish descent. It is not likely that Mordecai's fellow-
officials, who had been a short time before apprised of this
fact by Mordecai himself, should have hastened to the
king to inform him of this important news. Siegfried
ingeniously remarks : ' Mordecai's origin was, of course,
recorded in the annals ' ?^ But how could this fact have
been recorded in the annals, seeing that Mordecai himself
had njiade a secret of it ? ' Could Ahasuerus have forgotten

3s Siegfried, Wildeboer, Paton, &c.

214 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

Mordecai's nationality ? ' commentators ask mockingly.^"

No, he did not forget it, and he never knew it.

Esther 6. Haman's humiliation, as we remarked above, fore-

12-13.

shadowed his downfall. He was a person of high intellect

and sagacity, and at once perceived that the king intended
to humiliate him. His prestige was gone. The population
could not regard him any longer as the first man of the
empire. If the king had intended to retain him in his
office he would not have undermined his authority, as the
king's power rests upon that of his representatives, entrusted
with the reins of government, and his authority demands
that his grand vizier should be generally respected.
Therefore, Haman was afraid that his official career would
soon be over.

On coming home humbled and dispirited, ' mourning
and with covered head ', and recounting to his friends
everything that had befallen him, the latter confirmed his
worst fears. If what they told Haman should be con-
sidered a prediction, which is, indeed, the consensus of
opinion of the commentators, then this prediction must
not be regarded as an historical fact, but merely as a
legendary tradition. After an event has occurred, people
always claim that it was predicted, according to the
maxim : '■post hoc ergo propter hoe '. Especially in this
case, ' the wise men ' (D'^nan), whom we may identify with
the Magians, might have spread this tale among the people,
after Mordecai succeeded Haman as prime minister, and
prided themselves on the fact of having predicted Haman's
downfall and Mordecai's elevation. However, this inter-

"^ This question had already been raised in the eighteenth century by
J. D. Michaelis, and since then it is repeated by all critics, without perceiving
the fundamental error of this question.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 215

pretation is far-fetched and unnecessary. The statement
of Haman's friends was not a prediction but a foregone
conclusion. It was reasonable to expect that Mordecai,
after having been so magnificently honoured, should
become one of the highest grandees of the empire. If
Mordecai had not been a Jew, his high rank might have
caused some concern to Haman, but would not necessarily
have been detrimental to his position as prime minister.
Both the latter and the new favourite might have lived
upon the best terms, and shared the king's favour
together. But owing to the fact that Mordecai was ' of
the seed of the Jews', the latter and the prime minister
were deadly enemies, and could not exist side by side.
Considering that Mordecai was high in favour, and Haman's
position was badly shaken, the outcome of their impending
combat could easily be foreseen. ^^ However, after all,
Haman's high position only was in danger, and not his
life. He did not commit any crime that should have put
his life in jeopardy. Nor does the prediction of his friends
imply the loss of his head, as is generally understood by
commentators.

We have mentioned above the letter of Cyrus the
Younger to the Lacedaemonians, quoted by Plutarch in
his * Life of Artaxerxes ', in which Cyrus boasts that he
is able to drink more wine, and carry it better than his
brother Artaxerxes.''^ This statement is the key to the
seventh chapter of the Book of Esther, and the only
explanation of Haman's final downfall and execution. We

" Paton is thus wrong in observing that ' It is hard to see why Haman's
friends should find anything alarming in his sustaining a temporary reverse
before a Jew '.

38 See chapter IV, note 35.

2)6 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

learn from Cyrus' letter that the Persians prided them-
selves on their drinking capacity, and considered it a great
virtue to be able to consume large quantities of wine
without becoming intoxicated. One incapable of per-
forming such a feat was looked upon as a weak character ;
for a person of strong intellect is not easily overpowered
by intoxicants. On the contrary, under their influence,
the energies are roused, and the mental faculties stimulated.
For that reason, the Persians deliberated upon weighty
affairs under the influence of wine, as seen from Herodotus'
statement quoted in the seventh chapter of this work.
Tacitus asserts that the Germans did exactly the same.^^
This letter shows further that Artaxerxes did not possess
this quality, and was frequently overpowered by wine.
There is not the least reason to doubt Cyrus' statement,
as a Persian, and especially an Achaemenian prince, would
not tell a falsehood. Cyrus evidently meant to indicate
that Artaxerxes being a weak character, a treaty with
such a king would be rather precarious. Being exceedingly
vain, Artaxerxes would never have conceded that he was
deficient in what the Persians considered a high quality.
We may rest assured that at a convivium he indulged
more in drink than his guests, and unable to stand it,
became actually intoxicated. In such a condition he may
have committed many an action that he never would have
done had he been in his right senses. Woe, however, unto
the man who would have had the temerity the next day
to remind the king that he was too strongly affected by
wine, and for this reason ought to reverse his decision.
The fate of Prexaspes, who declared Cambyses to be
greater than his father Cyrus the Great, with the exception

•"'' Tacitus, Germauica, 22.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 21 7

of being too much given to wine, as Herodotus recounts,*'^
was a fair warning to the Persian courtiers not to allude
to a weakness in the king's character. If Artaxerxes did
commit an imprudent action in a state of intoxication, he
could not but approve of it the next day, as otherwise
his weakness would have become known.

Dejected at his recent experience, and thrown into Esther 6.
a state of deep consternation, by the prediction of his
friends, Haman was still seeking ways and means of extri-
cating himself from his difficult position, and his inclination
was so far from feasting, that he almost forgot the queen's
invitation. He was not there in time."*^ This was a breach
of court etiquette. Fancy the king waiting for his guest !
This is what our author meant to indicate, saying : ' While
they were yet talking with him, came the king's eunuchs,
and hastened to bring Haman unto the banquet that Esther
had prepared.'

The downfall of Haman, notwithstanding the preceding Esther?, i.
incident, would scarcely have been effected, if the king had
been drinking moderately, or, if under the influence of
quantities of wine he had consumed, he would have been
capable of reasoning clearly concerning the affairs of the
empire. The deliverance of the Jews was apparently due
to the defect in his character attributed to him by his
brother Cyrus, He was actually at that time in a condition

^o Herodotus 111,35.

^' The expression it^Tl^M 'they hastened', instead of \'CT\ nS "IN^Q^I
'they brought Haman ', is not without reason, and evidently indicates that
Haman had tarried too long at home. Paton, however, ignoring the real
significance of the term, asserts that there is no suggestion that Haman in
his grief had forgotten his appointment with Esther and the expression
hastened ' means no more than ' brought expeditiously '. This may perhaps
be true of the English term, but certainly not of that of Hebrew. Our
interpretation agrees with that of Wildeboer.

2l8 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

of not being able, as it were, to tell Hainan from Mordecai.
Now we have seen, as Herodotus states, that the Persians
were sometimes sober at their first deliberations.*^ And
we have further pointed out that Haman's accusation of
the Jews did not take place at a banquet, since the decision
was apparently reconsidered under the influence of wine.*"
Being fully convinced of the king's love for her, Esther had
nothing to fear for her own person and position, and could
frankly confess her origin to the king. If Hanian had
deceived the king, and his advice of destroying the Jevv^s
was due to pure malice, for the purpose of wreaking ven-
geance on Mordecai — as the Massoretic text indicates, and
as accepted by all commentators — Esther could have
caused his downfall in his presence, in a straightforward
manner, when the king was capable of dealing with affairs
of state, and not at a drinking feast. His action being
outrageous, and nothing short of high treason, Haman
would have lost his head at once. The king could never
pardon such a crime of having used his authority for the
extermination of a whole people, and having him branded
as a cruel monarch, for the purpose of wreaking Haman's
own revenge on a member of that people. However, the
current interpretation is absolutely wrong. Haman in his
accusation of the Jews did neither deceive the king, nor
was his decree due to a private grudge against Mordecai.
For this reason Esther was forced to take advantage of
a moment when the king was not responsible for his
actions, and had no other choice but to resort to the
Persian custom of deliberating affairs of importance under
the influence of drink, as only under such circumstances
the downfall of the prime minister and the deliverance of

^2 Herodotus I, 133. " See chapter VII.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 219

the Jews might be effected. That drinking, for the purpose

of a deliberation, was the only reason for Esther's banquet,

may be further seen from the singular expression : ' And

the king and Haman came to drink (niDK'^) with Esther

the queen '. The identical expression is used also in the

third chapter, in the passage: 'the king and Haman sat

down to drink ', and we have seen that our author meant

to indicate thereby, that Haman's decree was reconsidered

under the influence of wine.

Drinking without discretion as usual, ' the king said Esther 7.

2-6.
again unto Esther on the second day at the banquet of

wine : Whatever thy petition, queen Esther, it shall be

granted thee ; and whatever thy request, even to the half

of the kingdom, it shall be performed. Then Esther the

queen answered and said : If I have found favour in thy

sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be given

me at my petition and my people at my request ; for we

are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed '** (to be slain,

■■^ Though in the decrees of both Haman and Mordecai the superfluous
synonyms H^Xb") 31"int5 HOBTlt' are doubtlessly later additions, there is good
evidence for the assumption that here in Esther's accusation of Haman
these terms are original. It is natural that Esther in her excitement should
have strongly emphasized the danger impending over her people and for
this reason used synonymous expressions. It is even probable that the late
interpolators in inserting T\Tw lat^xT} into the decrees of Haman and
Mordecai borrowed these terms from Esther's accusation. That these terms
in the latter are original can be plainly seen from the fact that the Greek
translator here read "J13yp1 fD? ll^DTI? 'to be destroyed, to be plundered,
and to serve ', instead of ^3NPV yV\Tw IDiiTIP . To be sure, it is quite
inconceivable that a Jewish translator should have misread *113yi5 ' to serve '
for 13N7 'to be destroyed '. But this rendering may be taken as a further
confirmation of our contention that the Greek translator did not possess
a Hebrew copy of the Book of Esther, when he made his translation (see
chapter I, note 8). It is perhaps due to this error that the Greek text is
here mixed up and totally corrupt in other respects, as far as its rendering

220 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

and to perish). But if we had been sold for bondmen and
bondwomen, I had held my peace, for the calamity would
not be equal to the loss of the king (i. e. we would endure
this calamity rather than that the king's revenues should
suffer a loss) '.'^^ We notice here that Esther took good

from the Hebrew is concerned. The term 113^7 did not seem to the
translator to be properly in agreement with Esther's further remark 1?N1
Tl'iinnn IJiarOJ ninD:ri51 nnayi? ' But if we had been sold for bondmen
and bondwomen, I had held my peace ' and therefore he read DH^V? UNI
13"I3JDJ ninDCpl ' and we are sold for bondmen and bondwomen '. But
then the rendering irap-qKovaa corresponding to ^JT^innn would be meaning-
less in this connexion, unless the meaning of this passage would be : if
*l"l3yi) only and not in?*! IJDtJTI? should be our fate, I had held my peace.
Further the rendering (irpadrj^KV does certainly not correspond to Hebrew
"IJ"I3123 , unless the translator read 13D°in3 in the meaning of * forfeited to the
royal treasury '. Finally the translator seems to have read "ISH pN ^3
■jpOn "lifnn niC 'for the adversary is not fit for the royal court', if not
"I^ron p^]'02 mC* lifnn pN '•3 ' for the (royal) court is not fit for one
who causes damage to the king'. Errors of this kind would have been
impossible, if the translator had not merely relied upon his memory, in
rendering the story into Greek.

^^ The term "IJf is with Ibn Ezra's commentary to be construed as
an abstract noun 'calamity'. All the attempts at construing it as a
concrete noun, ' enemy ', have failed. This clause must contain the reason
for Esther's keeping silence. Cf. the discussion of the various inter-
pretations of this passage in Paton's commentary, p. 261. But Paton is
certainly wrong in his objection to the construction of ~IV as ' calamity,
adversity ', maintaining that it never has that meaning in Esther. As a
matter of fact, this term occurs only twice in our story, here and in"l5f C'''N,
and as to the latter, Paton and others failed to see that it actually means :
' man of opposition, hostility ', corresponding to Aramaic N33T by3.
Haman is elsewhere not designated as DnHTTl "IV but as D^Hin^n IIIV.
Ottli's and Wildeboer's suggestion to read "J^Cn pn3 nVk:' rib'Sn pN '3
'for the deliverance is not worthy that the king should be endamaged',
is thus an unnecessary emendation, though linguistically well possible, as
the term ilbvil actually occurs in our story (Esther 4. 14). Haupt (Critical
Notes, p. 165) maintains that the term pT3, which in the Bible occurs only
here, does not mean 'damage', but 'annoyance'. But this term occurs
innumerable times in the Mishnah,Talmud, and Midrashim, where it certainly

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 221

care not to mention the name of her people exposed to
destruction, as otherwise it would have spoiled the effect.
The king did not have the slightest notion of Esther's
Jewish origin. Being intoxicated, his intellect was naturally-
obscured, and he could not divine that Esther alluded to
the Jewish people. Hence, surprised that such an outrage
should have been committed without his knowledge, the
king demanded to know : ' Who is he, and where is he.
that durst presume in his heart to do so ? ' whereupon
Esther dramatically exclaimed : ' An adversary and an
enemy, even this wicked Haman ! ' If Esther had men-
tioned in her petition the name of the Jews, the outcome
might have been different.

The king was now incensed at the thought that events Esther 7.7.
like that should happen in his empire, of which he had not
the least information. But he was too vain to admit that
his prime minister ventured to act without his knowledge.
Haman being accused of a heinous crime, and having been
designated by the queen as an adversary, an enemy, and
a wicked man, the king could not discuss the matter with
him amicably, as it would have been an insult to the queen.
Her accusation may have added fuel to his suspicions that
his prime minister was not the devoted servant he pre-
tended to be. But the esteem for his high intellect had
not yet gone, the services he had rendered to the empire
had to be considered, and therefore the king hesitated to
blame him. On the other hand, the slight capacity of
reasoning that the wine might still have left him, was

has no other meaning but 'damage'. Yet there Is no reference in his
arguments to this fact. As to his evidence from various Aramaic passages
for his contention that the root pT3 means ' to annoy ', it rests upon his
own interpretation of these passages.

222 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

blinded by his infatuation for the queen, and the king
could not find any excuse for his prime minister. Thus
vacillating, he did not answer, but ' arose in his wrath from
the banquet of wine and went into the palace garden ',
evidently for the purpose of calming down before giving
a final decision.**'
Esther 7. 8. Having been made acquainted with Mordecai's creed,
before the decree was issued, Haman knew at once whom
and what PTsther meant by her accusation. Hearing the
queen accusing him as a wicked person, and seeing the
king in a condition of intoxication, incapable of reasoning,
Haman naturally became terrified. To defend himself
against this accusation was useless. Political reasons carry
no weight with one who is not in a proper state of mind.
His only hope was to gain time. The king in a condition
of sobriety would, of course, listen to reason. Whether he
would retain his position or be dismissed was of secondary
consideration. Anyway he could convince the king of his
innocence of the queen's accusation, as he could not have
acted otherwise. The decree having been, issued with the
king's consent after due investigation and deliberation,
a justification of his action was unnecessary, and Haman
could plead that he certainly could not be made responsible
for the fact that the queen was a member of a people
whose creed was inconsistent with the Persian laws. If
his life had been spared only a few days, it is very
questionable whether the Book of Esther would ever have
been written.

Therefore, to save himself for the moment : ' Haman
stood up to make request for his life to Esther the queen ;

^« So also Bertheau-Ryssel, Ottli, Siegfried, Haupt {Critical Notes,
p. 168). For the various interpretations see Paton, p. 262.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 223

for he saw that there was evil determined against him by
the king.' Haman may have feared that the king was
resolved upon destroying him, but he was wrong. The
king's mind was far from being determined on this point.
He was still wavering between his love for the queen and
his esteem for the grand vizier. In his supplication to
the queen, Haman may have promised her to revoke the
decree against the Jews in some way, if given a chance.
Esther, however, was well aware of the fact that a delay
of his final downfall might be fatal to her, and therefore
turned a deaf ear to his supplication to stay the wrath of
the king.^^ In his despair and frenzy, Haman might easily
have forgotten that it was a crime to touch the wife of the
king, as Plutarch informs us,"*^ and might have seized her
hands, imploring her urgently to comply with his request.
But Esther may have pushed him aside and thus he fell

" Paton (p. 262) is totally wrong in his reflections on this case, saying :
' It must be admitted that her character would have been more attractive, if
she had shown pity toward a fallen foe. The author might have represented
her as interceding for Haman, even if the king had not granted her request,
but such an idea is far from his mind.* If Esther had done according to the
advice of this commentator, our author would have had no occasion for
writing the story of Esther. Haman would have succeeded in carrying out
his designs against the Jews. He was not yet a fallen foe, and Esther's
intercession would have saved his life, as he needed only a short respite
to convince the king of the guilt of the Jews in their stubborn refusal to
comply with the royal decree with regard to the worship of Anahita, and
this he could have accomplished only when the king was in a sober ^tate of
mind. Our author recorded an historical event, and was not a writer
of fiction, and therefore could not represent Esther as interceding for her
enemy. But the real antecedents of the danger to the Jews in that period
being unknown to the commentators, their conception of all incidents of our
story is bound to be erroneous.

*^ Plutarch, Ariaxerxes, XXVII, 1.2: ' For the barbarians are so ex-
tremely jealous of their women, that capital punishment is inflicted, not
only on the man who speaks to or touches one of the king's concubines,
but also on him who passes or approaches their chariots on the road.'

224- THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

upon the couch on which she was reclining.*^ On his
return from the garden at the very moment, the king
found Haman in that attitude, and exclaimed : ' Will he
even force the queen before me in the house?' However,
did the king really imagine that Haman had intended to
make an indecent assault upon the queen ? To touch the
king's wife was a crime in itself, and the king in a state of
intoxication, exaggerated Haman's misbehaviour.

This was a terrible accusation. Nevertheless, accusation
and even commission of a crime does not mean condemna-
tion. The Persian kings, as a rule, did not put any one
to death for a single fault, as Herodotus informs us.^° If
so, the clause "inn fcn ^JSl cannot mean ' and they covered
Haman's face ', because he was condemned to death, as
generally explained. Nor can we accept the interpretation
of this clause, that Haman's face was covered with shame.^'

*^ Haupt {Critical Notes, p. 169) suggests that after nDDH bv we have
to supply r\'b:>'\2 pmni? 'to seize her feet', or n^^n pmb 'to kiss her
feet '. But, as far as the present writer can see, there is no single instance
in antiquity that a male suppliant should have seized or kissed the feet
of a queen, and an action of this kind would be contrary to all notions
of decency and propriety among ancient Oriental nations. Thus, no matter
whether our story be historical or fiction, and whether its composition
belongs in the fourth century or in the Maccabean period, no author who
had any knowledge of Oriental customs could have meant anything of this
kind. Paton's remark, p. 263, that ' falling down and laying hold of the
feet was a common attitude of suppliants', is true only in case the person
supplicated is a king, but not in that of a queen.

''^ See chapter VII, note 27.

^^ So Siegfried. But a commentator of a book ought to be better
acquainted with its contents ; he observes : ' Formerly Mordecai was
C'Nl ''ISn "having his head covered", now Haman's head was covered'.
He evidently forgot that B'NT '•"IDPI, mentioned chapter 6. 12, was not said of
Mordecai but of Haman. However, the current translation is linguistically
scarcely possible, as the subject of ISn is missing, and, furthermore, the
proper Hebrew construction would be pH '•JD ISIT'I "jbcrt ''SO XV 1217] .

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 225

Haman was in mortal terror for his life, and the feeHng
of shame is psychologically inconsistent with that of terror.
A more probable interpretation might be : ' Hainan's face
was covered with pallor', i.e. Haman became deadly pale.
However, there is another question to be considered. On
hearing an accusation so terrible, and at the same time
so ridiculous, how is it that Haman let this accusation pass
without offering a defence? Why did he not protest his
innocence, declaring that it was not his intention to assault
the queen, but that he merely acted as suppliant ? The
violation of the Persian court-etiquette not to touch the
king's wife was under such circumstances, if not pardonable,
certainly at least not a heinous crime, for which he should
undergo the penalty of death ! Why did he not make
any attempt to save his own life ? Furthermore, when in
addition the eunuch Harbonah accused him of having
prepared a gallows for the man who had saved the king's
life, why did Haman not defend himself against this accusa-
tion, by protesting that Mordecai's deed had been unknown
to him, when he had intended to punish him as a criminal
who had repeatedly and wilfully disregarded the king's
command ? No matter whether such a plea was true or
not, an investigation of its truth would have delayed his
execution. Regarding this point, we would be justified
in objecting that events of this kind happen in story books,
while in real life a man fights for his existence to the last
ditch. If so, there would be no other way but to assume
that Haman actually did defend himself; the defence,
however, being of no avail, the author omitted any reference
to it. But this would be a very forced interpretation.
Now there is an Arabic phrase for ' falling in a swoon ',
&.J^ ^s. or s.^Ic j_c4~«-*, that literal]}- means ' it was covered

IT. O

226 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

upon him ', i. e. darkness came upon him. The question

now arises, whether the clause "isn jDn ''iD has not likewise

the same meaning. If so, this clause would contain the

explanation of Haman's strange conduct in not offering

any defence against the accusations : (As the word went

out of the king's mouth), and Haman's face was covered,

that is to say, he fainted.

Esther 7. Upon the king's exclamation : ' Will he even force the

9-10. . .

queen before me in the house ? (nua ^cy r\-S7'or\ ns c'ln^b Djn),

Harbonah, undoubtedly a Jewish eunuch, opportunely

observed : Why this man is capable of committing the

worst crimes; 'Behold, there is even a gallows which

Haman had made for Mordecai ' (ion r\m "IC'S* j*yn r\ir[ D3

'•mio?).^^ The king could not but consider the intention

of executing a man who had saved his life, and who for

this deed had been on that very day greatly honoured,

nothing short of high treason. Haman was now accused

of a double crime, and according to the rule of the Persians

in judicial matters, the king was justified in executing him

at once. Otherwise, without Harbonah's accusation, Haman

might have been arrested and brought before the judges

'that know law and judgement' (pni m ''J?nv). In that

case, Haman might, indeed, have proved his innocence,

and perhaps regained his influence with the king." The

^2 If Haman was already condemned to death, as it is generally in-
terpreted, and Harbonah merely advised the manner of his execution, the
expression J*yn T\^T\ D3 'behold a/so the gallows ' is rather strange. But it is
different if the latter passage refers to the king's exclamation DN t^133? DJH
'\\'y7'0T\^ as in this case Harbonah gives a second and more important reason
for Haman's penalty of death.

^2 We have already referred to the statement of Herodotus I, 137 : ' The
king shall not put any one to death for a single fault. . . . But in every case
the services of the offender shall be set against his misdoings ; and if
the latter be found to outweigh the former, the aggrieved part3' shall then

THE ROOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 227

downfall of Haman was really effected by the Jewish
eunuch Harbonah.^*

From a purely Jewish point of view, the Jews would
probably have completely disappeared from the face of
the earth, if Haman had been permitted to carry out his
decree, and his death was tantamount to their deliverance,
no matter in what way it was contrived, and thus they are
perfectly justified in making it the occasion of their annual
celebration. But, leaving the Jews out of consideration,
and considering his guilt from a purely Persian point of
view, we cannot but judge that Haman fell a victim to the
intemperance of Artaxerxes. There is a remarkable
parallel between the fates of Haman and Tissaphernes,
both grandees of Artaxerxes H. Tissaphernes had saved
the king's life at the time of his consecration at Pasargadae.
When Cyrus was gathering a large army with the intention
of seizing the crown for himself, he went in person to Susa
to inform the king of his designs/^^ At the battle of
Cunaxa, he was judged the bravest man among all the
Persian warriors in the royal army, and was honoured with
princely gifts. The king bestowed upon him the hand
of his own daughter, and considered him his most faithful
friend, as Diodorus records.'"''^ Being a Persian patriot,
he naturally was the most implacable enemy of the Greeks,
as Plutarch expresses himself.^' But neither his high

proceed to punishment' (see chapter VII, note 27). The same would apply
to the case of Haman. If placed before the judges, they might have found
that Haman's services outweighed his misdoings, and thus might have
acquitted him.

^* Harbonah thus fully deserved his place in the Purim-Liturgy, in the
blessing 2)12^ "1131 n312"in DJ1 ' And also Harbonah may be remembered
for good '.

55 Plutarch, Artaxerxes VI, 6. '-^ Diodorus XIV, 5.

fi'' Plutarch, Artaxerxes XXIII, i.

Q2

228 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

position nor the royal favour could save him from the
hatred of Parysatis, who never forgave him the part he
had played against her favourite son Cyrus, and his death
afforded to the Greeks great satisfaction, as Plutarch
records."'^ He lost his life on account of his policy against
the interests of the Greeks. Nevertheless, his successor
Tithrastes was compelled to pursue the same policy in
the affairs of Asia Minor, as Ed. Meyer pointed out"^^
Haman, as we have seen, was a Persian patriot. Perceiving
the decay of the Persian empire, he aimed at infusing it
with new vigour by reforming the Persian religion in
accordance with the current religious conceptions, and
imposing it as state religion on all subjects of the Persian
empire. This innovation being successful, he was greatly
honoured, ' and his seat was set above all the princes '.
But due to this reformation, he became the most formidable
and implacable enemy of the Jews. His reform was a
deathblow to the Jewish creed, and either the latter or
its adherents had to give way if its success should be
complete. But his exalted position was powerless against
Esther's influence with the king, and his downfall meant
the preservation of Israel. • Yet the policy he initiated
did not disappear with him. It was resumed again by
Antiochus Epiphanes and the Sassanides, and became the
standard policy of Christianity and Islam down to our
times. Haman's decree itself seemed to have been resur-
rected under Artaxerxes III Ochus, as we shall further see.
Thus, the historical judgement concerning the personality
of Haman would differ if considered from a Persian point
of view, instead of that of the Bible. However, if a nation
should look upon historical events from the point of view

s^ Plutarch, Artaxerxes. ^^ Ed. Meyer, G.A.,V., p. 210.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 229

of Other nations with which it comes into colh'.sion, and not
regard its own welfare above all other considerations, it
would have no right to existence. The Declaration of
Independence of the American colonies was at the period
of its promulgation a crime from a British point of view.
The same holds true of all deeds, from immemorial times,
by which nations gained their liberty.

230 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

CHAPTER IX

The infallibility of kings — ^The forfeiture of Haman's property — The
downfall of his whole family — The king being acquainted with the close
relationship of Mordecai to Esther — His reflections upon Mordecai's modesty
and Haman's ambition — The attitude of the people of Susa — The law con-
cerning the worship of Anahita not being enforced — Its resurrection under
Artaxerxes III Ochus — Haman's decree being still in force — Esther's plea —
The king's point of view — The sanguinary style of Mordecai's decree —
The interpolators— The decree in the Greek version — Its remarkable addition
—Mordecai in the pomp of a prime minister — The joy of the people of Susa —
The conversion of many Gentiles — The joy of the Jews for being given
permission to defend themselves — The hope of their enemies to execute
Haman's decree — The fight at Susa — The Jews being attacked on the second
day — Haman's special decree for Susa — The exposing of the bodies of
Haman's sons — The number of the slain Gentiles — The festival of Purim —
The attitude of the Sopherim towards it — Its secular character and Persian
features — Mordecai's letter of Purim — The 'Fast of Esther' — Mordecai's
second letter of Purim — The opposition of the Sopherim — Purim a safeguard
against Persian persecutions — The composition of the Book of Esther in
a later period — The Persian annals — Mordecai's Persian name — His
characterization by the author of the Book of Esther.

Kings are infallible, and cannot be expected to admit
having been in the wrong. This is especially true of
Artaxerxes II, who was exceedingly vain, and would never
have conceded that his reason had been obscured under
the influence of wine. The execution of Haman, though
ordered in a state of intoxication, was nevertheless approved
of as an act of justice. The prime minister having been
eliminated, the king was now completely under the influence
of Esther. Being deeply in love with her, the king did not
object to her origin.

The disgrace of a governor or other great men has
always involved the forfeiture of their property to the

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 23I

crown.^ Haman having been condemned as a traitor, the
king confiscated his estates and presented them to Esther,
his accuser, as a mark of his favour. Haman's family and
his sons, who apparently were high officials,^ were in all
probability apprehended at the same time. This was in
accordance with the Persian custom, as under the rulers
of the Achaemenian dynasty the condemnation of a
grandee involved his whole family. Intaphernes, one of
the seven conspirators against Pseudo-Smerdis, when sus-
pected of high treason against Darius, was arrested and
executed with all his relatives, except his eldest son and
the brother of his wife." Masistes, the brother of Xerxes,
was slain with all his sons."* Darius, the son of Artaxerxes II,
was taken with all his children before the judges to answer
for his crime, as Plutarch records.^ The same, of course,

1 See chapter VII, note 66.

- There is scarcely any room for doubt that Haman's sons were grandees
of the empire or high officials. If that had not been the case, their names
would hardly have been mentioned. As a matter of fact, our author leaves
no doubt on this point. The passage V:2 2~\) Ht^'j; 1133 DK f»n DH^ 1DD''1
is surely not to be translated : ' And Haman recounted unto them the glory
of his riches, and the multitude of his children,^ as it is generally done, since
his wife and friends were well acquainted with these facts. But VJ3 3ni
ought to be translated ' the greatness of his children ', and thus Haman told
them not only of his own high position, but also of that of his children.
The Greek translator, having been unable to understand the meaning of
this expression, omitted it altogether (cf. chapter I, note 8). For 3~l in the
meaning of 'greatness', see Brown- Driver's Hebrew Lexicon, p. 914.

2 Herodotus III, 119. His eldest son was pardoned by Darius, because
his mother did not ask for the life of any of her children, but for that of her
brother.

< Ibid., IX, 113.

^ Plutarch, Artaxerxes, XXIX, 8. The extermination of a family of a
traitor was more a matter of policy than for the sake of vengeance, as it was
a foregone conclusion that the relations of such a man would not fail to
avenge themselves if given an opportunity. The revenge of Prexaspes,
whose son was murdered by Cambyses, almost overturned the Achaemenian

232 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

happened in the case of Haman, that his family had to
share his fate. If Haman's sons had not been arrested at
once, they would not have been eleven months later at
Susa to be slain on the thirteenth of Adar. Under the
reign of Darius II Notus, the father of Artaxerxes II,
the entire family of Hydarnes was apprehended and
delivered by that king to his queen Parysatis, that she
might execute her revenge upon them for the injury done,
or intended to be done, to her daughter Amestris, by
Teriteuchmes, the son of Hydarnes, and Parysatis put
them all to death, except Stateira.^ Exactly the same did
Artaxerxes in delivering to Esther the family of Haman,
the enemy of the Jews. By the term 'the house of
Haman ' (|r:n rT'n) is thus to be understood not only
Haman's property, but also his family.

The king learnt now for the first time of the close
relationship between Mordecai and P^sther, ' for Esther had
told what he was unto her '. She evidently informed him
of the fact that she was Mordecai's daughter, who brought
her up when she had lost both parents in her childhood.
If the author had intended to state that Esther informed
the king of her relationship to Mordecai, a fact that formerly
had been unknown to him, he would have used one of the
biblical terms 'mn p 'her uncle's son ', or niNC' 'her kin ',
or n2)'\p 'her relation', not the peculiar periphrase n^ Nin no
'what he is to her'. The king may or may not have
known or remembered that Esther was related to Mordecai.
If Esther on her elevation had procured for Mordecai a

dynasty, as the rise of Pseudo-Smerdis was due to him, who recognized him
as the legitimate son of Cyrus, for the purpose of executing his vengeance
upon Cambyses.

" Ctesias, Fers,, 52-7.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 233

high position, his very existence would have recalled to
the king's mind Mordecai's relationship to the queen. To
be related to the king by marriage was not a rare distinc-
tion, as each of his three hundred and sixty wives had
numerous relatives, though kinship to the chief wife may
have been a greater honour ; but the chief wife had not
always the greatest influence with the king. The latter
could not be expected to recollect all the relations of his
numerous wives.'^ Moreover relationship is a mere acci-
dent, and bestowal of patronage on one's relatives, irrespec-
tive of their merit and legal claim, though customarily
indulged in, is fundamentally immoral. Mordecai, however,
was more than a mere relative of Esther, as the latter was
indebted to him for a spontaneous act of generosity, in
having acted as a father to her, an orphan. We may rest
assured that Esther did not omit to impress upon the
king's mind Mordecai's self-abnegation : How he might
have obtained a high position on her elevation, yet pre-
ferred to remain in obscurity, even after he had saved the
king's life, and did not claim any reward for having done
his duty as a loyal subject. The king could not but be
deeply moved by such unselfish behaviour, being so
contrary to that of his courtiers who were always eager

'' If Mordecai had not saved the life of the king, his relationship to
Esther would scarcely have procured him this high position. For if it had
been customary with the Persian kings to bestow high positions upon the
relatives of their favourite women, no other Persian would have had a
chance to become a high official. Therefore, Wildeboer and other com-
mentators are wrong in declaring ' Mordecai owed his promotion to his
relationship to Esther ; for his service to the king had already been
rewarded'. The honour shown to Mordecai was certainly not, and could
not have been, the final reward. What was the advantage of riding on the
king's horse in royal apparel, if the recipient of this honour should after-
wards remain in obscurity? The honour bestowed upon Mordecai was

234 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

and clamouring for honours and distinctions. He might
have contrasted Haman's pride with Mordecai's modesty.
Like Alexander the Great who, in comparing Craterus with
Hephaestion, said that Craterus was the king's friend, but
Hephaestion was the friend of Alexander^ Artaxerxes
might have said that Haman was the friend of the king;
Mordecai, however, that of Artaxerxes. Now it is natural
that the king should be eager to see a person of such a
character, a rare specimen at a royal court, and accordingly
' Mordecai came before the king ',
Esther8.2. On seeing Mordecai, and being impressed with his
personality and qualifications for an office of high
responsibility, the king considered that a person of this
character could be trusted implicitly, and would be emi-
nently fitted for the office of the grand vizierate, now
vacant, and therefore : ' The king took off his ring, which
he had taken from Haman, and gave it unto Mordecai '.
The latter was now installed in Haman's place. For the
purpose of enabling him to conduct himself with the pomp
and splendour of a grand vizier, ' Esther set Mordecai over
the house of Haman ', and Mordecai could thus freely
dispose of its wealth for his private use.^ Mordecai had

similar to that bestowed upon Joseph by Pharaoh (Gen. 41. 43), indicating
his elevation to a high rank. This would have happened without the
events narrated in the seventh chapter of our story. But in that case
Mordecai would have had to contend against the influence of the grand
vizier. Owing to these events, however, his competitor for influence with
the king was removed.

8 Diodorus, XVII, 12.

8 Esther did not set Mordecai over the house of Haman, because it was
a special honour for him to become manager of the queen's estates, as
Wildeboer explains, since Mordecai had already attained the highest honour
of a Persian subject, and we should think that a grand vizier had more
important duties than to be the administrator of estates. With regard to

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 235

been wealthy enough as a private man, but not as a
minister.

To the population of Susa it was no surprise to see
Mordecai in this high position. The man whom they saw
being honoured in an unprecedented manner, to whom the
prime minister himself had to serve in the position of
a groom and herald, could not but become the highest
grandee.^° If the Caunian, who at the battle of Cunaxa,
gave Artaxerxes a bottle of bad water, was raised by him
from indigence and obscurity to honours and riches, as
Plutarch records,^^ should not the saviour of his life expect
the highest reward? As for his being a Jew, this was
a private matter, merely a religious opinion, that could be
changed at any time. Furthermore, there was scarcely
any perceptible difference between a Jew, neglecting the
religious observances, and a strict Zoroastrian, since abomi-
nation of idols was characteristic of both of them. However,
the elevation of Mordecai indicated a change in the policy
of the empire. It meant that Artaxerxes intended to
return to the policy of the old Achaemenian kings of not
interfering with the creed of their subjects. The introduc-
tion of anthropomorphic images into the Zoroastrian
religion, being in accordance with the sentiments of the
people ^'^ and a Persian law, was not, and could not have
been, rescinded, but none was forced to worship them.
After the ill-fought battle at Leuctra a large number of
warriors belonging to powerful families fled from the

this point, Paton, p. 268, correctly observes that the administration of the
estate and disposal of its revenues gave Mordecai wealth suitable to his new
dignity.

'° See note 7. " Plutarch, Artaxerxes, XIV, 2.

>2 Cf. chapter VI.

236 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

battle-field. For this cowardice they ought to have been
declared infamous, according to the Lacedaemonian laws,
but to put so rigid a law as this in execution, at a time
when the offenders were so numerous, and when the
commonwealth had so much need for warriors, was both
impolitic and dangerous. The Lacedaemonians in this
perplexity had recourse to Agesilaus, who advised them :
' Let the laws sleep that day ! ' The same was the case
here. There was a law on the statute books of the
Persians, but its observance was not enforced. Strict
Zoroastrians might indeed have been well pleased with
Mordecai's elevation. However, that law was not enforced
as long as the Persian throne was occupied by a king who
was favourably disposed towards the Jews. The banish-
ment of many Jews to Hyrcania under the reign of
Artaxerxes III Ochus,^'' who succeeded his father Arta-
xerxes II, may indeed have been due to a resurrection of
that law, as there is no plausible reason for the persecution
of the Jews by this king.^'* The population of Susa may
have been neither surprised nor overjoyed at Mordecai's
elevation. The term 'fear' (inD) occurring three times in
our story in reference to the attitude of the population,
may perhaps indicate that the population submitted to

'3 Cf. Ed. Meyer, G. A., Ill, p. 212.

" Graetz {History of the Jews, I, p. 408) is undoubtedly right in
observing : ' If this account may be considered historical, the banishment
of the Judaeans must surely have been a mode of persecution inflicted
upon them on account of their fidelity to their laws and their God ; for it is
hardly to be supposed that they took part in the revolt against Persia,
which was then spreading from Egypt to Phoenicia.' This banishment of
the Jews occurred after Persia's unsuccessful war against Egypt (361-360),
which incited Phoenicia to revolt against Egypt. About a year later, 359,
Artaxerxes II died. Thus, it is very probable that the banishment of the
Jews occurred at the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes III.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 237

Mordecai's authority with a bad grace, out of fear. How-
ever, even this is questionable, since this term may have
a reh'gious significance, as we shall see further.

However, though Haman had been executed, and his Esther 8.

. . 3-6.

high position was occupied by Mordecai, the danger im-
pending over the Jews by the former's decree was not yet
averted. It has been emphasized that the most dangerous
point of this decree consisted in the provision that permitted
the people to keep for themselves the property of the slain
Jews.^^ The greed of the lower classes of the population
could not be checked. Notwithstanding Mordecai's high
position, undeterred by his power, the mob would certainly
have executed Haman's decree to the letter, since none
could be punished for complying with the king's command.
For this reason, Esther now besought the king to reverse
Haman's decree against the Jews. There were good reasons
for justifying her request. It has been pointed out that
the Jews, notwithstanding their stubborn resistance to the
worship of Anahita, could rightly defend themselves against
any accusation of dislo)^alty to the Persian empire. They
were the only people in this empire who had always, from

1^ See chapter VII. Concerning Esther's request, Paton, p. 269,
observes : ' From verse 4 it appears that Esther once more risked her life
in going to the king unsummoned. It is hard to see why this was necessary,
now that Mordecai was grand vizier, and could bring all matters before
the king. The author wishes to magnify Esther's patriotism by representing
her as willing to risk her life for her nation.' This reflection would be
somewhat plausible, if our author had expressed himself: 'And Esther
came before the king ; and the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre ;
so Esther drew near, and touched the top of the sceptre '. Since,
however, our passage distinctly states that the king held out to Esther
the golden sceptre after she had addressed him, falling down before him
and beseeching him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman, Paton"s
remark has not the least shadow of justification. Esther surely was not in
danger of her life while lying at the king's feet and conversing with him.

238 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

the time of their first coming in contact with the Persians,
recognized and looked upon Ahuramazda as being identical
with their own God. If the recognition of the Persian
religion was a test of loyalty and a vital necessity for
changing the heterogeneous subjects of the empire into
loyal Persians, the Jews could justly claim to have become
Persians more than a century before the reform of the
Zoroastrian religion. This defence was incontrovertible,
and was no doubt the main plea of the Jews during the
persecutions. And we may rest assured that Esther did
not fail to impress the king with this fact, and therefore
could brand Haman's decree as ' an evil design against the
Jews.' However, the worship of Anahita having been
imposed on all subjects of the Persian empire, it is question-
able whether this law could have been executed if the
Jews had been granted the special privilege of being
exempt from it, as was pointed out in the sixth chapter
of this study.
Esthers. Though impressed with Esther's plea and recognizing

^' ■ the injustice of Haman's decree, the king did not see any
need for frustrating it. It is true that Haman's execution
alone would have been no indication of a change in the
policy of the government. Esther's origin was now well
known, and seeing that Haman's house had been given to
her, the people would know that Haman's downfall was
due to his decree, and none would dare carry it out.^^
This is what the king m.eant in saying: 'Behold, I have
given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have
hanged upon the gallows, because he laid his hands upon

^•5 No commentator suggests a reasonable explanation for the king's reply
to Esther that he had given her the house of Haman, seeing that this fact
does not seem to have any bearing upon the execution of Haman's decree.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 239

the Jews ', Now the latter statement is not exact, as
Esther in her accusation of Haman did not mention the
name of the people the latter intended to destroy. But
the king evidently meant that the people would put this
construction on Haman's execution.^" However, the king
himself may have pretended this reason for justifying his
hasty judgement. But kings, as a rule, are frequently
deceived regarding the real sentiments of their subjects
and their loyalty towards them. Artaxerxes likewise
believed that the Persian people would be guided by his
own attitude in this matter, and his change of policy. It
may be assumed that Esther reminded the king that there
might be people in his empire so little imbued with love
and reverence for their sovereign, that they would follow
their own inclinations, and would execute the decree, it
they could do so with impunity. Thereupon, the king
rejoined that, if Mordecai and Esther had some apprehen-
sion for the safety of the Jews, notwithstanding his own
favourable attitude towards them, they themselves might
devise a plan ^^ by which Haman's decree might be frus-
trated, but not reversed, 'for the writing which is written

^'' Haupt {Critical Notes, p. 172) considers the clause H^ vh"' "l:^♦N hv
Dmn''2 ' because he laid his hand upon the Jews ', a gloss : ' for the king
did not give the order: hang him thereon (VPV ini?n), because he had
planned to exterminate the Jews, since this plan had been sanctioned by
the king'. His observation is correct, and in full agreement with our own
conception in the preceding chapter, that the king did not know that Esther
in her accusation of Haman referred to the Jews. Nevertheless, we do not
think that the passage under consideration is a gloss, since it is found also
in the Greek version. See, however, chapter VIII, note 34.

'* The personal pronoun in connexion with an imperative occurs very
seldom (e. g. Gen. 42. 16), and is used for some special emphasis, and
also here DriNI is to be interpreted ' as for yourselves ', that is to say, if you
have any reason to fear for the safety of the Jews. Otherwise, we would
expect nniin DDNI.

240 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

in the king's name, and sealed with the king's ring, may

no man reverse'.

Esther 8. Mordecai's decree, as represented in our text, is quite

9-12.

improbable. Its execution would have been a matter of

impossibilit}-. Though numerically representing an in-
significant part of the population of the empire, the Jews
could have defended themselves successfully against the
attacks of their enemies with the assistance of their friendly
neighbours, and the support of the officials. But they
could not have enlisted the sympathy of the latter in their
cause by committing atrocities in killing women, and
especially little children, who did not and could not attack
them.'^ Even barbarians, as a rule, spared women and
children. If the Jews had acted in such a cruel way, they
would have been isolated in their defence, and thus cer-
tainly would have perished. We may credit Mordecai
with so much good sense that he never decreed anything
of that sort. The mere idea of contemplating cruelties
of that kind would have exasperated all classes of the
populations against the Jews, who were badly in need of
their good will. Hence there is no room for doubt that
the hands of interpolators were busy in making Mordecai's
decree as formidable as possible, as already pointed out
in the first chapter. Having exaggerated Haman's decree
beyond all bounds, the interpolators did the same with that
of Mordecai.

Now we have seen that there is good reason for the

^^ Haupt {Critical Notes, p. 177) is wrong in justifying the inclusion of
children in Mordecai's decree on the ground that a heathen boy might attack
a Jewish boy, since the term ^U includes also little babies of any age. But
it is a matter of fact, that in the European countries where Jew-baiting
prevails the Jews suffer more from schoolboys than from the grown up
people.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 241

exaggeration of Hainan's decree, its purpose being to
induce the Jews of the Maccabean period to fight against
their mortal enemies by arousing their fear and hatred.
Less obvious would seem the reason for exaggerating
Mordecai's decree. May we attribute the latter to the
intention of presenting a counterpart to the decree of
Haman on the part of the interpolators ? Certainly not !
The interpolators were persons of discretion, knowing well
that the condition of the Jews was different from that of
the Gentiles. Shall we ascribe it to a morbid state of mind
which finds special delight in depicting carnage ? The
Jews never were of so sanguinary a state of mind as to
enjoy descriptions of that sort, and the interpolators
certainly were not ! However, the exaggerations of both
Haman's and Mordecai's decrees were due to the same
motives. From the Books of the Maccabees we know that
the Jewish people at that period were timid and indifferent,
fighting only when it was absolutely necessary, but be-
coming careless as soon as the enemy retreated for a short
time, and consequently many of them perished.^" The
Greeks and Syrians committed atrocities, as if they had
intended to carry out Haman's decree. ^^ If the Jews had
acted in the same way,^^ they would have burnt their own

20 See First Book of the Maccabees 8. 9, &c.

2^ They had indeed murdered women and children, see ibid., 2. 39. For
the benefit of the commentators who express high indignation at the decree
of Mordecai, according to the Massoretic text, we may point to the historical
records during the last sixteen hundred years, which show that in the
innumerable attacks upon Jewish communities, the pious murderers, ad
gloriam Dei tnagnam, never spared little children, but annihilated all alike.
The same is true of the present as of the past.

" According to the First Book of the Maccabees 5. 51, the Jews in their
reprisals killed only males However, it is doubtful whether this term
includes male children. If they had done so for the sake of reprisal, they

H. R

242 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

ships, as it were, and would have been compelled to fight
or perish. The aim of the interpolators in their ex-
aggeration of these decrees was to arouse the Jews from
their stupor, and urge them on to act as their ancestors
did hundreds of years before.

The second performance of the Drama of Esther took
place at the period of the Maccabees. From that time
onward it became the favourite play of pagans, Christians,
and Moslems alike. But the performance was never com-
plete. There were actors more than enough for the parts
of Haman and Ahasuerus, but none for those of Mordecai
and Esther. The survival of the Jews in all these periods
is therefore more remarkable and a greater miracle than
the event recorded in the Book of Esther. Mordecai was
thus perfectly right in predicting, that without Esther's
intervention, ' relief and deliverance will arise to the Jews
from another place '. The interpolators, seeing the Jews
of their period playing the passive part of the performance,
endeavoured to arouse them to a role of activity.

Now we have seen that the Greek version of our story
is largely a paraphrastic translation. Its translator was
unquestionably a learned and pious Jew, but we have
reason to doubt his sagacity. The religious elements he
inserted into our story, evidently by way of interpolation,
shows his erroneous conception of the characters of Mordecai
and Esther. Furthermore, the Greek translator ought to
have accepted it as a matter of course that our author
must have had sufificient reasons for omitting the name
of God in his story, and ought not to have inserted it in
his translation. On the other hand, our author, who could

surely would not have spared adult females. But if they did spare the
latter, would they not have spared little babies ?

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 243

recount such a wonderful story without supernatural
elements— a feat unparalleled in the historical literature
of antiquity— must have been an exceedingly clever man.
If we nevertheless find that the Greek version, in some
points, is more natural and more reasonable than the
Hebrew text, this difference is not due to the better sense
of the Greek translator, but we may rest assured that in
this case his version is a faithful translation of the original.
Such is the case of Mordecai's decree. In the Greek
version this passage reads as follows : coy eirerd^ei/ avrols
\pfj(T6aL roh uofxoh avTa>v kv ndcrrj rfj rroXei (SorjOfjaai re
avTOLv Koi -y^prjaOai rol^ olptlSlkol^ avTU)V Kal di^rtKei/iii'OLS
avrcoy co? ^ovXayrai. Comparing both the present Hebrew
and Greek versions, and, of course, making allowance for
the licence of the translator, the original Hebrew text in
all probability was as follows: nB'X nni.T^ l^on |n3 IK'N

q:iv"I3, i.e. 'Wherein the king granted the Jews which
were in every city, to gather themselves together, and
to stand for their life, and to do unto their enemies, that
would assault them, what they would '.^^ This is exactly

22 Haupt Identical Notes, p. 177) is likewise of the opinion that Mordecai's
decree as represented in the Massoretic text is not original, and sees in
the terms Tui? D?!3tJ'1 D''B'31 ^l^ ' their little ones and women, and to take
the spoil of them for a prey ', a gloss derived from the decree of Haman
(Esther 3. 13). He is right in seeing in it a gloss, but wrong in explaining it
as a derivation. The interpolations in the decrees both of Haman and
Mordecai come from one and the same source. But while D^C31 ^D maj*
readily be admitted as a gloss, it is different with the second part D??d
T13a If this should be a gloss, there would be no need for our narrative to
state Dl^ riN )nb^ S? nD31 'but on the spoil they laid not their hands',
since a permission to that effect had not been given to the Jews. Yet this
clause is repeated three times (9. 10, 15, 16). Shall we consider these
repetitions likewise as glosses? But Haupt did not, and also on this point
he is right. We shall further see, that the original Hebrew text, instead of

244 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

what we would have expected to find in Mordecai's decree.

More would have been evil. The clause D3lvnD niB*y^,

'to do . . . what they would ', is a further confirmation
that the Greek version on this point is a faithful rendering
of the original Hebrew text. The present Massoretic text
does not contain a corresponding phrase in Mordecai's
decree. But in the execution of the latter, we actually
find stated DJl^n^ Dn''N3iE:^3 "i::'yM 'and they did what they
would unto them that hated them '. This apparently
indicates that the clause n:"iv"i3 Dn^N'Ji::'^ niK^y^ ' to do what
they would unto their enemies ', was found in the original
Hebrew version of Mordecai's decree.

Of peculiar interest in the Greek version of Mordecai's
decree is the addition : xpfjarOai to?? uofiot? avroh ' to
make use of their own laws ', corresponding to a Hebrew
phrase QiTrns ni:;'y? * to do according to their own laws ',
or a similar phrase. If this clause is not a later inter-
polation, does it indicate that the translator was well
aware of the cause of the danger impending over the Jews
in that period ? Such an assumption is not outside the
bounds of consideration, as the original Greek version is
very probably older than the present Massoretic text, and
may well date from the third century B.C.E., as has already
been pointed out.^* Besides, the work of Hecataeus of
Abdera, in which it was recorded that the Persians erected
temples and altars in Palestine, and attempted to turn the
Jews away from their religion, may well have been known

rub nb^Cri C^:) fjD contained the phrase D:1V13 Dn"'N31K'a D)^]!^
' to do what they would unto those that hated them ', and this actually
entitled the Jews to the property of those who would attack them, and they
nevertheless ignored this permission.
^* See chapter I, note 9.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 245

to the Alexandrian Jews, and the translator might have
perceived a connexion between this Jewish persecution by
the Persians and the story recorded in the Book of Plsther.
However, this addition in the Greek version is illogical,
and scarcely complimentary to the intellect of the trans-
lator. Our author would never have been guilty of such
a defect of composition. For if Haman's decree had
forbidden the observance of the Jewish laws, Mordecai's
decree could not have permitted them, as a Persian law
could not be reversed. But the first decree merely stated
that the Jezvs, that is to say, those who would still be
Jews on the thirteenth of Adar, should be exterminated.
Seeing that this decree was frustrated by that of Mordecai,
which permitted the Jews to defend themselves against
the attacks of their enemies, the Jews were in no need of
being permitted the observance of their laws. Nor could
that clause refer to the exemption from the worship of
Anahita, that this worship should not be incumbent on the
Jews, because it was inconsistent with their laws, as the
worship of Anahita having become a Persian law, it could
not be revoked, though for the time being it was not
enforced.

As long as the fate of the Jews was still in the balance, Esther 8.
Mordecai was not yet in a frame of mind to appear
publicly with the pomp and splendour of a grand vizier.
Though the people knew that he was in great favour with
the king, there was no outward manifestation of his high
position. Seeing, however, that he called the king's scribes
and sent out decrees, this left no doubt that he was installed
in Haman's place. The author, therefore, after the descrip-
tion of the decree, states : ' And Mordecai went forth from
the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white,

246 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

and with a great crown of gold, and with a robe of fine
linen and purple '. Witnessing the high position of Mordecai,
and considering that looking gloomy would be of no use,
a great many of the inhabitants of Susa considered it good
policy to be on friendly terms with the powerful minister,
and pretended to rejoice at his good fortune. This may
be the meaning of the statement, ' the city of Shushan
shouted and was glad '. Seeing that the Jews had been
for many years persecuted and branded as a turbulent,
disloyal element, we may rest assured that a large number
of the population was not favourably disposed toward them
and looked upon them with a certain degree of contempt
or hatred. Whether they approved of Haman's decree or
not, their sentiments toward a member of a people recently
condemned to destruction, who had been elevated to the
highest office of the empire, could scarcely have been
sincere. Outwardly, however, the people rejoiced and
applauded the new minister.^^ But there may have been
not a few whose sentiments toward the Jews were different,
and their joy at Mordecai's elevation was indeed sincere,
as we shall see later.
Esther 8. The sudden change in the conditions of the Jews could

not but make a deep impression on the mind of many
Gentiles. For a considerable period the latter witnessed
the persecutions the Jews underwent on account of their

-^ The mocking remarks of Siegfried and others about the statement of
our narrative that people of Susa ' shrieked with delight' at the elevation
of Mordecai are naive. Moreover, the commentators who deem it so pre-
posterous that heathens should have rejoiced at the high position of Mordecai,
which actually meant the deliverance of the Jews from annihilation, ought
to ridicule also the Psalmist who exhorts ' all the nations to give praise
unto the Lord for His merciful kindness toward Israel' (Psalms 117. i, 2).
At that period, there might have still existed unsophisticated people willing
to acknowledge the working of Providence.

'7-

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 247

adherence to their creed, seeing them obstinately refusing
to bow down to idols and heroically suffering for their
own convictions. Many a Gentile, though not ill-disposed
toward them, may have ridiculed their superstition in
trusting implicitly in the God of Israel. Others may have
pitied them for their foolhardiness. A good many of them
may have been horrified at their impiety, and regarded
the fate impending over them as well-deserved, and felt
assured that the gods whose worship they flaunted and
whose existence they denied would not suffer them to
escape with impunity. Seeing the unexpected deliverance
of this people, when their final doom seemed to be inevitable,
many Gentiles may well have become convinced of the
truth of the Jewish belief, and may have exclaimed like
Jethro : ' Now I know that the Lord is greater than all
the gods.' Scepticism was scarcely known at that period,
among the Persians at least, and the people evidently
ascribed the escape of the Jews to the power of their deity.
Therefore, many of them may well have thought that the
only way of escaping divine punishment for having scoffed
at the belief in such a mighty God was to recognize his
godhead and to worship him. If our author had not been
extremely careful in avoiding the name of God in this
story, he would have written bs^: '2 D^niTnro }>-ixn >oy?D D^nni
nn'bv 'n nna ' And many of the peoples of the land became
Jews ; for the fear of the Lord was fallen upon them.' But
considering that ins is an ambiguous expression, as it
occurs once in the Bible as synonym of wnba ' God ' as
'the object of fear' (Gen. 31. 5$), the author may have
intentionally used this expression which is capable of being
understood in both meanings. Now we have seen that
even in the most abject state of the Jews in Babylonian

248 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

captivity, many Gentiles became converts to the Jewish
religion, a fact which even the most sceptical critics who
regard the statement of our author on the point under
discussion as incredible, do not and cannot deny.

However, it would be unfair to censure the modern
commentators for doubting or flatly denying the author's
statement that ' many of the peoples of the land became
Jews '. Their view is due to the fundamental error of the
current interpretation, that the danger to the Jews recorded
in our story was the effect of a mad freak of Haman who
for the purpose of wreaking vengeance on a single individual
intended to destroy his whole race. If their danger was
not solely due to their creed, there was no reason for the
Gentiles to ascribe the escape of the Jews to the power
of their God. No god worthy of that name, be it Marduk,
Shamash, Nergal, Ahuramazda, or any other deity in
a pagan pantheon, could have permitted the completion
of so execrable a design. Thus, there was not the least
occasion for any Gentile to part with his own ancestral
belief on account of the event. On the contrary, the
Gentiles might have become even more firmly convinced
of the belief in their own gods who prevented their people
from committing so horrible a deed. Hence, it would,
indeed, require childlike simplicity to accept the author's
statement that many Gentiles due to the miraculous escape
of the Jews accepted their religion. Furthermore, Haman's
decree having been in force only for a short time, and thus
the whole excitement caused by the latter having been
a tempest in a teapot, as pointed out in the first chapter,
the frustration of the decree could scarcely have made any
impression on the mind of the Gentiles.

Different, however, is the conception of our story, if we

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 249

consider that the Book of Esther records the last phase
of a series of reh'gious persecutions, extending over a period
of many years. It was a struggle not between human
forces but between Polytheism and Monotheism. The
people that witnessed this struggle were scarcely indifferent
to its outcome. The natural desire of man being to place
himself under the protection of the most powerful deity,
the most sincere votaries of the gods may have been shaken
in their belief and fully acknowledged the power of the
God of Israel. Now we may, of course, question whether
the Gentiles who did so were willing and ready to change
their whole mode of life and accept the religion of Israel
with all its observances. We may even doubt whether
those who, carried away by this impression, accepted
Judaism did not revert to the old beliefs of their ancestors
after a certain time. But on this point we know nothing.
Some of the converts may have reverted to their former
beliefs and some may not. However, we must bear in
mind that the structure of Judaism with all its observances
had not been fully established among the Jews of that
period, and thus the observance of all biblical laws was not
yet characteristic of the Jewish creed. Only Monotheism,
the Covenant of Abraham, and the observance of Sabbath,
were the points of division that separated the belief of the
average Jew from that of the Gentile. Now to the average
Jew, Jahveh and Ahuramazda were identical in all respects
but in name. Thus Monotheism was not specifically
characteristic of the Jewish religion, as Zoroastrianism was
apparently based on the same doctrine. Nor was circum-
cision exclusively characteristic of the Jewish religion, as
it was generally practiced by the Phoenicians, Arabians,
and probably also by other Semites. Concerning the

250 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

observance of the Sabbath, we have no records to ascertain
the conduct of the average Jew of that period regarding
this precept. But we know that in the period of Nehemiah,
about forty years before the event of Purim, the Sabbath
was not generally observed by the Jews of Palestine, as
Nehemiah himself testified : ' In those days saw I in Judah
some treading winepresses on the Sabbath, and bringing
in heaps of corn, and lading asses therewith ; as also wine,
grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they
brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day. . . . Then
I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them :
What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath
day? Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God
bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? Yet ye
bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath'
(Neh. 13. 15-23). If this was true of the Jews of Judah,
we have no reason for the assumption that the average
Jews of the diaspora, especially those in the interior pro-
vinces of the Persian empire, were less lax in the observance
of the Sabbath, and it is likely that the same conditions
still prevailed in the period of Mordecai. Thus the Gentiles
who embraced Judaism were not greatly burdened with
religious observances, and did not have to change their
whole mode of life on account of this step, as their religious
conduct as Jews may have been neither better nor worse
than that of the average Jew. Furthermore, some of the
Zoroastrians, seeing the deterioration of the Persian religion,
may have resolved upon accepting a belief in which the
Zoroastrian. doctrine was preserved in purity. Considering
all these points, the author's statement under discussion
is not only very probable, but also historically almost
beyond any reasonable doubt.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 25I

Cassel, however, cannot bring himself to believe that
many Gentiles had broken the ties to their nationality
to enter Judaism.^" This objection is, of course, based upon
the almost generally accepted conception that a Gentile
had to sever his connexions with his own nationality, if
he embraced Judaism — this conception is the fundamental
basis of anti-Semitism. The biblical scholars holding this
view are forced to maintain that the post-exilic religion
of the Jews had still preserved its character as a national
religion, and Prophetic Universalism did not enter into the
scheme of Judaism, and did not modify its original
character. But this opinion is fundamentally and- his-
torically untenable, and there is no need to enter into a
discussion of this subject, as it was thoroughly treated
in the fifth chapter.

However, though Cassel's doubt concerning the author's
statement is fundamentally wrong, his emendation D''ni
QiT^y nni.Tn nns b^: '•id Dnn^no jnxn '•Dyo, i.e. 'And many
of the peoples of the land united themselves (with the
Jews) ; for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon them ',
is ingenuous, but linguistically scarcely correct, as then we
would have to read Dnoy Dnn^n?o, they united themselves
with them '. Otherwise, the passage would be ambiguous,
and could just as well be translated, ' and many of the
peoples of the land united themselves against them', and
if that had been the ca^e, the Feast of Purim would
scarcely have been instituted. Josephus, indeed, records such
a union of Gentiles against the Jews that was disastrous
to the latter. At Seleucia the Syrians were always at
odds with the Greeks, and the Jews held the balance ; but
one day, the Greeks united themselves with the Syrians,

-s Cassel, p. 22 r.

252 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

and together they slew about fifty thousand Jews.-''
Whether this tale be true or not, a worse fate would have
overtaken the Jews in the days of Ahasuerus, if the
Gentiles had united themselves against them.

Jampel, however, while admitting the improbability
that at this period Gentiles should have embraced the
Jewish religion, declares that the current translation of
the passage under discussion is erroneous, and that it
ought to be translated : ' And many of the peoples of the
land pretended to be Jews'.^^ But though linguistically
such a translation would be permissible, as the Hithpael-
form may mean ' to pretend to be something or someone ',
such a statement would be historically more incredible
than that of the current translation. We must consider
that no pagan can pretend to be a Jew without denouncing
idolatry, and no sincere idolater was likely to denounce
his ancestral gods to curry favour with the Jews. The
religious feeling of the pagans was no less strong than
that of the Jews and Christians. We know that the sincere
pagans abhorred the religions of the Jews and Christians,
regarding them as nothing short of atheism. Thus the

^■^ Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII, 9, 9.

^* Jampel, Das Bitch Esther. He thinks that pagans pretended to be
Jews for the purpose of escaping the massacres, just as Jews in the Russian
pogroms placed a cross in their windows as a sign that those dwellings were
inhabited by Christians. But he is wrong from every point of view. The
Jews of that period were granted permission only to defend themselves,
and the pagans who kept quiet were absolutely safe from any attack.
Furthermore, according to the testimony of the prophet Jeremiah : ' Hath a
nation ever changed the gods? and yet they are no gods, but my people
have changed their glory for that which does not profit' (Jer. 2. 11), the
pagans were incomparably more faithful to their own gods than Israel to
Jahveh. Thus, it would never do to say that out of fear the pagans pre-
tended to be Jews, an action that implies faithlessness toward their
ancestral gods.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 253

author's statement would not gain in probability through
that translation.

The fact that in this period Gentiles became converts
to the Jewish religion is apparently again referred to in
chapter 9. 27 : DM^jn b^ bv^ DVnf b]}) Qn'bv Dmn\n ibpi V2'p
nn''^y, i. e. ' The Jews ordained, and took upon them, and
upon their seed, and upon all such as joined themselves
unto them'. Now it is interesting to note that the ex-
pression nn'bv D"'l^Jn b^ ' all such as joined themselves unto
them ', strongly resembles the almost identical expression
of the exilic Isaiah 'n bv D^l^Jn "la^n m 'the sons of the
stranger that joined themselves unto the Lord '.^^ Our
author may actually have had the latter passage in mind
when he used a similar expression, and might have used
the identical phrase, if he had not been over-anxious to
avoid the name of God in his story. But there must have
been some reason why our author should have especially
referred to converts in this passage. Now the question
arises : To what converts does this passage refer ? There
was no need for including converts who had accepted
Judaism long ago among those upon whom the observance
of Purim was obligatory, as they were Jews in every
respect, and likewise in danger of being exterminated.
Was it necessary to include converts of later times ? Cer-
tainly not, since Gentiles on entering Judaism accept
indiscriminately all Jewish customs and observances. Thus
it seems that our author in this passage actually referred
to those who had recently accepted Judaism after the
dow^nfall of Haman and the escape of the Jews. The
latter not having been in danger of being exterminated
had no proper obligation for the observance of Purim.

29 Isaiah 56. 6.

254 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

But since the latter was made by common consent a Jewish
festival, it became obligatory on all adherents of the Jewish
religion. In including the latter, our author may have
meant to imply that the newly-converted Gentiles derived
from the event the benefit, that they became votaries of
the God of Israel, thus gaining a spiritual redemption, and
that therefore they had a real cause for celebrating Purim
as a Memorial Day.

Though Mordecai's decree did not avert the danger
to the Jews altogether, since Haman's decree could not
be reversed, and they were only given permission to defend
themselves, the author nevertheless states : ' And in every
province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's com-
mandment and his decree came, the Jews had gladness and
joy, a feast and a good day'. But this statement does
not indicate that the Jews had no longer any cause for
apprehension. They rejoiced at having been given a
chance of fighting for their existence, and not because the
danger was completely past. At the time of the Maccabees,
the Jews did exactly the same, feasting and celebrating
after the defeat of the Syrian army, though well knowing
that the enemy was repulsed only for the time being, and
that they would have to fight many battles for their
existence. The condition of the Jews at that period was
less hopeful than that of the Jews at the period of Esther.^"
Esther 9. That the danger to the Jews was not completely

^'^' averted is indicated in the opening lines of the ninth
chapter of our story, which reads as follows : ' Now in the
twelfth month, which is the month Adar, on the thirteenth
day of the same, when the king's command and his decree
drew near to be put in execution, in the day that the

20 See First Book of the Maccabees 4. 36-60.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER !N THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 255

enemies of the Jews hoped to have rule over them ;
whereas it was turned to the contrary, that the Jews had
rule over them that hated them '. Now considering that
Haman's decree was absolute, enjoining on all the people
to destroy the Jews, while Mordecai's decree was merely
cojiditional, permitting the Jews to defend themselves
against those who should attack them, it is not likely
that the clause, ' when the king's command and his decree
drew near to be put in execution ', refers to the decree
of Mordecai, as the latter would never have been put in
execution if the Jews had been left unmolested. Thus,
this clause evidently refers to the first decree which was
still in force, as it could not be reversed, and therefore,
notwithstanding Mordecai's decree, * the enemies of the
Jews still hoped to have rule over them ' ?^ But on the
day of decision their hopes were not realized, and ' it was
turned to the contrary, that the Jews had rule over them
that hated them '.

Now in villages and small places, the Jews living there
were absolutely defenceless. These scattered individuals,
if they had tarried there on the fateful day, would have
been exposed to certain destruction. Therefore, ' The Jews
gathered themselves together in their cities throughout
all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus '. Their aim was
not to avenge themselves on those who formerly had

2^ Seeing that Hainan's decree was in force only for a short time, it
does not seem probable that the clause, 'the enemies of the Jews hoped
to have rule over them', should refer to the brief period that elapsed
between the decrees of Haman and Mordecai. It is more probable that
this clause meant to indicate : notwithstanding Mordecai's decree, the
enemies of the Jews still hoped to have rule over them. This hope was
well founded, as without interference they surely would have prevailed
over the Jews.

256 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

hostile intentions toward them, as such an unprovoked
attack would not have been in accordance with the decree,
and the royal officials would have prevented it if they had
overstepped their authority. Their only purpose was ' to
lay hands on those who were still seeking their hurt'
(ony") ''K'p2D), but not on those who had abandoned their
intentions of attacking them.^^ The mob eager for plunder,
and considering that the Jews were disliked on account
of their hostile attitude toward the polytheistic religions,
reckoned upon the assistance of the average citizens, ex-
pecting them, in case of being overthrown, to make common
cause with them. But they were disappointed in their
expectations. The people at large did not come to their
assistance, and remained neutral.^^ The Jews succeeded
in overwhelming their adversaries, 'and no man could
withstand them ; for the fear of them was fallen upon all
the peoples'. But it is evident that it would not have
been physical fear that prompted the average citizens to

3- Not without intention our author used the term Onyi ^'^\>1'0 ' seeking
their hurt', and not a verbal clause DDyi 'lK'p2 'who sought their hurt',
to indicate that the Jew had attacked only those who even now were intent
upon doing them bodily harm. How could it have been otherwise, since in
Mordecai's decree they were given permission only ' to stand for their
life ', and in the execution of this decree, we are distinctly informed : ' They
gathered themselves together and stood for their lives?' Thus there is not
the least justification for the interpretation of Wildeboer and other com-
mentators, that the Jews killed all who were reputed to be their enemies.
Haupt (Critical Notes, pp. 176, 180) is one of the few commentators who
protest against such a distortion of the truth.

33 Haupt {Critical Notes, p. 180) regards D''?Dyn ^3 bv D^^I^ ^D3 O
'for the fear of them was fallen upon all the peoples', as an illogical scribal
expansion. But he is wrong. Our narrative meant to indicate : None
of the enemies who attacked them could prevail over them ; and this was
not because the Jews were more powerful or more numerous, but due to
the fact that the people at large did not participate in the attacks upon them
out of fear.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 257

their neutral attitude. It is more likely that they attributed
the deliverance of the Jews to the power of their God and
thus thought it more advisable to leave them unmolested.
If so, we may suggest that also in this description, but for
the intention of avoiding the name of God in this narrative,
our author would have expressed himself Dn-ij^n noy ab :r\si
wr^ijn b ^y 'n nna ba: 'd 'and no man could withstand
them ; for the fear of the Lord has fallen upon all the
peoples '.

However, the mob which are ready to fall upon the
Jews, though greed was the ulterior object of their attacks,
acted within their rights and their duty, in executing a
royal decree which was still in force, and were incomparably
more numerous than the Jews, notwithstanding the neutral
attitude of the average citizens. The Jews alone, with
their own resources, might never have succeeded in defeating
their adversaries and repelling their attacks. Their victory
was largely due to the fact that ' all the princes of the
provinces, and the satraps, and the governors, and they
that did the king's business, helped the Jews '. Our author
may have used intentionally the somewhat ambiguous term
Q\y::':?:^, properly ' exalting, lifting up ', but also though
rarely ' supporting ', instead of the current term Dnny
' helping '. Bearing in mind that the mob in their attacks
did not act lawlessly, the royal officials could neither
prevent them, nor array their military forces on the side
of the Jews against their adversaries, but could indirectly
place many obstacles in the way of the attacking mobs,
while assisting the Jews in procuring arms for their own
defence, and in many other ways. However, this assistance
on the part of the officials was scarcely due to a change
of heart, seeing that the same officials had been for years

258 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

the very instruments of Haman in his persecution of the
Jews, and thus it is unhkely that they suddenly became
favourably inclined toward them. The Jews certainly
detested many of these officials as the murderers of their
brethren, and this feeling was probably reciprocal. Now
legally no blame could have been attached to the officials
if they had remained neutral in the encounter between the
Jews and their adversaries, or even if they had actually
assisted in the execution of Haman's decree. But, as
officials they depended upon the goodwill of the grand
vizier, and it was scarcely likely that Mordecai would have
retained them in their office if they had assisted in the
destruction of his people. Thus their favourable attitude
toward the Jews was due to their fear of the grand vizier :
' because the fear of Mordecai was fallen upon them '.
Esther 9. Of Special importance in the description of the defence

of the Jews against their adversaries are the events at the
capital Susa. As far as the execution of Haman's sons
is concerned, their death, if not pardoned by the king, was
inevitable, as in Persia the condemnation of a grandee
involved his whole family, and they might have been
executed at any time, but it was appropriate that their
execution should occur on the day that Haman decreed
for the extermination of the Jews. Nor is it strange that
the Jews should have been entrusted with the execution
of the sons of their formidable adversary. Of the other
enemies who attacked them, the Jews killed five hundred
men, and we may rest assured that those who attacked
them were more numerous and may have numbered many
thousands. Esther, however, was not satisfied with this
victory of the Jews, and requested the king : If it please
the king, let it be granted to the Jews that are in Shushan

6-15.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 259

to do to-morrow also according unto this day's decree, and
let Haman's ten sons be hanged upon the gallows. And
the king commanded it so to be done ; and a decree was
given out at Shushan ; and they hanged Haman's ten sons.
And the Jews that were in Shushan gathered themselves
together on the fourteenth day also of the month Adar,
and slew three hundred men in Shushan '. Now Esther's
reputation as a bloodthirsty woman, and the aversion to
the Book of Esther among many biblical scholars and
critics is largely, if not exclusively, due to this request of
Esther. The same is true of the critics who do not believe
in the historical character of this narrative, as they see
in the description of such a request the revengeful character
of our author. As to the latter critics, none of them can
find a reasonable explanation for such a request.^* Yet
the reason underlying this matter is obvious. Seeing that
the Jews were merely granted the right of defending
themselves against the people that would assault them,^^
how could they have done so on the fourteenth of Adar
if they had not been attacked ? Did Esther request a
special permission for the Jews to attack their enemies,
even if the latter should leave them unmolested ? She

3* The consensus of opinion of the commentators on this point is
expressed by Paton, p. 287 : 'For this horrible request no justification can
be found. A second massacre was in no sense an act of self-defence, since
the power of the enemies of the Jews had already been broken by the
events of the thirteenth of Adar. This shows a malignant spirit of revenge
more akin to the teaching of the Talmud than to the teaching of the Old
Testament.'

2^ Keil, p. 609, in arguing against Bleek, maintains that Esther was
afraid lest the Jews might be attacked on the following day as well, and
that they were indeed attacked. His interpretation and justification of
Esther's request is ignored by the modern commentators. Paton (see
preceding note) ought at least to have stated that there are conservative
exegetes who attempt to justify Esther's request.

S 1

26o THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

certainly did not, as her distinct request was : ' to do
to-morrow also according unto this day's decree ' (niK'y?
□vn mn). This conclusively proves that the Jews must
have anticipated an attack of their adversaries on the
following day. But the force of Haman's decree expiring
with the thirteenth of Adar, what grounds of apprehension
did the Jews have for such a supposition, as an attack on
the next day would have been illegal and could easily be
prevented by the royal forces? This leaves no room for
doubt that Haman's decree for Susa was different from
that for the provinces, a fact already pointed out in the
preceding chapter, and deduced from Mordecai's account
of that decree to Hathach, the messenger of Esther. Susa
having been the centre of the empire, the assumption is
within reason that the Jewish population there was nume-
rous, just as it was in later periods in Alexandria, Antiochia,
Rome, &c. The task of destroying a numerous population
was not easy. The Jews, no doubt, would have offered
desperate resistance to their adversaries. One day was
insufficient for accomplishing their destruction. For this
reason the people of Susa were given two days to rid the city
of the Jews. But after Haman's downfall, Mordecai saw
no reason for giving the Jews of Susa two days for their
defence, believing that the people of the capital, in the
proximity of the king, would not dare to attack the Jews.
This was an error of judgement. In no other localities
was the temptation to plunder the Jews so alluring as in
the capital, where the wealthiest Jews resided. The Jews
there were, of course, numerous. But just as Alexandria,
Antiochia, Rome, and other capitals were points of gravita-
tion not only for the Jews but also for all sorts of disreputable
characters to whom murder meant nothing, if there was

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 261

any profit to be derived from it, so was Susa. Thus the
lower strata of society were more numerous there than
the Jews, and did not hesitate to execute Haman's decree,
being certain of accompKshing their task. Though repulsed
on the first day, they were not discouraged, and intended
to resume their attack on the following day. They could
legally do so, in accordance with Haman's decree, but the
Jews had no legal right of defending themselves and
offering resistance to a royal decree. Self-defence would
have been natural and pardonable, but not lawful, and the
conscience of acting in a lawless manner is discouraging,
and would have given an advantage to their enemies over
them. Seeing that in the issuing of the decree an error
had been committed, Esther hastened to the king to correct
it. Upon being informed by the king that in the encounter
of the Jews with their adversaries the former had been
victorious and killed five hundred men, Esther answered :
This is of no avail. The condition of the Jews is still
precarious. The enemies would resume the attack to-
morrow, and the Jews have no legal right to defend
themselves. Therefore the force of the decree ought to be
extended for the next day. Furthermore, the exposing
of the bodies of Haman's sons might have a deterrent
effect upon many of the people, and thus might save
bloodshed and make it easier for the Jews to defend
themselves. The king granted Esther's request, which
was not unfounded, as on the next day the Jews were
attacked again and defended themselves successfully.'"*'

^^ The commentators who condemn Esther's request are wrong even
from their own point of view. If the Jews had been permitted to attack all
those who had wronged them in the past, does it stand to reason that those
who had escaped on the thirteenth of Adar should get away with impunity ?

262 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

The number seventy-five thousand of the slain Gentiles
in all the provinces of the empire is in all probability
a late exaggeration. The Greek version reports fifteen
thousand. However, if the Jews had been actually attacked
everywhere in all localities, the former number would have
been too low an estimate. But there is scarcely room for
doubt that in most places the Jews were left in peace and,
thus, under no necessity of defending themselves. For
a mob intent upon plunder is, as a rule, cowardly, and
perceiving the Jews well prepared for their defence, and
moreover, being assisted by the officials, did not make
any attempt to execute Haman's decree. This fact may
perhaps be seen in the clause, ' and had rest from their
enemies ' (onia'^iso nui). This statement seems to be out
of place in this connexion, and the author may have
intended to indicate thereby, that in some localities they
had rest from their enemies and were not compelled to
defend themselves.

However, though the Jews were victorious and thus
succeeded in frustrating Haman's decree, we must not
imagine that they did not suffer any losses in the encounters.
It goes without saying that many Jews must have lost
their lives in these riots, and the number of their slain
brethren altogether may have been not much below that
of their enemies. Our author, however, is not to blame
for omitting this fact, as on this point he acted like all
other biblical authors, who only in case of defeat, but not
in that of victory, record the losses of the Jews in their
wars. We are not informed whether any Israelites fell
in the battles against Sihon and Og, at the conquest of
Canaan, in the wars of Deborah, Jephtha, &c. The Books
of the Maccabees do not inform us either of the losses of

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 263

the Jews in their victorious campaigns. The same is true
of the Book of I^sther. Facts of this kind we have to read
between the lines. But the loss of the men who fell as
champions of Israel did not prevent the survivors from
celebrating joyfully their deliverance from complete anni-
hilation.

Now in the description of the successful defence of the
Jews, it is repeatedly stated, ' But on the spoil they laid
not their hands ', and our author intended to emphasize
thereby that the Jews in their encounters with their adver-
saries were not actuated by greed, and ignored the provision
of the second decree that permitted them ' to take the
spoil of them for a prey '. But this provision is found
only in the Massoretic version of Mordecai's decree, while
the Greek version of the latter has no reference to the
spoil of the Jews' enemies. Nevertheless, in the execution
of the decree, 9. 15, 16, the latter version contains the
corresponding statement, Kal ov8\v Si-qpTraaai/. But it has
been repeatedly pointed out that the Greek version is
a rendering of the original Hebrew text of our story, while
the present Massoretic text had been considerably inter-
polated in a later period, and this contention does not seem
to be borne out in this case at least, where the Greek
version testifies to the originality of the Massoretic text.
However, the permission 'to take the spoil of them for
a prey' may be implied in the clause 'to deal with their
adversaries according unto their own will ' {^prja-Oai rols
dvTiSiKois avTOiv ... toy ^ovXovraL).

The Festival of Purim commemorating the deliverance Esther 9.

I 8-32.

of the Jews from utter destruction, having been established,
according to the testimony of our narrative, by Mordecai
and Esther, and not by the Sopherim, had no religious

264 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

character. The Sophenm, though grateful to Mordecai
and Esther for their intervention, could not have proclaimed
them as saviours of Israel. The Rabbis seemed to have
preserved a tradition that the Sopherim refused to sanction
the establishment of Purim.''' Mordecai and Esther, the
founders of this festival, having no religious authority,
could not encumber the Jews with new religious observances.
Moreover, considering their character, we may doubt
whether they greatly cared for religious ceremonies, and
it is not likely that they would have been inclined to
impose them upon other people. Thus Purim was a purely
secular festival, like Independence Day, on the Fourth of
July, the character of which would unquestionably have
been different, and might have been like the American
Thanksgiving Day, if it had been instituted by the Church.
But many years later, having been successfully introduced
and generally established, the Festival of Purim had to be
taken cognizance of by the Sopherim. Otherwise, having
a secular character and being celebrated simultaneously
with a great Persian festival, as demonstrated in chapter
VII, Purim was bound to become an idolatrous festival
and to be identified with that of the Persians, as, indeed,
modern scholars do. To prevent such an identification,
the Sopherim wrote down the story of Purim and intro-
duced its reading in the synagogues.

The special features of this Festival were, ' sending
portions one to another, and gifts to the poor'. Now
modern critics call attention to the fact that the old
Persian festival Farwardigdii had been celebrated in the
same way.^^ But it is quite natural that a Jewish festival
instituted in the Persian empire should be celebrated in

"' See chapter V, note 73. 2* See chapter VII.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 265

accordance with the customs of the country, provided the

latter arc not of a polytheistic character or contrary to

the Jewish ethical conceptions. The originators of the

Festival of Piirim were Mordecai and Esther, and having

been Persians, ordered its celebration according to Persian

customs. If its originators had been the Sopherim of

Babylonia or Palestine, we may doubt whether these

Persian customs would have been made its special features.

However, these customs, conducive to the promotion of

goodwill and charity, are so fully in accordance with Jewish

ethics that, no matter what their origin may have been,

the Sopherim could not have> abolished them when they

sanctioned Purim as Jewish festival.

Our narrative distinctly states that Mordecai himself Esther 9.

23-5.
wrote down the antecedents of the memorial days which

the Jews should establish among themselves : ' And the Jews

took upon them to do as they had begun, and as Mordecai

had written unto them.'^^ Our author thus testified to

the existence of a ' Letter of Purim ', written by Mordecai

himself, an historical source, from which he drew in the

composition of his narrative. But, while we have no means

to ascertain how far he relied upon this historical document,

and how far upon the testimony of eye-witnesses or tradition,

there can be no room for doubt that in the verses 24-5 we

have an almost literal quotation from the Letter of Mordecai.

This quotation contains a pithy account of the causes of

both the danger to the Jews and their deliverance. This

account being an historical source of the first importance,

39 The clause TW^^vb I^HH "IC'N DS • (the Jews took upon them) to do as
they had begun ', can scarcely refer to the first year in which they had
been delivered from their enemies, as Haupt explains, but it is more likely
that the Jews spontaneously began to observe the days of their deliverance
as Memorial Days.

266 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

it is worth while to investigate whether it is fully in agree-
ment with that presented by our author in his narrative.

The Massoretic text containing Mordecai's own account
of the antecedents of Purim "*" reads as follows :

' Because Haman the son of

Hammedatha, the Agagite,
the enemy of all the Jews
had devised against the Jews

to destroy them,
and had cast pur, that is, the

lot,
to discomfit them, and to de-
stroy them ;
but when she came before the

king,
he commanded by letters
that his wicked device which

he had devised
against the Jews, should return

upon his own head ;
and that he and his sons should

be hanged
on the gallows.'

A critical examination of these passages purporting to
contain a quotation from Mordecai's Letter of Purim shows
clearly that the present Hebrew text could not have been

*° The contents of Mordecai's Letter of Purim ought to have been given
after ^DTID HIDDM . . . between verses 22 and 23, and it looks like an
afterthought of our author in quoting this letter after informing us that
' the Jews undertook to do as they had begun, and as Mordecai had written
unto them '. This quotation was indeed unnecessary, and its only purpose
was to explain the name of Purim : ' Wherefore they called these days
Purim, after the name of Pur.'

Q-i3N^ Dnin\i bv 2'C'n
bi)in Nin ni2 b'zn)

libr^rt ':zb nani)

aa^n il"x nv^iri inacno aic^

y^ai b]} onin^n bv

v:2 nNi imx ibni

I*yn ^y

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 267

handed down correctly, as we encounter there numerous
difficulties. In the first place, our author being a very-
good stylist, it is rather strange that just here his style
should be so awkward as to contain identical expressions,
as D*i3Nb repeated twice in one and the same verse,*^ and
onirr^n bv ^t^'n repeated in two verses following immediately
one another. Secondly, the singular term n»n^, which
literally means ' to excite, disperse, drive away ', is here
out of place. Cassel's suggestion that the author used
this term as a play upon the name of Haman,^^ is not to
be taken seriously.*^ Thirdly, the clause l^on ':zh ns*32i,
if it should be translated ' and when she came before the
king', referring to Esther, as generally interpreted, would
be syntactically wrong, as Esther had not been mentioned
in the context. The suggestion of many modern com-
mentators that the suffix in n^nai should be construed as
neuter, referring to the conspiracy of Haman, and thus the
clause should be translated ' and when it came before the
king ',** rests upon the fundamental error in the interpreta-

" Siegfried believes that the first m3X^ is an erroneous repetition.
He is wrong, since D''lin\T bv 3C*n without Dn3N^ would be meaningless,
and we would expect at least D^1^I^"I ?V nyi X"n ' he devised evil against
the Jews'. If so, the whole clause DHUnS Dnin\T bV DtJTl would have to
be regarded as a gloss.

••^ Similarly Haupt {Ciitical Notes, p. 188), who observes: 'The assonance
with the name Haman might be imitated by translating : to harm them
or to mayhem them '.

<3 However, the possibility that some Sopher at the Purim-table permitted
himself the witty remark f»n ""D pn IDtT Nipj '•^H ' Was he not rightly
named Haman, for he had excited us?', may be freely granted. But this
would not have been inserted in the text.

*'* So Bertheau-Russel, Wildeboer, Siegfried, Sec. But these com-
mentators correctly contend that Haman did not obtain his decree by a
conspiracy, and that the king was well aware of the fact that it was aimed
at the Jews. In accepting this interpretation, we would have to assume

268 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

tion of the event, assuming that the king did not have
the slightest knowledge of Haman's intentions in confirming
his decree, and that it was a conspiracy on the part ot
Haman. Thus such a construction of the suffix in nN33T
is impossible. Fourthly, the peculiar expression ny ION
"i3Dn, which literally means 'he said with the letter', if it
should mean ' he commanded by letters ', as translated
above, would be rather awkward, and can scarcely be
attributed to our author. He could not have been at a
loss for a proper expression, as the phrase m |nj frequently
occurs in this narrative, and could have expressed himself
2'c>rh m ]r\:. Fifthly, according to our narrative, the king
did not command by letters that Haman and his sons
should be hanged, and it is unlikely that our author should
have quoted a version contradicting his own narrative.**^
Finally, the king did not say exactly that Haman's wicked
device should return upon his own head.

But. while in the Massoretic text we encounter linguistic
and exegetical difficulties, turning to the Greek version,
the corresponding passages are clear and in full agreement
with the preceding narrative. This version reads as
follows :
'How Haman the son of TrMs'AfiaK'A^aSdOov oMaK^-

Hamadatha, the Macedo- Scbv

nian,

that Mordecai's version of the main event differed on the most essential
point from that of our author. Haupt [Critical Notes, p. i88) likewise
objects to such an interpretation, and observes : ' nN33"l does not mean
when it came, but when she came. The author of the original book would not
have written HN^ni, but ']b^n ''izh inDN* N1231 '. However, there must
be some reason why the latter expression sliould have been changed in the
Massoretic text to nN331.

*'' Or should it refer to the decree given in Susa at Esther's request that
Haman's sons after their death should be impaled ?

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 269

had been hostile toward them

and how he had cast
the stone and lot to destroy ■\\rri<pLa-fia koI KXrjpo

en-oAl/xei avrov^ KaOcos eOero
d(pd-

them ;
and how he went to the kine^

saying, to hang Moidecai ;

I'la-at avT0V9
Kal ojy elarjXOeu npos rov

iSaaiXia
Aeycov Kpefida-at rov Map-
Soy^dloi'
but the wicked device, which oa-a Se i7r€)(^€ipr]a€v ind^ai

he devised errl rovs

against the Jews, happened 'lovSaiov? KaKcc evr' avrbv

unto himself,
and he was hanged himself
and his own children.'

eyevoi'To
Kal eKpe/ido-Or] avro<i
Koi rd T^Kva avrov.

With the exception of rendering Agagl with ' Mace-
donian ' which in Alexandria may have been an idiomatic
designation for an inexorable enemy of - the Jews, and
making allowance for the clause 'saying, to hang Mordecai ',
corresponding to the Hebrew '3mD ns m^n^ ib^h "lON^
(Esther 6. 4), which is no doubt a mere expansion, there
is not the least objection, be it linguistically or exegetlcally,
to the contents of Mordecai's presentation of the ante-
cedents of Purim in the Greek version. Thus the original
Hebrew text that was rendered into Greek must have read
as follows :
' Because Haman the son of

Hammedatha, the Agagite,
the enemy of all the Jews, had

cast pur,
that is, the lot, to destroy them ;
But when he came before the

king,

l^DH ^:3^ 1N331

270 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

returned his wicked device 3:rn "IC'N ny"in innL^no 3C

which he had devised
against the Jews upon his own 'i::'S"i bv D''*Tin''n 7y

head,
and they hanged him and his yv^ bv vn JiNl mis* i^m

sons on the gallows.'
Thus, according to this statement quoted from Mordecai's
Letter of Purim, Haman's downfall was caused when he
came to the king with the intention of asking permission
for Mordecai's execution. This is essentially true, as
Haman's humiliation foreshadowed his downfall. To be
sure, Haman himself did not have a chance of laying this
request before the king. However, it has been pointed
out, that but for Harbonah informing the king of the
gallows prepared by Haman for Mordecai's execution,
Haman might have been brought before the judges, accord-
ing to Persian laws, and in this case might have been
able to prove his innocence, and then perhaps regained his
influence with the king, and thus his final downfall was
actually due to his intention of executing Mordecai. This
was the interpretation of the Greek translator of the clause
l^nn ''JD7 riX3ni, expressing it by the addition Xeycov
Kp^lidcrai Tov MapSoxalov ' saying, to hang Mordecai '.
However, this interpretation is by no means certain, as the
clause under discussion may mean that Haman's downfall
was caused when he came to dine with the king on Esther's
invitation. This would be fully in agreement with the
account of our author.

However, the corruption of these passages in the
Massoretic text cannot be without reason, and requires
some explanation. May this not be due to marginal notes
of some exegetes who tried to interpret the clause nN33"i

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 271

1^»n '':d7 in various ways? That exegetes must have
tampered with the text under consideration is plainly seen
from the difference between the Massoretic and Greek
versions. There may have been other interpreters who
differed in their explanations from the latter, and referred
the suffix in nxaai neither to Haman nor to Esther but
to Mordecai, that is to say, that Haman's wicked device
was frustrated ivJien Mordecai came before the king and
was installed as grand vizier, and would refer to the state-
ment of our narrative : ' On that day did the king Ahasuerus
give the house of Haman, the Jews' enemy, unto Esther the
queen, and Mordecai came before the king.' Though
Mordecai's name is not mentioned in this connexion, it
would not be syntactically wrong, as we could not expect
1^?on "':)2^ ^yryd N3ai 'when Mordecai came before the
king ', since our author quotes in oblique narrative from
Mordecai's letter who wrote H^ion ''jai' \S3ai ' when I came
before the king '. May not this have been the meaning
of a marginal note of some interpreter, iDOn oy ~h:n ' he
said in the letter', and there was no need to mention
Mordecai's name ? ^^ To be sure, this is an awkward
expression ; but in a casual marginal note, we. ought not
to expect elegance of style, and the interpreter may not
have been a stylist at all. On the other hand, another
interpreter thought like the Greek translator that the suffix
in nx33i refers to Haman and expressed this interpretation
in a marginal note, pn? ' it refers to Haman ', while a
copyist might have seen in this note an Aramaism for D»n^
' to excite them ', and thus corrected it and inserted it

" Haupt ^Critical Notes, p. 188 f.) correctly perceived the difficulties in
the passages under consideration as regards "ISDH DP "IT2X as a tertiary
gloss.

272 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

before Q13X^. Finally, the first Q'Mnb nmn\n ^y nJi'n may
be due also to a marginal note of some interpreter who
thought that Haman's intention to destroy the Jews ought
to have been mentioned before the casting of the lots.
This is, of course, unnecessary, as Haman's hostility toward
the Jews is expressed in the designation □''Tin\n ^3 "niv
' the enemy of all the Jews '. However, though the passage
under discussion in the Massoretic text is not original, and
linguistically incorrect, the interpreter showed good exe-
getical -sense, as Esther and not Mordecai was the main
factor in frustrating Haman's decree. Nor did he accept
the interpretation of the Greek version, though linguistically
more correct, believing that Haman's fate was not due to
the intention of executing Mordecai.

Esther ii. As to the etymology of the name of Purim, it has
26.

already been pointed out that if the latter was etymo-
logical ly connected with the name of the old Persian New
Year festival Farivardigdn^ as contended by many modern
scholars, the Jews adopted this name as that of their own
festival for the purpose of disguising its very nature, as it
could not be called by a name offensive to the Persians.
The choice of an appropriate name for this day of com-
memoration both expressive of the events of that period,
and not insulting to the religious sentiments of the Gentiles,
was no easy task. A festival celebrating the victory of
Monotheism over Polytheism would have constituted a
continual menace to the existence of the Jews. For this
reason, the real antecedents of the danger to the Jews are
disguised in our narrative as far as possible. The same
holds true to the name of Purim, though ostensibly identical
with that of the Persian festival, to the Jews it was
commemorative of their deliverance: 'They called these

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 273

days Purim after the name of Pur '. Considering it from
this point of view, we may compare this festival to other
Biblical festivals of the seasons, which may, indeed, date
from a pre-Israelitish period, as assumed by many modern
critics, and which the Israelites may have observed even
before their descent to Egypt, but nevertheless assumed
a different character in the religion of Israel, and became
intimately connected with signal events in the history of
Israel.*"

However, though the real antecedents of the events of
that period had to be disguised, there is an allusion at
least to sufferings of the Jews that could not have been
exclusively due to Haman's decree. This can be seen
in the statement : ' Therefore for all the words of this
letter, and of that which they had seen concerning this
matter, and that which had come unto them '. If we
accept the current interpretation of our narrative, this
statement would seem rather obscure and almost without
any meaning. For if Haman's decree against the Jews
was due to a mere freak for the purpose of wreaking his
vengeance on Mordecai, and if the Jews had been permitted
by Mordecai's decree to fall upon their enemies, and
slaughter many thousands of them without being attacked,
what did the Jews see concerning this matter, and what

*'' The treatment of Purim by the higher critics is indeed not diflerent
from that of other Biblical festivals, since the critics who consider the
stories of the Patriarchs in Genesis as merely legendary traditions partly
doubt and partly deny that the Israelites had ever lived in Canaan before
their descent to Egypt. And even the historical character of the stories of
Israel's sojourn in Egypt and their exodus is by many critics doubted, and
by some denied altogether. Thus, in accordance with these views, it is
maintained that the biblical festivals are of Canaanitic origin, which the
Israelites adopted after their entrance into Canaan, and that all the historical
events these festivals are said to commemorate arc later fabrications.

11. T

274 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

did come unto them ? They were merely for a short time,
actually only for a few days, in danger of being exterminated ;
but the danger having been averted, we cannot assert
that the sufferings they experienced in mental anguish
during this short period was, ' what they had seen con-
cerning this matter, and that which had come unto them '.
But this statement will be viewed in a different light if
we see in it an allusion to the religious persecutions the
Jews suffered and witnessed prior to Haman's decree, and
if we consider that even after Haman's execution and
Mordecai's elevation the danger to them was by no means
completely averted, and that though given a chance of
fighting for their existence, their fate was still in the
balance.^^
Esther ii, To those who accept the current interpretation of our
narrative, the long description of the establishing of the
Festival of Purim may seem tiresome and unnecessary.*^
It reads as follows : ' The Jews ordained, and took upon
them, and upon their seed, and upon all such as joined
themselves unto them, so as it should not fail, that they
would keep these two days''" according to the writing

■*^ The reference to those events may seem somewhat cryptic. But the
author could not have referred plainly to the persecutions the Jews had
undergone on account of their religion, and could allude only to those
events. He may have intended to say that the Jews accepted this festival
not only to comply with Mordecai's request but also on account of their own
experiences in the days of persecutions.

*^ The whole passage is generally considered an unnecessary duplicate
to IX, 19.

"'' It seems that the actual observance of the Festival of Purim, which is
limited to one day, is not strictly in accordance with this passage, unless we
assume that the latter statement refers to both the inhabitants of the un-
walled towns and of Susa, of which the former observed the fourteenth day
of Adar, and the latter the fifteenth. But Susa was not the only city in
which the latter day was observed, as the same is true also of the walled

27-

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 275

thereof, and according to the appointed time thereof, every
year ; and that these days should be remembered and kept

cities, whose inhabitants observed the same day. The Jewish tradition on
this point is well founded, since the statement that the Jews of the villages,
that dwell in unwalled towns, observe the fourteenth day of Adar forces the
conclusion that the Jews of walled cities observe the fifteenth. This is
apparently confirmed by the Greek version, which contains the addition :
' But those who dwell in the cities keep also the fifteenth day of Adar as
a joyous and good day by sending dainties to their neighbours '. This is
probably an unnecessary expansion, and not a part of the original Hebrew
text. However, the Greek version seems to indicate that the inhabitants of
the cities observe both days, the fourteenth and the fifteenth of Adar, and
this would not be in accordance with Jewish custom and tradition. Further-
more, the term nr]TpoiTu\us, literally 'mother-cities', means capitals, and
not walled cities in general. Thus the Greek version would seem to
indicate that the Jews who dwell in capitals should celebrate Purim (also)
on the fifteenth, commemorating thereby the events of the capital Susa.
But the very statement that the dwellers of unwalled towns observe the
fourteenth shows that those of walled places observe the following day,
and not merely those of capitals. This fact leaves little room for doubt
that the addition in the Greek version is an illogical scribal gloss. The
Rabbinical tradition on this point that distinguishes between unwalled and
walled towns is linguistically and logically in conformity with the statement
of our narrative. However, the passage under discussion which reads
ninsn nya D^a^'lM n^nan nmnM p bv can scarcely be original. This
has already been noted by Haupt and Paton, who consider the clause
ninsn '•ny^ □''iti'Vn which is an exact translation of D^HSn, an early
explanatory gloss. But the meaning of the latter term must have been well
known, since the terms flPD mPD ''PD often occur in the Old Testament,
and there was no need for an explanation of such a term. Therefore, may
we not venture the suggestion that the original passage was D^*nn\"I p b]3
ninsn nyn D'^a^Vn n-OISn 'Wherefore the Persian Jews that dwelt in
the unwalled towns ' ? Now it has been pointed out that the observance of
the Festival of Purim was obligatory only on those Jews and their descen-
dants whose countries at that period formed a part of the Persian empire ;
and we have observed that the Egyptian Jews knew nothing of this festival,
since Egypt was not a part of the Persian empire at the period of these events
see chapter I, note 6). May we not suggest that in the Alexandrian period,
when the former extent of the Persian empire was not generally known
any longer, some copyist rightly objected to the term D'DISn, which would
show that Purim was an exclusive festival of the Persian Jews, -and

T 2

276 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

throughout every generation, every family, every province,
and every city ; and these days of Purim should not fail
from among the Jews, nor the memorial of them perish
from their seed '. But considered in the light of our inter-
pretation, the observance of the Festival of Purim is of
special significance for the Jews of all periods and of all
xountries, even more than other biblical festivals. For
the danger impending over the Jews in that period was
not due to singular circumstances and conditions but to
the fact that their religion had come into a conflict with
the creeds of the Gentiles, The same danger that con-
fronted the Jews in the Persian period was experienced
by the Jews of many countries innumerable times, and
is by no means past. As long as the Jews more or less
adhere to their religion, the same conflict may arise again.
It is certainly no exaggeration to declare that the Festival
of Purim is intimately connected with the existence of ' the
Jews ', that is to say, the adherents of the Jewish religion.
It is more their own deliverance the Jews commemorate
on this festival than that of their ancestors in the days
of Mordecai and Esther. The words of thanks : ' And
this is which stood in good stead to our ancestors and
ourselves ; for not one alone hath arisen against us to
exterminate us, but in every generation enemies are arising
against us to exterminate us ; but the Holy One, blessed
be He, is delivering us out of their hand ',^^ are perhaps
more appropriate for the Festival of Purim than for that
of Passover, on which they are recited. The Rabbis,
notwithstanding their erroneous conception of the events

changed it into D''n2n, an emendation which might well have been suggested
by the following clause ninsn ny^ D^X'm ?
^^ See Hagadah-shel-Pesah .

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 277

of our Story, showed nevertheless, perhaps by intuition,^^
good historical sense in declaring : ' If all biblical festivals
should be abolished, the days of Purim will always remain.'''^
The latter can disappear only when there should no longer
be any conflict between the creed of the Jews and those
of the Gentiles : with the disappearance of the Jewish
religion. This is exactly what our narrative meant to
indicate and to impress upon the mind of the Jews that "^
the danger they escaped is not a matter to be forgotten,
that their descendants and all such as joined themselves
unto them, no matter in what country they might live,
would be exposed to the same danger. The commemora-
tion of this festival will be a comfort to them in their
tribulations, strengthen their trust in the God of Israel,
and save them from utter despair. The memorial of them
will never perish from their seed as long as they continue
to be 'Jews'.

However, notwithstanding the Jews had already ordained Esther n.
and taken upon themselves the observance of the Festival
of Purim. our narrative informs us: 'Then Esther the
queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew,
wrote with all authority, to confirm this second letter of
Purim. And he sent letters unto all the Jews, to the
hundred twenty and seven provinces of the kingdom of
Ahasuerus with words of peace and truth.' This statement
is rather obscure. The Festival of Purim having already

^^ Though they based their saying upon the statement ' These days
should not fail from among the Jews, nor the memorial of them perish from
their seed ', which they regarded as a prophetic prediction. Considering
the matter in the light of our conception, the Rabbis were perfectly justified
in holding the Book of Esther in such high veneration (see chapter I,
note 26).

278 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

been established and accepted by the Jews, what need was
there for exhorting them to do so in a second letter?
This evidently indicates that notwithstanding Mordecai's
first letter, the Jews were by no means ready and willing
to accept the observance of this festival, and Esther and
Mordecai had to write ' with all authority ' for the second
time to confirm ' this second letter of Purim '. Even then
it does not seem to have had the effect desired, as in
verse 32 it is stated that ' the commandment of Esther
confirmed these matters of Purim '. Why should Mordecai
and Esther have insisted upon the observance of this
festival? This was surely neither due to their ambition,
of being remembered as saviours of Israel, nor to their
religious fervour. Furthermore, considering that the cele-
bration of this festival did not encumber the Jews with
special religious observances and mainly consisted of
making merry, sending portions one to another and gifts
to the poor, there does not seem to be any obvious reason
for the persistent refusal of the Jews to accede to the
demands of Mordecai and be averse to the acceptance of
this obligation. And even if it had been an austere
memorial day, it is scarcely conceivable that the Jews
should have been opposed to the observance of so memor-
able an event. But a summary of the salient points in
our interpretation of this narrative will make plain both
the insistence of Mordecai and Esther on the commemora-
tion of this event by the Jews and the reluctance of the
latter to comply with this request.

The starting-point of our investigation was that the
danger to the Jews described in the Book of Esther was
of a purely religious nature, and was not due to the hatred
toward their race, and that the antecedents of the main

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 279

event of our narrative were the introduction of anthropo-
morphic images of Anahita into the Zoroastrian rehgion
and the proclaiming of this goddess as the representative
of Ahuramazda, the supreme god of the Persians, her
worship being enjoined on all inhabitants of the Persian
empire. The main festival of this goddess evidently took
place in the month of Adar. The Jews could not participate
in the celebration of this festival and thus flagrantly defied
the royal decree with regard to the worship of this goddess.
The conduct of the Jews was naturally the cause of
persecutions. The latter being without avail, it became
evident that the resistance of the Jews was exclusively due
to their religious conceptions. Having been given the
choice either to give up their religion or to pay the supreme
penalty for their disobedience to the royal decree, those
Jews who did not want to part with their religion were
in imminent danger of being exterminated. But due to
Esther's intervention they escaped, and through her influence
the decree concerning the worship of Anahita was not
enforced. However, the danger was still looming ahead,
and there was no guarantee for the future, as some day
the same trouble might start again and, as already observed,
seems to have been the case under the reign of Artaxerxes
ni Ochus. This danger would have been minimized if
the Jews could have seen their way to participate in the
celebration of Anahita's festival without transgressing the
principal tenet of the Jewish religion. Such a participation
being tantamount to idolatry was out of the question.
Since, however, Haman selected as the auspicious day for
the execution of his decree the festival of Anahita, the
latter, of course, synchronised with the day of their deliver-
ance, and in establishing this day as the Jewish festival

28o THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

of commemoration, and it being celebrated in accordance
with the Persian customs, there was outwardly not the
least difference between the Persian and the Jewish festivals.
Such a festival seemed a safeguard for the future, and for
this reason Mordecai and Esther insisted upon its acceptance.
Now it stands to reason that as far as the common Jewish
people were concerned, they had no objection to the
establishment of this festival. Our narrative thus correctly
states that the Jews on receiving Mordecai's first letter
readily and willingly acted accordingly and established the
Festival of Purim.

However, the establishment of this festival could not
but meet with fierce opposition on the part of the Sopherim.
The Jatter could not countenance the introduction of a
festival which to all appearances was identical with the
idolatrous festival celebrated simultaneously, and was bound
to become identified with it, when the cause of its origin
should be forgotten. They could not but denounce
Mordecai for its introduction. They did not fail to impress
upon the mind of the people that all their sacrifices and
the sufferings they had undergone were in vain, if after
all they should have to pretend to worship Anahita. If
this was the result of the deliverance, they could have
saved themselves all the sufferings and persecutions by
pretending to comply with the royal decree, as most of the
Jews actually did. Little did the Sopherim care whether
by the introduction of such a festival the danger to the
Jews would be minimized. They were men of mettle, not
deterred by any danger, and ready to lay down their lives
at any time for the doctrines of their religion. The only
danger they feared was that threatening the purity of the
Jewish religion. They were, of course, in favour of estab-

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 281

lishing a festival commemorative of the deliverance of the
Jews, but a festival of specifically Jewish character, and not
on the day of the idolatrous festival.

Convinced by the arguments of the Sopherim, the
people reconsidered their resolution of establishing the
Festival of Purim and abandoned its celebration. Thus
Mordecai and Esther had to combat the influence of
the spiritual leaders of Israel in this matter. In the end
they prevailed and the people, partly grateful to them for
the part they had played in the deliverance from the
danger, and partly forced by Esther's decree, again accepted
the Festival of Purim against the consent of the Sopherim.
Therefore, it was a secular feast, without any religious
character.^"* But many years later, when Purim had
already been firmly established and generally celebrated,
and thus there was actual danger that in the course of time
its origin would sink into oblivion, and it would, indeed,
become identified with the heathen festival, the Sopherim
could not but re-affirm it, but at the same time recorded
the reason for its celebration and ordained that the record
should annually be recited on the day of this festival.
The fact that the record was compiled in a manner not
offensive to the Persians, and not exposing the Jews to any
danger, seems to indicate that Mordecai's policy of safe-
guarding the existence of the Jews was not altogether
ignored.^^

^* The secular character of Purim can be seen in the fact that it is
the only Biblical festival on which any kind of work is not prohibited.
The Rabbis indeed observe ingeniously : ' Originally, in accordance with
Esther 9. 19, Purim was intended as 2)D DV, in which work should be
prohibited, but later in Mordecai's Letter of Purim, it was established
merely as ^^Dt^'1 riDSJ'O ''J2'' "days of feasting and gladness", but not as
aiD DV (Megillah Babli, 5'') '.

^'^ Who knows whether the persecutions during the reign of ArtaxerxesIII

282 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

Considering Mordecai's conciliatory policy of avoiding
as far as possible any conflict with the Gentiles, the state-
ment : ' And Mordecai sent letters unto all the Jews . . . ,
ivith woi'ds cf peace and truth ', acquires a special meaning.
Peace and Truth are, as a rule, contradictory terms. One
who desires to live at peace with his fellow-men must not
always insist upon ' the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth '. Those who act according to this maxim
are bound to come frequently into conflict with people and
cannot live at peace. To be sure, it would be nothing
short of moral turpitude to accommodate one's actions to
the dictates of peace at the sacrifice of truth. But, as in
other matters so also here, there is a just medium that lies
between truth and peace. One whose first consideration
is peace, but at the same time wants to act according to
the dictates of truth, can do so by not proclaiming one's
innermost thoughts. This was the policy of Mordecai :
first 'peace', then 'truth'. He advised his co-religionists
that in observing the Festival of Purim commemorating
their deliverance simultaneously with the festival of Anahita,
they would gain both Peace and Truth, though the latter
would be disguised. There was no need for proclaiming
openly the different character of their own festival. How-
ever, this was by no means the principle of the spiritual
leaders of Israel, neither in that period nor later. "''^ But

Ochus did not render the Sopherim more tolerant on this point toward
their opponents?

55 Maj' we not contrast the principle of Mordecai expressed in the terms
riDNI il\7^ n3T with the principle of the prophet Zechariah, in saying
13ns DIT^I riDSn 'wherefore love ye truth and peace', and thus placing
'Truth' before 'Peace'? That this prophet regarded absolute truth as
above all other considerations is evidenced from his e.xhortation in the same
chapter, saying : ' These are the things that ye shall do : Speak ye every

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 283

Mordccai's conduct even before he was elevated to the
ofifice of grand vizier, was governed by this principle, and
later it naturally became the guiding rule of his policy.

But the second Letter of Purim, sent out by Mordecai Esther n.
and Esther, is rather obscure. It reads as follows : ' To ^^*
confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times,
according as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had
enjoined them, and as they had ordained for themselves
and for their seed, the matters of the fastings and their
cry '. As far as the meaning of this passage is concerned,
it is obvious : The Jews are exhorted to confirm the days
of Purim in the same way as they had ordained for them-
selves and their seed the matters of fastings and their cry.
It would thus seem that the Jews spontaneously had
established fast days commemorative of their suffering and
their deliverance. The question now arises : to what Fast
does this statement refer to ? Certainly not to the Fast of
EstJier (iriDN JT'iJyn), which is observed on the day preceding
the Festival of Purim, since this fast day had not yet
existed in the Talmudic period. In the Halakic literature,
as far as the present writer can see, it is for the first time
mentioned about the middle of the twelfth century, by
Rabbi Jacob Tam,^^ who thought to have found an allusion

man the truth with his neighbour ; execute the judgement of truth and peace
in your gates ; and let none of you devise evil in your hearts against his
neighbour' (Zechariah 8. 16, 17, 19).

" See the commentary of Rabbi Asher (C'STTl B'n"'D) on Megillah, sa'^
(Amsterdam, 1698,1. However, this Fast must have been established and
generally known in the ninth century c.e., since Al-Beruni already referred
to it (see Lagarde's Purim). As a matter of fact, this Fast, though not yd
known in the Talmudic period, must have been established not long after
the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud. There is an allusion to this
Fast in the Tractate of Sopherim, the compilation of which is generally
placed about 750-850 c.e. This Tractate has the following statement:

284 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

to that fast-day in the Talmudic statement : ' The thirteenth
day of Adar is a general day of assembly' (rhnp pr i"'
N'n ^3^). ''8 This he explained : ' The people assembled
themselves together on that day, because it was the Fast of
Esther'. But this interpretation is not to be taken seriously,
and is merely homiletic. The Talmudic passage under
consideration meant to say, as Rashi, indeed, explains :
The thirteenth day of Adar was that day in which both

' Concerning Purim, the three days of the Fast are not observed con-
secutively but separately, on Monday, Thursday, and Monday (''t;'''?Dni '•Jti'
"^iU)). Our Rabbis in Palestine, however, introduced the custom of fasting
one day after Purim on account of Nicanor and his fellows' {Sop/ien'm,
chapter 17}. The latter part of this statement is quite obscure, and we maj'
doubt whether the text is correctly preserved, as the passage niJyrinb IjnJl
D"'"nQ ''JSi'K^ DVl seems to be omitted. The statement is quite clear as
soon as we know that the Rabbis differed on the question whether ' the
Good Days', enumerated in Megillath Ta'anith, on which fasting and
mourning is forbidden, were still obligatory after the destruction of the
Temple by Titus, and the Babylonian Talmud decided this question in the
negative (Rosh Hashanah, ig''). To ' the Good Days' belongs also the Day
of Nicanor which was observed on the thirteenth of Adar. As long as its ob-
servance was obligatory, the Fast of Esther on that day was impossible.
But in agreement with the decision of the Babylonian Talmud, the Babylonian
Rabbis established this Fast on the day before Purim. This decision,
however, was probably not accepted by the Palestinian Rabbis who still
held that 'Megillath Ta'anith has not been abolished' (n!5"'30 n^D3 NP
ri'^yn), or may have held that ' the Good Days ' enumerated there are
still in force in the region where they had been originally established, but
would not be obligatory in the diaspora. Thus they could not observe the
Fast of Esther on the thirteenth of Adar, since it would collide with the obser-
vance of the Day of Nicanor, and instead of it fasted one day after the days
of Purim. But while the compiler of Sopherim must have known of the
Fast of Esther on the thirteenth of Adar, as explained, in the Talmudic
period, there is no allusion either to the fast of three days, or to the
thirteenth of Adar as the Fast of Esther, or to the fast after Purim. Thus
the Rabbis of the Talmud did not see in DHpyn niniJfH nan a reference to
the establishment of fast days in memory of the fastings of Esther, and such
an interpretation is post-Talmudic.
5« Megillah Babli, 2'\

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 285

the Jews of Susa and of the provinces assembled themselves
together for the purpose of defending themselves against
their enemies, and therefore it is obvious that the Book
of Esther may be read on that day. Furthermore, if the
Fast of Esther had been known and observed in the
Talmudic period, we may rest assured that the Rabbis
would not have merely alluded to it in that passage, but
would have dwelt on it in the Tractate of Megillah, and
further would have distinctly numbered it among the Fast
Days in the Tractate of TaanitJi. Notwithstanding this
obvious fact, it is the consensus of opinion among conserva-
tive and modern commentators that the terms ' the matters
of fastings and their cry ', refer to the institution of the
Fast of Esther.^^ This interpretation, however, is by no
means of recent date, as the same opinion was current
among mediaeval commentators, as stated by Ibn Ezra in
his commentary on the Book of Esther.''*^ That this
passage, is indeed, obscure can be seen from the fact that
even the Greek translator could not understand its meaning
and therefore tried to emend the text/^ Another interpre-
ts Siegfried, Wildeboer, &c.

^o This was according to Ibn Ezra the current view among the mediaeval
commentators (iriDN JT'jyn DV ^y D'^ai JiyT bj? mOli*,"! "im). He,
however, does not believe that the Sopherim had established this fast,
saying: nnDH DV n-jynn Dr iy3p ir03n Tiyi ■'Sh 'According to my
opinion, our Sages established a fast day as a day of fear ', that is to say,
this would not be true of the Fast of Esther commemorating the deliverance
of Israel.

^^ The Greek version reads : Kara Trjs vyidas kavruiv kuI ttjv liovKtjv
avrSjv. As far as the second part of this passage is concerned, it may
correspond to Hebrew DHVyS for original DHpyTI. But it would be
difficult to conceive that niOIXH should have been misread to render the
meaning ' according to their healthy state '. Jahn's rendering niriifn *"13T
DnvyS is of course out of consideration. Now DDVyS n^NH H^l may
well have been an erroneous reading for DHpyTI nfTim *"I3T. If so. and

286 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

tation, quoted by Ibn Ezra, that our passage refers to the
three days in which Esther and the Jews of Susa had
fasted, and it means that the Jews had ordained upon
themselves and their seed to do the same, and to fast on
those days, is certainly beyond all consideration. On the
one hand, it is scarcely conceivable that the Jews should
have decreed for themselves and their descendants to fast
three days consecutively. Such an ordinance would surely
fall under those which the Rabbis designated ' ordinances
for which the people at large would not stand ' (rx'j' niTn
Dnn l)J2v\> rb)y "il3i*n nn), and considered illegal, and we
may surely credit the Jews of that period with so much
good sense as not to have ordained anything of that sort.^^'
On the other hand, it does not stand to reason that the
Jews of that period should have changed the first two days
of Passover into fast-days. To be sure, there is no reason
why they should not have transferred these fast-days to
some other date so as not to collide with the Festival

considering that the translator relied upon his memory in making his trans-
lation, may we not venture to suggest that he read DHlfy^ HCNI Dvti' HIT
and that the original Greek reading was Kara ttjs vytfias kol ttjs d\T]6tias
iavToiv Kai rrjv PovXfjv avrwv'i The rendering of WwU in the meaning of
'health ' with vy'teia is very probable, but it does not stand to reason that the
translator misread QVl^ for DiDVU.

'52 This interpretation is by Ibn Ezra ascribed to the Karaites, saying:

f'N-ic"' ^31 n3"iD mnin p^jn ijynn::' d-'D'' ': bv "3 )'^^ii D'^'ir-najoni

p nijynnp P^^TI 'And the Disbelievers are saying that the passage refers
to the three days which they fasted in Nisan, and therefore all Israelites
ought to fast in the same way forever'. But it seems that the same
interpretation was held by some of the Rabbis, and not only by the
Karaites, as seen in the Tractate of Sophcrim, quoted note 57. However,
as in other matters so also on this point, the Rabbinical interpretation was
more rational than that of the Karaites, which required to fast three days
consecutively, while the former was satisfied with the fasts of three
separate days.

THE BOOK OF. ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY ( 287

of Passover, and they might have estabHshed only one
fast-day commemorative of the fast of Susa. But, if this
fast-day is not identical with the Fast of Esther, it would
seem strange that it entirely disappeared without having
left any vestige behind it in the Talmudic period. Thus, if
we do not want to assume with the Greek translator that
our text is corrupt, there is no other way out of this
difficulty than to see in our statement a reference to the
Four Fast-Days. This is, indeed, Ibn Ezra's own interpre-
tation of our passage, saying : ' The matters of fastings
refer to the Fast- Days mentioned in the Book of Zechariah, 1
and our passage means to say that the Jews should ordain
upon themselves to rejoice in the days of Purim just as
they had ordained for themselves to fast in their days
of mourning, when the City was taken and the Temple
was burned, since no prophet did command them to fast '.'^'^
However, if the P^stival of Purim had been established by
the spiritual leaders of Israel, and they surely had no less
authority to issue ordinances than the former prophets,
there was no need for referring to a precedent to authorize
the establishment of this festival. Thus, our statement in
the light of this interpretation bears out the contention
that the Sopherim actually refused to have anything to do
with the introduction of this festival, and shows further
that Mordecai and Esther did not have any authority for
introducing any religious festival. But the Jewish people
themselves could not be prevented from accepting it
voluntarily by common consent. The question now arose,
whether the people themselves possessed the authority for
" Ibn Ezra: 3N ^KJM p^ nn^T ^303 Dn^nn b]} nioivH nil

.i;yn^c> dvv sh s"23n "d non ?i-ii"ji -i>yn r\vp2: nL-xa ob^a ^0^2

288 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

imposing the observance of this festival upon future genera-
tions. This question is answered in the affirmative, and
the action of the people in this matter is justified by a
precedent : It was not for the first time that the people
by common consent imposed observances that had been
recognized as legal and binding for later generations.
Ibn Ezra is certainly correct in declaring that the four Fast-
Days mentioned in the Book of Zechariah had not been
instituted by the prophets. When, after the return from
the captivity, this prophet was asked : ' Should I weep in
the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these
so many years ? ' His answer was : ' When ye fasted and
mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month, even these
seventy years, did ye at all fast unto Me, even to Me ?
And when ye eat, and when ye drink, are ye not they that
eat, and they that drink ? ' ^* Now there is no room for
doubt that the prophet would have treated these institutions
of fasting with greater reverence, if they had been estab-
lished by the prophets. But they had been established by
the people themselves without consulting the prophets of
that period. And it is, indeed, doubtful whether the
prophets would have given their consent to the introduction
of these fast-days, as also in pre-exilic times Israel observed
fast-days, which were by no means conducive to real
repentance and did not have any influence upon the moral
condition of the people.®^ We may perhaps suggest that

•■'* Zechariah 7. 3-6. See Ibn Ezra, a. 1., who explains "'3S "•SIDDif 0^)il^\
nrn 121^ niCyS O^nS TT'I^' ah ''^X rum ' Behold I have not commanded
you this thing'; niJVnnS ^D bv X33nn:;' S'ln n?::i 'and who is he who
prophesied upon my command to fast?' So also David Kimlii : ''TT'IV "'JSH
miVnnb DSnX ' Did I command you to fast? '

65 We find even queen Jezebel proclaiming a fast (i Kings 21. g), and such
fasts seemed to have been customary even among idolators. See alsojer. 36.9.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 289

the establishment of these fast-days was not for the purpose
of repentance, but for keeping in the mind of the exiles .
the national consciousness and the remembrance of their
country, and thus were scarcely of religious significance.
Thus, being merely national institutions, they could not
have any influence on the religious conceptions of the
people, and the prophets could neither lend their authority
for their establishment nor look with special favour upon
their observance. But, when the idea of a Jewish nationality
gave way to that of a Jewish religious community, as
pointed out in Chapter V, the fast-days, originally national,
assumed likewise a religious character, and therefore their
establishment was recognized as binding for future genera-
tions. The recognition of their establishment, whatever
the reason for its validity may have been, established a
precedent for the people to impose the Festival of Purim
on later generations without or against the consent of the
Sopherim.

However, though the Jewish people at large had volun- Esther

32.
tarily established the Festival of Purim against the consent

of the Sopherim, it stands to reason that there were still
a good many who for religious reasons refused to recognize
its validity and ignored this festival. The conduct of the
minority frustrated the main purpose of this festival to
be a safeguard against future persecutions, and the majority
of the Jews had no legal right for coercing their co-
religionists to their will. This festival had to be confirmed
by a royal decree. For this reason ' The decree of Esther
confirmed these matters of Purim '. Now Esther, whatever
her rank may have been, could not have possessed any
authority for issuing decrees in her own name. A decree
was binding only if ' written in the king's name and sealed
H. U

290 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

with the king's ring '. But this she could not have done
without obtaining the king^s consent. This she surely
did, and the king could not but be pleased with Esther's
request to impose upon the Jews the celebration of the
fourteenth of Adar which was the day of the Persian
festival, and authorized her to issue a royal decree to that
effect. ««

Esther having issued the decree, ' it was written in the
book '. This statement is not quite clear. The term "ISD
in our narrative means either ' letter ' or ' book '. The
former meaning is scarcely conceivable, as a statement
that Esther's decree was sent out in the form of a letter
would be gratuitous ; and it surely cannot mean that
Esther confirmed the matters of Purim orally, and after-
wards her command was written down in a letter, as an
oral command would not be legally binding, as already
pointed out, unless ' written in the king's name and sealed
with the king's ring'. But the latter meaning would be
likewise difficult, as our statement cannot mean to say that
' the matters of Purim ' (oniQ "'"131) were written down in
a book, since it would be grammatically incorrect. Nor
can it mean that the decree of Esther contained the whole

^6 Thus the Festival of Purim would be in this respect similar to all the
Biblical laws which had been made obligatory upon the Jews by a royal
decree of Artaxerxes given to Ezra (Ezra 7. 25, 26). Now it has been
pointed out in chapter VII, note 59, that there are good reasons for the
assumption that Ezra was a contemporary of Mordecai, and not of Nehemiah,
and if so, the same king Artaxerxes II confirmed by a royal decree both the
Biblical laws and the Festival of Purim. Ibn Ezra expressed a similar
opinion concerning the necessity of confirming this Festival by a royal
decree, saying: p inSI HI^^CH HNr bii'\^' nr^ti't:' HTSn nC'IDH flXT mr])
'"131 mt'OJ 'This passage indicates that Israel had observed this command-
ment, but afterwards gave it up, and therefore Mordecai was in need of
Esther that she should write letters concerning it as queen '.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 291

Story of the origin of Purim and this was written in a
book, as the copies of Esther's decree sent out everywhere
would be sufficient for this purpose, and such a state-
ment would be superfluous. The old interpretation that
this statement refers to the present Book of Esther,*''^ is,
of course, impossible, since it intrinsically shows that it was
not compiled during- the life-time of Esther, as we shall
further see. However, our statement may refer to a certain
book in the archives where Esther's decree was recorded,
and due to this fact the Festival of Purim was imposed
upon the Jews as a Persian law for future times. This
seems to have been the meaning of the Greek translator
who rendered "iDOn nnaJI into Kal eypdcpt] €h fMurj/xoavfov,
' and it was written as a memorial ', which may mean that
it was recorded in * the Book of Records ' (ni3l"i3rn ~iqd =
ypd/x/xara [ivqixoavva).

Due to the current identification of the king of our Esther u
narrative with Xerxes, the statement that ' the king
Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land and upon the isles
of the sea', appeared to all modern commentators as a
trivial remark which evidently has not the least connexion
with the preceding events. Yet the author must have well
known what he was talking about, and thus this statement
must be closely connected with Mordecai's elevation to the
rank of grand vizier. This passage is, indeed, one of the
proofs against the identification of Ahasuerus of our story
with Xerxes, as pointed out in the third chapter. Ibn

^^ So Rashi and the current Rabbinical interpretation. Paten's reference
to Exod. 17. 14 ; Numb. 5. 25 ; Job 19. 23, to show that "IDD2 2TO'i merely
means : 'it was committed to writing', does not help us in explaining this
statement, since Esther's command was already committed to writing as
a decree.

U 2

292 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

Ezra is the only commentator who clearly perceived that
our narrative could not have meant to state that the king
laid tribute upon the dominions which formed a part of
the Persian empire long ago, but on those which were
recently conquered. This interpretation is, no doubt, correct.
But if the king of our story should be identified with
Xerxes, this statement would not be true, as from the
pages of history we know that Xerxes did by no means
increase his empire by new conquests. On the other hand,
if our statement is true, the current identification of our
story must be wrong.

Now according to the principle of justice, a good action
deserves a reward. No story is complete in which this
principle is ignored. In reviewing the persons who played
the principal parts in our narrative, we find that Haman
received his due for his crime against the Jews, Mordecai
was rewarded in being elevated to the rank of a grand
vizier, and Esther for her efforts in behalf of her people
ruled supreme as queen. But after all, the main factor
in the deliverance of the Jews was the king, and in what
manner was he rewarded ? Therefore, our narrative informs
us that the king did not remain without a reward either.
Mordecai's elevation was to his royal master's advantage,
as he was a very able statesman and conducted the affairs
of the empire in a masterly fashion. Due to his diplomatic
skill, the sea-land and the isles of the sea, that is to say,
the Greek cities of Asia Minor and its islands, which
Xerxes, the great-grandfather of Artaxerxes II, had lost
about eighty years ago, again became tributary to the
Persian empire. This event, the greatest achievement in
the Persian period, occurred in the year 387 B. c. E., five
years after the events narrated in the Book of Esther, thus

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 293

at the time when Mordecai stood at the head of the Persian
government. In accordance with this interpretation, we
propose to read cn ••"ni pN * land and the isles of the sea '.
The geographical term cn y^a, corresponding to cuneiform
Mdt-tamtim, ' Sealand ', refers only to the Greek cities
situated at the seaboard, as those situated in the interior
of Asia Minor were in all probability subjected before the
Peace of Antalcidas.®* In dealing with events under the
reign of Artaxerxes II, though not intending to deal with
Persian history, the author could not have omitted to
mention the most important event in the Persian history
that occurred under the reign of this king, especially as
this achievement redounded to the glory of Mordecai who
as first minister conducted the negotiations with the Greek
ambassadors. If the author had not referred to this event,
we might have reason to doubt whether he was thoroughly
acquainted with the historical events of that period, and
thus question his reliability concerning other statements.
Thus, the passage under discussion is far from being a trivial
remark, but on the contrary of signal importance, as it
bears testimony to both the identity of the king of our
narrative and to the author's thorough acquaintance with
the historical events of the period of Artaxerxes II. If,
however, the author had meant to say that the king laid
tribute upon all dominions of his empire indiscriminately,
there can be no doubt that he would have said pon DK'"'1
iniD^o nunc bD bv DD t:^-iii;'nN 'and the king Ahasuerus
laid a tribute upon all the provinces of his kingdom '.

Having pointed out one signal success of Mordecai as Esther lo.

a.

grand vizier of the king, the author goes on to say that

he was likewise successful in all his acts which, however,

68 See ed. Meyer, G. A., Ill, pp. 191 fif.

"294 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

have no connexion with our narrative, and can be found
recorded in the Persian historical annals, saying" : ' And all
the acts of his power and of his might, and the account
(nti'na) of the greatness of Mordecai, how the king advanced
him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles
of the kings of Media and Persia ? ' The term ncns, which
literally means ' interpretation, explanation ', used in this
connexion, is of special significance. Our author does not
mean to say that the greatness of Mordecai is recorded
in the royal chronicles. He was a real historian, and he
well knew that the royal chronicles could not dwell on
the merits of a minister who was, after all, merely an
instrument in the hands of his royal master, even if he had
been one of the highest grandees, as such special praise
would overshadow the glory of the king, and deprive him
of all credit for the signal achievements of his reign. If
Mordecai's name was mentioned there at all, it could only
have been incidentally in connexion with achievements of
the king. Now it would be a truism to say that glorious
deeds of many kings on which their fame rests were not
due to their own personality but to that of their ministers.
This is especially true of the king of our narrative, who
was weak, capricious, readily accessible to personal influ-
ences, and dependent upon his favourites. His achievements
during the period in which Mordecai served as his grand
vizier, if rightly interpreted, testified to the greatness of
the latter. Furthermore, many of the events recorded in
this narrative seem obscure and unexplainable if we do not
know the historical events of that period. Our author was
well aware of this fact. However, he could not refer to
the conflict between the Persian and Jewish religions, the
real background of those events which brought about

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 295

Mordecai's elevation. Therefore, he states that ' the
explanation for the greatness of Mordecai ' can be found
in the royal chronicles which deal with the historical
happenings of that period.'^*

The eulogy of Mordecai in this passage is in itself
a suf^cient proof that the Book of Esther, in the present
form at least, could not have been written during his
lifetime. The present Books of Ezra and Nehemiah were
not written by these men to whom they are traditionally
ascribed, but were compiled from their records. And the
same holds true, to a certain extent, of the Book of Esther.
The original documents underlying our narrative were the
letters sent out by Mordecai, and the decree of Esther.
In these letters Mordecai had given an account of those
events, without referring, of course, to the main conflict at
the bottom of the danger impending over the Jews. This
account, being in the style of a letter, in which most
probably, like Ezra and Nehemiah, Mordecai spoke in the
first person, as already suggested above, was called ' The
Letter of Purim ' (onisn n"i3S). This document, but for
the main event, had not the least resemblance to our
present narrative,'^" which is not written in the style of

«8 The same term D^i'lD occurs also IV, 7, in the passage P]D3n JlC'ID
^p^b pil "I^N l^a, which can scarcely mean ' the exact sum ', as generally
explained by the commentators, but is also here to be taken in the meaning
of ' explanation '. It has been pointed out that Mordecai's intention was to
impress upon Esther the significance of Haman's offer : the property of the
Jews being given to their adversaries, Haman was sure of accomplishing
his purpose.

'"' In this letter there was no need to inform them concerning the
personalities of Ahasuerus, Mordecai, and Esther, and the story of Vashti
was quite unnecessary. Even assuming that these matters were mentioned
in the letter, since it was intended as a record for future generations, which
does not seem probable, the second part of the ninth chapter could certainly
not have been written by Mordecai himself.

296 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

a letter. The compilers of our narrative lived in all pro-
bability toward the end of the Achaemenian period, as
already mentioned above, yet at a time when the characters
of Mordecai and Esther, and all those events were still
well known. Who knows whether the persecutions the
Jews underwent under the reign of Artaxerxes III, the
cruel successor of Artaxerxes II, which were evidently
due to the resurrection of the decree concerning the worship
of Anahita, and the experiences that the institution of
Purim actually minimized the danger to the Jews at that
period, did not incline the Sopherim toward a more lenient
attitude in respect to this festival ? But if so, the necessity
of sanctioning it and giving it a religious character became
of paramount importance. Furthermore, the reference to
the Persian chronicles seems to indicate that our narrative
was written during the Persian period. '^^ For after the
passing of the Achaemenian dynasty, the Persian annals
do not seem to have existed any longer, as historians
would have quoted them if they had still existed. The
statement of the Zend-Avesta, that the Persian books
had been destroyed by Alexander the Great, is certainly
well founded,''^ as these records having been written on

''I Paton's view that the author is probably thiniiing of some Jewish
History that gave from a Jewish point of view the history of the kings of
Media and Persia (p. 304), is not to be taken seriously.

'2 Cf. Jackson, Zoroaster, p. 134, and 'Darm^sieier, Zend-Avesta, p. xxxii.
Though this statement refers only to the Sacred Books, the same is true of
the Persian archives. Alexander may or may not have intended to destroy
the Persian library. He was too strongly imbued with the Greek conceit
to give any attention to the books of the barbarians. But he surely intended
to destroy the Persian royal residences as retribution for the destruction
of Greek cities and temples in the campaigns of Darius and Xerxes. And
in these conflagrations, the Persian archives could not escape destruction.
The only Persian records that survived were those engraved on stone.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 297

a perishable material could not have escaped destruction
when this king burned down Persepolis, Ecbatana, and
other Persian capitals.

However, it is exceedingly doubtful whether the name
of Mordecai ever occurred in the Persian annals, as there
is scarcely room for doubt that among the Persians he
had a pure Persian name. While the Jews of the Persian
period knew the Persian name of the Jewish grand vizier
who played such a signal part in their deliverance, and
thus could identify his name in the Persian annals, for
later generations such an identification was nigh impossible.
The Greeks who conducted negotiations with Mordecai
had not the least notion that he was not a native Persian.
It is even rather doubtful whether the very existence of
a Jewish people was known to them, though some learned
Greek traveller may have made their acquaintance about
that period." But the fact that we do not know Mordecai's

''^ According to Clearchus of Soli, the disciple of Aristotle, the latter had
met a Jew concerning whom he said : ' The man was by race a Jew out of
Coele-Syria. His people are descendants of the Indian philosophers. It is
reported that philosophers are called Calani among the Indians, and Jews
among the Syrians, The Jews take their name from their place of abode
which is called Judaea. The name of their city is very difficult ; they call
it Hierusaleme. This man, then, having been a guest in many homes, and
having come down gradually from the highlands to the sea-coast, was
Hellenic not only in speech but also in soul. And as we were staying
in Asia at the time, the man cast up at the same place and interviewed
us and other scholars. But inasmuch as he had come to be at home with
cultured persons he imparted more than he received' (Josephus contra
Apionem, I, 22, i79\ Megasthenes also describes the Jews as the philo-
sophers of Syria {f^w t^s 'EWdSos <pi\o<TO(poivT(s), and compares them with
the Brahmins in India (Clemens Alexandrinus, Stroniata I, 15, 72). Hart
in his article ' Jews ', Encydop. Brit., observes that there is no reason to
doubt the probability or even accuracy of the narrative of Clearchus. These
ideas concerning Judaism dating from a period when the Greeks had already
come in contact with the Jews, after the downfall of the Persian empire.

298 THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

Persian name, and we are thus unable to identify him with
a certain Persian grandee whose name may be known, does
not cast any doubt upon our author's statement that he
played so important a part in the Persian history. We
may point out the fact that tradition is vague and contra-
dictory concerning the real names of Smerdis and Pseudo-
Smerdis, though their historical characters are beyond any
shadow of doubt. The former is called by Darius, in his
Behistun-Inscription, i?rt:r(^«,'^* the latter Gaumata;'^^ both
in Babylonian Barzia^^ by Aeschylus, Mardnsp by Hero-
dotus, Smerdis ; "^ the former is called by Xenophon '^
and Ctesias^° Tauyoxarccs, by Justin ^^ Oropastes; the
latter by Ctesias Spheudadates. The same may hold true
of the names of Mordecai, Esther, and Haman.

The eulogy of Mordecai is fully in agreement with our
conception of his character. He was pre-eminently a man
of peace. This principle governed his whole life. Peace
with all the world he considered the acme of human
felicity. This thought he expressed in his Letter of Purim :
' Words of Peace and Truth '. Peace was his first con-
sideration when the latter was not contrary to the principle
of Truth. But as soon as these two principles came into

leave no i-oom for doubt, that as a rule, the Greeks of the first half of
the fourth century B.C. E. knew almost nothing about the Jews.

''^ Behistun-Inscription, Col. 10.

''s Ibid., Col. I, II.

"'^ See Talquist, Neubabylonisches Nanienbuch.

'■^ Aeschylus, Persae 774 itiix-mos Se MapSos ^pff alax^vrj irarpa. This
Greek poet, born 525 b.c. e., was actually a younger contemporary of
Pseudo-Smerdis.

"8 Herodotus, III, 61, &c.

'^^ Xenophon, Cyropaedia, VIII, 7.

**" Ctesias, Persica, 8-13. For the name Sphendadata of the usurper see
chapter VI, note 26.

81 Justini Historia, I, 9.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY 299

collision, he did not hesitate to sacrifice his own happiness
for the sake of truth, as he did in his conflict with Haman.
Though not having been in sympathy with the zeal of the
strict adherents of the Jewish religion, nevertheless he was
willing to expose his own life for their sake, and fully
identified himself with his brethren who sacrificed them-
selves for the truth of their religion. The establishment
of the Festival of Purim commemorating the deliverance of
the Jews from Raman's decree, though ostensibly identical
with the Persian New Year Festival, was principally due
to his desire of avoiding friction with the Gentiles, and to
maintain both Peace and Truth. He certainly was solicitous
for the welfare of his people, and aimed to safeguard their
existence, and to insure for them the blessing of peace.
This is, indeed, the ideal of Israel, as the Psalmist expressed
himself: 'The Lord will give strength unto His people;
the Lord will bless His people with peace' (Ps. 39. 11).
Peace was the theme on which Mordecai dwelt, and which
he recommended to his descendants as the highest good :
' He was seeking the good of his people and speaking
Peace to all his seed '.

GENERAL INDEX

Abdi-Nabu (= Abednego), i88.

Abednego, ibid.

Abihail (Esther's father), Io6, 277.

Ahiic {= pur), 163.

Aboe (temple at), 39.

Abraham, 104, 172, 188, 189.

Achaemenian, Achaemenides, 50,

74, 75, 76, 77, 98,122, 128,231,

235, 296.
Adad (deity), 92.
Adar (month of), 165, 168, 169,

179, 232, 244, 254, 259, 261,

274.
Adiabene, 157.
Aeschylus, 70, 298.
Africanus, Julius, 7.
Afrtidsha (pr. n.), 70.
Agag (king of Amalek), 21-4.
Agagite, 21, 24, 26.
Agesilaus (king of Sparta), 52,

236.
Aghrimat-teira (pr. n.), 70.
Ahriman (god of darkness), 37.
Ahuramazda (supreme Persian

god), 39, 70, 98-101, 118, 120,

124, 126, 138, 143, 238, 249.
Akilisene (temple of Anahita at),

127.
Al-Beruni, 166, 167, 283.
Alexander the Great, 75, 234, 296;

son of Amyntas of Macedonia,

62, 151.
Alexandria, 260, 261.
Alexandrian Age, 13, 107.
All Souls' Feast, 167.

Altorientalische Forschungen (H.
Winckler), 82, 165.

AltpersischeKeilinschriften
(Weissbach und Bang), 119.

Amalek, 112.

Amalekite, 21, 24, 25, 29.

Amarna (Letters of), 26.

Amasis (king of Egypt), 69.

Amestris (wife of Xerxes I), 30,
34, 62, 100, 200.
(daughter of Darius II), 232.
(daughterofArtaxerxesII),49.
(wife of Artaxerxes II =
Esther?), 50.

Amirchvand (pr. n.), 70.

Avi-ma-ati-ka-si-bar (Elamitic
deity), 28.

Ammonites, 24.

Amphictyonic Council, 121.

Amshaspands (= angels), 99.

A?nurrii (Clay), 90.

Amyntas (king of Macedonia), 62,
151.

Anabasis (Xenophon), 57.

Afiadatt-s (sanctuary of), 129.

Anahita (the highest among the
Amshaspands), her images
erected in all centres of the
Persian empire, 119-20, 134;
represented as manifestation of
Ahuramazda, 1 25-6; her w^or-
ship made compulsory as Persian
law, 125-6; its spread, 127-9;
refused by the strictly religious
Jews, 130-2 ; her festivals, 133,

302

GENERAL INDEX

165-9 ; erection of her image
in Durilu (centre of Anu and
Ishtar), 136-8 ; incompatibility
of her worship with the Jewish
creed, 159; her festival the
time of the execution of Haman's
decree, 167-9; it synchronized
with the day of the dehverance
of the Jews, 278-83.

Anaitis (= Anahita), 46, 129.

Ananikiam, H. M., 99.

Anat-MyUtta (= Anahita), 128.

Anavhn, 88.

Angels (identified with the
Planets), 161.

Anra-Mainyu (= Ahriman), 100,
loi.

Antalcidas (Peace of), 42, 53, 293.
Ante-dating, 56.

Antiochia, 260.

Antiochus Epiphanes, 13, 36,118,
131, 159, 228.

Antipater (father of Herod king
of Judea), 22.

Antiquities of the Jews (Flavins),
6,7,25, 157,252.

Ann (supreme Babylonian god),
125, 138.

Aphrodite (= Anahita), 126, 134.

Apion(Josephus Contra Apionem),

133-
Apocryphal Additions (to the

Book of Esther), 5, 6, 109.
Apollo (temple of), 39.
Apollodorus (pr. n.), 105.
Apollonius (pr. n.), 105.
Arad-Gula (pr. n.), 105.
Arakiel (angel), 162,
Aramaic, 82, 188.
Araynta (niece of Xerxes I), 200.
Arabians, 249.
Ardashir (= Artaxerxes,. founder

of the Neo- Persian empire), 52,

141.

Dirazdast ( = Artaxerxes I),

128).
(= Artaxerxes II), 129.
The Kayan (= Artaxerxes I',
128.
Ariaspes (son of Artaxerxes II), 49.
Aristotle, 297.
Armenia, 26, 99, 127, 167.
Arrian, 75,

Arsaces (founder of the Parthian
empire), 75, 79.

Mithridates (conqueror of

Babylon), 76.
(name of Artaxerxes II
before his accession), 78, 79.
Arsacides (Parthian dynasty), 15,

42, 50, 76, 163.
Arses(successorof Artaxerxes III),

75,77-
Arshu (= Arsaces, Babyl. name

of Artaxerxes II), yy, 78.
Arsicas (= Arsaces, name of

Artaxerxes II), yy, 78.
Artashatr (= Neo-Persian Arda-
shir), 52.
Artaxata (temple of Anahita at),

127.
Artaxerxes I Longimanus, 47, 51,
yy, 78, 80, 128, 129, 172;
II Mnemon (= Ahasuerus), the
description of his life by Plu-
tarch, 43-50 ; his character and
influence on Greek affairs, 50-4 ;
his victory over his brother
Cyrus, 54-8 ; his domestic
affairs, 58-73 ; identical with
Ahasuerus, 73-4; his fictitious
name in the Hebrew text, 74-
80; his introduction of an-
thropomorphic images into the
Zoroastrian religion, and the
establishment of the worship of
Anahita as a Persian law, 119-
30 ; the persecution of the Jews

GENERAL INDEX

303

due to his law, 130-8 ; the con-
spiracy against his Hfe, 149-
52 ; his conduct under the
influence of wine, 215-7, 227.
Ill Ochus, 29, "JT, 228, 236,
279, 281.

Artemis (= Anahita), 125.

Aryan, 28, 78.

Ashur (deity), 98.

Ashurbanipal (king of Assyria),
28.

Asia, 52, 180.

Asia Minor, 31, 41, 52, 53, 74, 180,
228.

Aspasia (concubine of Cyrus the
Younger), 46-8, 149.

Aspects of Religious Belief and
Practice (Jastrow), 160.

Assyria, 91, 135.

Assyrian Personal Names (Tal-
quist), 104,

Assyrians, 91, 98, 135.

Asia (element in Persian proper
names), 70.

Astarte, Astartes, 82, 92.

Asta-teira (= Washta-teira), 70.

Astrologers, 161.

Astrology (= idolatry), 160, 162.

Astronomy, 161.

Athenian, 39, 53.

Athens, 52.

Atossa (wife of Darius the Great),
32.

(daughter of Artaxerxes II),

47, 49-
(wife of Artaxerxes II,
identical with Hadassah?),
50.
( = Hutaosa = Hadassah ?),
106.
Avesta(-Zend), 98, 99, 128, 129,

163, 296.
Azariah (= Abed-nego), 188.
Azri-Jau (king of Ja'udi, 82.

Baal, Baalim, 82, 92.

Babylon, Babylonia, 16, 38, 56,
60, 76, 88, 90, 92, 97, 103, 105,
107, 134, 136-8.

Babylonian chronology, 56.

Babylonian Expedition of the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania, 105.

Babylonian Pantheon, 121, 125 ;
Babylonians, 135, 142.

Bactria, 134, 180.

Baeshat-teira (pr. n.), 70.

Baga (= Cxod), 23, 27.

Baga-datha (pr. n.), 27.

Bagaeaus (pr. n.), 23.

Bagoan (= lA^n), 23.

Bagoi (= H"iA3), 27.

Bagopates (pr. n.), 23.

Bagophanes (pr. n.), 23.

Bagosaces (pr. n.), 23.

Bagoas (prime minister of Arta-
xerxes III), 23, 29.

Balaii-shar-iisur (= Belteshaz-
zar), 188.

Baraitha, 164.

Barakiel (angel), 162.

Bardya (= Smerdis), 298.

Bar Hebraeus (Chronicle of), T^,
74-

Barzia (= Smerdis), 298.

Batten (InternationalCommentary
on Ezra-Nehemiah), 170, 172.

Behistun Inscription, 29, loi, 129,
168, 173, 298.

Bel = Marduk, 97.

Belit-ilani{= Anahita), 125.

Bel-shiitiic (= |l^v3), 104.

Belteshazzar (Chaldean name of
Daniel), 188.

Beltis (= Anahita), 134.

Benjamin (tribe of), 18, 19.

Benjamite, 16, 18, 21, 26.

Berossiis (priest of Bel), 99, 119,
128, 133.

Bertheau, K., 10.

304

GENERAL INDEX

Bertheau-Ryssel (Commentaries
on Esther and Ezra-Nehemiah),
19) 30j 32, 40, 66, 167, 180, 222,
267.

Bigthan (eunuch), 150, 207.

Bilshan (= Bel-shumi), 104.

Bleek, F., 259.

Boghaz-koi (excavations of), 28.

Brahman Yasht, 128, 129.

Brahmins, 297.

Bretons, 90.

Brown-Driver (Hebrew Lexicon),
231.

Briinnow, R., 163.

Business Documents of the Persian
period, 131.

CabbaHstic (literature), 92.
CabbaHsts, 107.

Cadusians (campaign of), 45, 72.
Calani (= philosophers among

the Indians), 297.
Caliphs, 122.
Cambyses (king of Persia), 40, TJ,

94, 122, 216, 231.
Canaan, 262, 273.
Canaanitic, 273.
Canon (fixing of), 15, 79.
Canticles (Book of), 115.
Cappadocia, 127.
Cappadocian (language), 1 29.
Carthage, 35.
Carthaginians, 35.
Cassel, Paulus, 11, 17, 24, 25, 27,

40, 69, 86, 106, 129, 149, 178,

185, 251, 266, 267.
Casting of the Lots (Purim), 160,

162-4.
Caunian, 235.
Chaldean, 105, 136, 188.
Childlessness, 187-9.
Chorasmians, 168.
Christian Era, 156.

Hierarchy, 56.

Christianity, 36, 100, 128, 161,
228.

Christians, 86, 89, 90, 104, 119,
123, 161, 242, 252.

Christmas, 166.

Circumcision, 249.

Cilicia (worship of Anahita at),
127.

Clay, A. T., 28.

Clearchus (commander of Cyrus'
Greek mercenaries), 61, 70.
(of Soli, disciple of Aristotle),
297.

Clemens Alexandrinus, 128.

Cleopatra (queen of Egypt), 5.

Cnidus (battle of), 53.

Code of Hammurabi, 189.

Coele-Syria, 297.

Colophon, 43.

Conon (Athenian), 53.

Constellations, 160.

Cornill, 10.

Craterus (one of Alexander's
generals), 234.

Critical Notes on Esther (P.
Haupt), 2 &c.

Ctesias (of Cnidus), 34, 43,44, 48,
57, 58, 61, 69, 70, 11, 141, 158,
232, 298.

Cunaxa (battle of), 46, 56, 150,
158, 190,235.

Cuneiform Inscriptions, 119, 126.

Curtius (History of Greece), 38.

Cybele (amalgamated with Ana-
hita), 127.

Cyrene (the Jewish rebellion), 1 72.

Cyropaedia (Xenophon), 179.

Cyrus the Great, 33, yj, 38, TJ^
97, 216, 232 ; the Younger
(rebellion of), 42, 44, 46, 48, 54,
55, 50, 57, 59, 60, 63, -Ji, 141,
149, 158, 189, 215, 216, 227,

GENERAL INDEX

305

Daevas (Iranian gods), 99, 1 25,

128.
Damascus (temple of Anahita at),

120.
Daniel (Book of), 30, 108, 116,

136, 137, 138.
Darius I, 29, 31, n, 34, 38, 52, 54,

72,77, loi, 158,231,296.

II Notus, 44, 51, 56, -jZ.

III Codomanus, 71, 75.

son of Artaxerxes II, 46, 47,
48,49,51, 231.
Darmesteter, J. (Zend-Avesta), 99,

128, 129, 141, 163, 296.
Date of Zoroaster (Jackson), 141.
David (king of Israel), 21.

Kimhi (Biblical commentator),
' 288.
Deborah (prophetess), 262.
Declaration of Independence of

the American Colonies, 229.
Defilement of the hands, 115.
Deinon of Colophon (Greek

author), 43, 44, 45, 46, ^^.
Delitzsch, Friedrich, 33.
Delphos, 39.

Demeter (= Anahita), 125.
Der (= Dicrilii), 137.
Deuteronomy, 112, 113.
Dieulafoy, M. (French archaeo-
logist), 72).
Dillmann, 26.
Diodorus Siculus, 52, 53, 57, 71,

155, 160.
Divination, 160, 162, 164, 169.
Doricha (real name of Rhodopis),

69.
Dositheus (Priest and Levite),

5,6.
Driver, 11, 31.
Dura (= Dicrilu), 136, 137.
Durilu (temple of Anahita at),

137-

H.

Ecbatana (a Persian capital), 126,
134, 297.

Ecclesiastes (Book of), 115.

Edict of Artaxerxes (II ?), loi.

Edom, 22.

Edomites, 14, 86.

Egypt, 3, &c.

Ehud (judge), 24.

ekal {hekal), 106.

Elam, 28.

Elamites, 28, 29.

Elders of Israel (in Ezekiel), 88,
96.

Elementary gods, 125.

Elephantine Papyri (Sachau), 95,
170.

Eliashib (High Priest), 170.

Elijah (the High Priest), 191.

Emblem of Ahuramazda, 98, 124.

Enchantment (definition of), 162.

Encyclopaedia Biblica, 20.
Britannica, 99, 120.

En-lil of Nippur, 121.

Enoch (Book of), 162.

Entstehung des Judenthums (Ed.
INIeyer), 82, 84.

Epagomena (Festival of), 166-8.

EranischeAlterthumskunde (Spie-
gel), 167.

Erech (City of), 138.

Erez (Temple of Anahita at), 127.

Esau, 22.

Esoteric religion of Zoroaster, loi.

Esther (Book of), its story being
discredited by modern exegetes,
1-2; its Greek version, 2-7;
its Rabbinic interpretation, 7-
10; its facts misinterpreted,
and its action placed in a wrong
period, 11-12; being interpo-
lated in the Maccabean period,
12-14, 175, 240-4; its com-
pilation, I12-17, 281; (Fast
of), 283-9 ; (the Queen), her
X

3o6

GENERAL INDEX

religious conceptions, 106-9, 147
-8 ; her messages to Mordecai,
192-200 ; inviting Haman to the
banquet, 201-4 ; her accusation
of Haman, 219-24; informing
the king of her relationship to
Mordecai, 232-4; beseeching
the' king to reverse Haman's
decree, 237-40; her request
concerning the Jews of Susa,
258-61 ; her confirmation of the
matter of Purim, 289-90.

Esther and Judith (Willrich), 2,
&c.

Esther bei den LXX (Jacob),
2, &c.

Esther (Das Buch, Cassel), 11,
&c.

Esther (Das Buch, Jampel), 9, &c.

Ethiopia, 31, 52.

Eunuchs, 79, 187-92, 202, 207.

Euphrates Valley, 90, 92, 121.

Europe, 123.

Exhortations to the Greeks
(Clemens), 129.

Exodus (Book of), 113.

Exoteric religion of Zoroaster, loi.

Ezekael (angel), 162.

Ezekiel, 20, 26, 82, 85, 86, 88, 91,
95,96,116.

Ezra, 19, 24, 40, 80, loi, 102, 109,
no, III, 112, 116, 170, 171,
172.

Farwardigan (= Purim?), 164,

264, 272.
Fast Days, 283-9.
Fast of Esther, see Esther.
Fathers of the World (Sirach),

116.
Festival of Anahita, see Anahita.
Festival of Magophonia, 141.
Festival of Purim, see Purim,
Festivals of the Season, 272.

Flavius, Josephus, 6, 7, 25, 70, 79,
103, 133, 157, 177,252.

Fragmenta Historicorum Grae-
corum (Miiller), 119.

Frudsha (pr. n.), 70.

Fundamente Israelitischer und
Judischer Geschichte (Mar-
quart), 119.

Fiirst, Julius, 165.

Gaga, Gdgi, 25, 26.

Galilee, 31.

Gallows (prepared for Mordecai),
204, 205.

Galfith-ha-Shekmah, 92.

Gathering of the virgins, 150.

Gaumata (name of , Pseudo-
Smerdis), 129, 298.

Geldner, K. F., 27, 28, 41, 99,
100, lol.

Genesis (stories of), 89.

Geography (Strabo), 127, 129.

Geonim, 107.

Gera (father of Shimei), 18.

Germanica (Tacitus), 216.

Germans, 216.

Geschichte des Alterthums (Ed.
Meyer), 12, &c. ; des Alt-
testamentlichen Schriftthums
(Kautzsch), 9; der Poetischen
National- Literaturder Hebraer
(E. Meier), 165 ; des Volkes
Israel (Hitzig), 164, 165; des
Volks Israel (Stade), 170.

Gideon (judge), 24.

Gog (in Ezekiel), 26, 27.

Golden image (of Anahita), 127,

136, 137-
Gottinger Gelehrte Anzeigen, 102,

167.
Gottinger Gelehrte Nachrichten,

170.
Graeco-Roman period, 109.

GENERAL INDEX

307

Graetz, Heinrich, 24, 88, 93, 94,
95, 97, loi^ 133, 134, 236.

Grecian States, 123.

Greece, 33, 34, 36, 43, 5^, 54, 121.

Greeks, 35, 37, 51, 54, 7-,, 7A, 76,
86, 102, 123, 143, 148, 241, 251.

Greek Version of Esther, 2-7, 22,
66,70,79, 80,109, 175, 185,242,
244, 262, 268, 269, 272, 275, 285.

Grote, G., 38.

Gyndes (river), 37.

Hades, 100.

Hadoram (= Joram of Hamath),
82.

Hagadah shel Pesah, 276.

Haggai (prophet), 116.

Haman, represented as descendant
of Agag, 21-9; author of the
reform of the Zoroastrian re-
ligion, 139-47; as persecutor
of the Jews refused homage by
Mordecai, 153-9; his casting of
the Lots, 159-69; his accusa-
tion of the Jews, 169-70; his
decree, 174-7 ; invited to
Esther's banquet, 200-5 ; pre-
pared gallows for Mordecai,
204-6 ; proposing honours for
himself and bestowing them
upon Mordecai, 209-15; his
downfall and execution, 215-
27 ; parallel between his fate
and that of Tissaphernes, 227-
9 ; his property confiscated and
his family apprehended, 230-2 ;
execution of his sons and their
bodies exposed, 258-61.

Hammer, J. von, 165.

Hammurabi (reign of), 121.

Hammurabi Dynasty, 121.

Hananiah (= Shadrach), 188.

Hanukkah (Festival of), 166.

Haoma (angel), 27, 28, 129.

Harbonah (Jewish eunuch), 192,

225, 226, 227, 270.
Harem, 20, 47, 71, 151.
Harper, William Raney, 2.
Harpates (murderer of the third

son of Artaxerxes II), 49.
Hart, J. H.A., 297.
Hastings Encyclopaedia, 26, 99.
Hathach (Jewish dmuch), 186,

192, 194, 195, 196.
Haupt, Paul, 2, 14, 18, 20, 21, 23,

25, 67, 163, 164, 177, 205, 207,

212, 220, 222, 224, 239, 240, 243,

256,-265, 267, 271.
Hebraische Uebersetzungen des

Mittelalters (Steinschneider),

160.
Hebrew and Babylonian Tradi-
tions (Jastrow), 90.
Hebrew language (criterion of

Judean nationality), 82, 83.
Hebrew Lexicon (Brown-Driver),

231.
Hecataeus of Abdera (Greek

author), 133, 135, 169, 244.
Hellenists, 107,
Hellespont (scourged by Xerxes),

37.

Hephaestion (general under
Alexander), 234.

Hera (== Anahita), 125.

Heraclides of Cyme (Greek
author), 43, 49.

Hermes (pr. n.), 105.

Hermocrates (sent into Greece by
Artaxerxes II), 52.

Herod (king of Judea), 22.

Heterodoxy (in Judaism), 107, in.

Herodotus, 9, 15, 26, 28, 31, 34,
37, 38, 39, 62, 69, 99, 100, 125,
148, 151, 154, 155, 158, 173,
174, 177, 178, 181, 187, 191,
194, 200, 203, 216, 217, 218,
226, 231, 298.

X 2

3o8

GENERAL INDEX

Het Herstel van Israel (Kosters),

I02.

Hezekiah (king of Judah), 24, 82.
Hillel (School of), 115.
Historisch-kritische Einleitung

(Kuenen), 102.
History of the Jewish Church

(Stanley^ 9, 106; of the Jews

(Graetz), 24, &c. ; of the people

of Israel (Renan), 88, &c.
Hittites, 26.

Hitzig, F., 66, 164, 165.
Holy Fire (of Ahuramazda), 125,

138.
Holy Spirit (Jewish), 115, 116;

(Zoroastrian), 100, 129.
Holy Wars (Persian), 141, 144.
Horn-data (= Hamdatha), 129.
Kommel, Fritz, 165.
H7tnima (= Umma), 28.
Hutaosa (= Hadassah), 106.
Hydarnes (father of Stateira), 58,

60, 232.
Hypocoristica, 104.
Hyrcania (banishment of the Jews

to), 236.
Hyrcanus (1), 14; (II), 7.

Ibn Ezra (Abraham), 17, 31, 41,
108, 285, 286,-287, 288, 291,
292.

Ilii-itr-ri (pr. n.), 106.

Independence Day (America),
264.

India, 31, 52.

Indians, 297.

Indra (Aryan deity), 28.

Intaphernes (conspirator against
Pseudo-Smerdis), 231.

Intermarriage, 109, no, 171.

International Critical Commen-
tary, 2, &c.

Interpolators, 13-14, 175, 240-2.

Iran. 128.

Iranian, 98, 120, 127, 128, 141,

14?, 143, 146.
Iranisches Namenbuch (Justi),

29, &c.
Isaiah (Second), 84, 85, 87, 97, 98,

loi, 125, 189, 253.
Ishtar (identified with Anahita),

125, 126, 138; (= Esther),

106.
Ishtar-udda-sha[—r\^'rrr'\'P\^^^^

106.
Isidorus (pr. n.), 105.
Islam, 122, 161, 228.
Israelitische und Jiidische Ge-

schichte (Wellhausen), 27, 102.
Izates (embraced Judaism), 157.

Jackson, A. V. Williams (Zo-
roaster), 27, 122, 141, 296.

Jacob, B., 2, 4, 5, 6, 25, 32.

Jahn, G., 2, 4, 6, 8, 285.

Jahrbiicher fiir Literatur (Ham-
mer), 165.

Jair (father of IMordecai), 16, 18,
105, 106.

Jampel, Siegmund, 9, il, 18, 34,
36, 37,38, 116,252.

Jastrow Morris, jun., 90.

Jait-bi'di (king of Hamath), 82.

Ja'iidi (in Northern Syria), 82.

Jawa (= Jahveh), 105.

Jeconiah (exiled king of Judah),
16, 18, 19, 103.

Jehoiachin = Jeconiah, 93.

Jehudim, see Jews.

Jensen, Peter, 163, 165.

Jephthah (judge), 262.

Jeremiah (prophet), %"], 88, 91,93,
97, 161, 252, 288.

Jeremias, Alfred, 26, 1 01, 141.

Jerusalem, 5, 16, 40, 102, 116,
169, 172, 250.

Jethro, 247.

Jewish-Christian Era, 107.

GENERAL INDEX

309

Lncyclopaedia, 20, 161.
idolaters, S5, 86.
nationality (reform of), 83-5.
patriots, 84.
Quarterly Review, New

Series, 90.
race, loS, 119, 156, 157, no,
169-72.
Jews, of Egypt not involved in
Haman's decree, 3-6 ; holding
the Book of Esther in high
honour, 9-10 ; in the Alex-
andrian age, 13-14, 241-2;
outside of the Persian empire,
34-5 ; persecuted on account of
their religion, 36, 118; their
attitude toward the Persian re-
ligion, 39-40, 101-3 ; under the
Arsacides, 76-9 ; definition of
the term 'Jews' in pre-exilic
times, S1-3; its religious sig-
nificance in post-exilic times,
83-93, as Egyptian immigrants,
93-5 ; their leaders, 95-8, 103-
6; their religious propaganda
in Babylonia, 96-7 ; under the
Achaemenides, 97-8 ; refusing
to worship Anahita, 130; the
attitude of the people at large
toward her worship, 131 ; en-
gaged in commerce, 13 1-2; in
Palestine, 133-6; being perse-
cuted, 143-7; their wealth,
177-S; their religious obser-
vances, 249-51 ; giving permis-
sion of defending themselves,
244-61 ; accepting the Festival
of Purim by common consent,
274-89.
Jezebel, 288.
Job, 116.
Johanan (High Priest), 170.

(Syrian author), 74.
Jonathan (High Priest), 170.

Joram (son of thekingof Hamath),

82.
Joseph, 234.

Joshua (High Priest), 19, 20.
Josiah (king of Judah), 88, 94.

Kanon des Alten Testaments
(Fiirst), 165.

Karaites, 107, 282.

Kassites (Dynasty of), 28.

Kautzsch, Emil, 9, 10.

ke^ ka (Persian hypocoristic ter-
mination), 78, 79, 188,

Keil, C. F., 9, 31, 32, 40, 193.

Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament, 160.

Khi-sha-ar-shic (= Xerxes), 78.

Khshayarshu ( = Xerxes), 78.

Kiepert, H. (Map), 26.

Kish (fellow-captive of Jeconiah),
16.
(father of King Saul), 17, 18.
(name of Levites), 19.

Kokab-el (angel), 161, 162.

Kosters, 102.

Krausz, J., 104.

Kuenen, Abraham, 102.

Lacedaemonians, 54, 55, 63, 141,

179, 215, 226.
Lagarde, Paul de, 2, 13, 129, 163,

166, 167, 283.
Leben nach dem Tode (Schwally),

165.
Letter of Purim, 266, 270, 277,

278, 280, 283, 295.
Leuctra (battle of), 232.
Levi (tribe of), 19.
Leviticus (Book of), 189.
Lewy (Handbuch), 22.
Literarisches Centralblatt, 165.
Local gods, 91.
Lucian, Lucianic Recension, 23,

35. 26,70, 79.

3IO

GENERAL INDEX

Lunar year, i68.
Luther, Martin, 8, 9.
Lydia, Lydian, 54, 177, 178.
Lysimachus (of Jerusalem), 5.

Maccabean period, 18, 86.

Maccabees, 3, 14, 241, 242, 254.

Macedonian (= Agagl), 269.

Magi, Magian, 27, 55, 100, 130,
141, 168, 169, 214.

Maimonides, 160.

Malachi, 116.

Marathon (battle of), 51.

Mardiik [Bel-), 18, 38, 56, 92, 104,
105, 121, 248.

Mardtika, Marditkti (pr, n.), 104.

Mardiik-bcl-shit7iii (= Mordecai
bilshan), 104.

Mardus (= Smerdis), 298.

Marquart, J., 26, 40, loi, 125, 126,
143, 148, 169, 190.

Marseilles (men of), 160.

Masistes (brother of Xerxes I),
231.

Materials to a Sumerian Lexicon
(Prince), 163.

Mazdeism (= Zoroastrian re-
ligion), 99.

Megabyzus (one of the conspira-
tors against Smerdis), 187.

Megasthenes (Greek author), 297.

Megiddo (battle at), 93, 94, 95.

Megillah (= the Scroll), 167.

Megillath Ta'mtith, 284.

Meier, Ernst, 165.

Meissner, Bruno, 165.

Menon (Greek commander in
Cyrus' army), 61.

Mercury (= Persian Ter), 70.

Mesabates (eunuch), 191.

Meshach (= Mishael), 188.

Meshech [= Mus/iki), 26.

Metiochus (son of Miltiades), 28,
148.

Meyer, Eduard, 12, 27, 32, 34, 38,
39,43, 48,50, 51,56, 75>76, 77,
84, 87, 88, 98, 99, 120, 121, 123,
124, 126," 168, 169, 187, 18S,
190, 236, 293.

Michaehs, J. D., 214.

Middle Ages, 86, 107, 131.

Midianites, 24.

Midrash, 7, 8, 22.

Miltiades, 28.

Minerva, 39.

Mirchvand (pr. n.), 70.

Mishael (= Meshach), 188.

Mishnah, 108.

Megillah, 167.
Parah, 164.

Mitanni, 28.

Mithra, 125.

Mithradata (pr. n.), 27.

Mithra Feast, 126.

Mithridates (the slayer of Cyrus),
62.

Mitra (= Mithra), 28.

Mohammedans, 90, 119, 161.

Moloch, 82.

Monotheism, 162, 163, 248, 249,
272.

Monotheist, Monotheistic, 124,
135, 147, 162.

Mordecai, his genealogy, 16-19 '■>
his information of Esther, 20-
I ; racial contrast between him
and Haman, 21-9 ; his religious
conceptions, 103-12 ; concealed
his connexion with the Jews,
147-9 ; his position at the court,
149-50; revealed the plot
against the life of the king,
149-52; refused to bow down
to Haman, 153-9; his conduct
on learning of the decree against
the Jews, 184-6 ; sources of in-
formation at his disposal, 1S6-
94 ; the messages exchanged

GENERAL INDEX

3"

between him and Esther, 194-
9; honoured by Haman, 207-
14; installed as Haman's suc-
cessor, 230-5 ; his decree, 237-
45 ; his public appearance as
grand vizier, 245-6 ; established
the Festival of Purim, 263-5 ;
his Letter of Purim, 265-72 ;
his success as grand vizier,
293-5 ; his Persian name, 297-
8 ; his eulogy, 298-9.

Moschians, 26.

Moses, 104, 109.

Moslems, 242.

Miiller (Frag. Hist. Graec), 119.

Mycale (battle of), 32, 49.

Mylitta (= Anahita), 134.

Mythology, 89.

Nabu (= Ter), 70,
Nabil-bel-shiinic (pr. n.), 104.
Nabu-na'id (king of Babylonia),

97-
Nabu-nasir (pr. n.), 104.
Nabii-shakin-ud-dii (pr. n.), 106.
Nand-iddin, 105.
Nana-Ishtar, 1 38.
Nasatya (Aryan deity), 28.
National consciousness, 82-3.
Nazarenes, 86.

Nebuchadnezzar (king of Baby-
lonia), 16, 88, 91, 188 ; (= Arta-

xerxes II). 136-8.
Nehemiah, 83, 109, in, 112, 116,

148, 169, 170, 171, 172, 190,

250.
Neo-Persian empire, Neo-Per-

sians, 52, 141, 168.
Neubabylonisches Namenbuch

(Tallquist), 104.
Nergnl (deity), 248.
New Year P'estival (Jewish), 160 ;

(Babyl. and Pers.), 59, 159,

164.

Nicanor Day, 3, 2S4.
Nin-ib (deity), 162.
Nin-ib-bel-siinti (pr. n.), 104.
Nin-ib-ntuballit {"^x. n.). 105.
Nisan (month), 56, 168.
Noah, 116.

Ndldeke, Theodor, 20, 102.
Nowack's Hand-Commentar zum

Alten Testament, 2.
Nuri-Ishtar {^x. n.), 106.

Oarses (= Arses), -]-], 78.

Ochus (Artaxerxes III), 47, 48,

52.
October-April (coronation festivi-
ties), 56-7.
Og (king of Bashan), 262.
Old Testament in the Light of the

Ancient East (Jeremias), lol.
Olympics, 122.
Omanos (= Vohuman), 129.
Oral Law, 114.
Origen (letter of), 7.
Origin of Purim, 140.
Oropastes (= Smerdis), 298.
Orthodoxy, 107, in.
Ostanes (brother of Artaxerxes II),

44, 61.
Otanes (father of Phaedima), 151,

187, 194; (father of Amestris

wife of Xerxes I), 34.
Ottli, 220, 222.
Oxatres (brother of Artaxerxes II),

44, 61.

Pahlavi (middle dialect of the
Persian language), 163.

P(urisk-iet?'a (pr. n.), 70.

Palestine, 3, 79, 169, 244, 250,
265, 284.

Pallas' Athene (= Anahita). 125.

Paris (Bretons at), 90,

Pariscas (chief eunuch of Cyrus),
191.

312

GENERAL INDEX

Parthia, Parthian empire, Par-

thians, 75, 76, 79, 141, 180.
Parysatis (mother of Artaxerxes II
and Cyrus), 44, 46, 47, 54, 55,
58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 70, 73, 158,
201, 232.
Pasargadae (consecration at), 54,
73, 227.

Pashshuru { = piirii), 163.
Passover (Festival of), 168.
Paton, L. B., 2, 4, 6-1 1, 14, 18,
21, 30-2, 40, 57, 62, 63, 71, 108,
152, 153, 156, 167, 177, 181,
185, 191, 194, 196, 199, 200,
206, 207, 210, 213, 215, 220,
223, 224, 235, 259, 291, 296.

Patriarchs, 89, 273.

Persae (of Aeschylus), 70, 29S.

Persephone (= Anahita), 125.

Persica (Ctesias), 43, &c.

Persian annals, 207, 296, 297 ;
calendar, 168 ; customs, 64,
65; proper names, 128, 142;
wars, 120.

Pharisees, 3.

Phaedima (wife of Cambyses,
Pseudo-Smerdis and Darius),
151, 194.

Pharaoh, 234.

Pharnabazus (Persian satrap), 53.

Philhellene (epithet of Arsaces
Mithridates), 76.

Philistines, 24.

Philosophers, 107, 297.

Phoenicia, 236.

Phoenicians, 34, 249.

Phrourai (Letter of), 5.

Phftr (= New Year), 164.

Planets, 90, 160, 162.

Plataea (battle of), 32, 51.

Plutarch (Life of Artaxerxes), 42,
49, 57-62, 65, 70, 72,, 123, 150,
151, 201, 209, 210, 215, 223,
227, 228, 231, 235.

Polytheism, 161, 163, 248, 272.

Polytheistic, 122, 124, 126, 143,
146, 256.

Pontus (temple of Anahita), 127.

Poseidon (chastisement of), 2>7-

Post-dating, 56.

Prayer of Esther, 109.
Ezra, 170.

Pre-Mosaic period, 90.

Prexaspes (Persian grandee), 216,
231.

Prince, J, D., 20, 163.

Prinz und Derwisch(\VeissIo\vitz),
165.

Promulgation of the Law, 1 70-2,
290.

Prophetic Universalism, 251.

Proselytes, 84, 86, 246-54.

Prostitution (cult of Anahita),
126.

Protestant theologians, 7.

Psalms, 246, 299.

Pseudo-Smerdis, 34, 141, 168,231,
232.

Ptolemy (king of Egypt), 5.
(son of Dositheus), 5.

Pilr{= abmi), 163.

Purim (Festival of), not observed
in Egypt, 3 ; its observance in
the pre-Maccabean period, 12;
simultaneous with the festival
of Anahita, 166-8; the ety-
mology of its name, 272 ; the
special significance of its ob-
servance, 274-7 : its establish-
ment against the consent of the
Sopherim, 278-83 ; confirmed
by a royal decree, 289-91,

Purim (Haupt), 14, &c.

Purim (Lagarde), 166, &c.
Pythus (Lydian), 177, 178.

Rabbi Asher, 283.

Jacob Tam, 28^.

GENERAL INDEX

313

Jose (Tanaite), 115.
Joshua son of Hananiah,

113, 115.
Meir, 115.
Simeon, 115.
Ranke, H., 78.
Rashi, 22, 32, 86.
Rawlinson, G., 39, 45, 62, 69, 100,

151, 168, 178, 187, 188.
Rawlinson, Sir H., 188.
Reform of the Zoroastrian re-
ligion, 125-8, 130, 146, 165.
Religion and State, 120-1.
Religious Aspects and Beliefs in
Babylonia and Assyria (Jas-
trow), 120.

Community (Jewish), 84, 97.
Creeds (influence of), 88, 89.
Persecutions, in, 118, 119,

131, 132, 133, 139.
Propaganda, 87, 96.
Renan, E., 69, 88, 90, 92, 95, 96,

I OS, 129.
Reuben (tribe of), 18.
Rhodopis (epithet of Doricha), 69.
Richardson, 69.
Riehm, Ed, K. A., 9.
Roman Epoch, 105.

Governors, 178,
Laws, 63.
Romans (under the), 172.
Rome, 22, 260.
Rosh Hashanah (Tractate of),

284.
Russian Jews, 14.

Pogroms, 252.

Sabbath, 85, 249, 250.
Sachau, 95.

Sacred Books (Zoroastrian), 141,
296.
Vessels, 164.
Sadducees, 107.
Salamis battle of), 32, 5 i.

Samaria (inhabitants of), 82.
Samaritan, no, 135.
Samson (= Apollonius), 105.
Samuel (Principal of Nahardea

Academy), 115.
(Prophet), 24, 114.
Sanballat (Samaritan), no.
Sandoces (Persian governor), 158.
Sanhedrin, m.
Sappho (Greek poetess), 69.
Sardis (capital of Lydia), ^2, 120.
Sariel (angel), 162.
Sassanides, 50, 98, 163, 228.
Satibarzanes (eunuch), 191.
Saul (king of Israel), 16, 17, 18,

21, 24,91.
Scepticism, 13, 247.
Schrader, Eberhard, 26.
Schwally, 165, 167.
Scythians, 35, 36, 37.
Seleucia, 251.
Seleucides, 13.
Semites, 84, 188, 249.
Shabti-el (angel), 161.
Shadrach (= Hananiah), 1 88.
Sha-la-bclitityshun (pr. n.), 104.
Shamai (School of), \l^.
Shamash (Sun-god), 106, 125,

161, 248.
Shamshi-el (angel), 161, 162.
Shimei (grandfather of Mordecai),

16, 18.
Siegfried, Carl, 2, 8, 17, 18, 20,

21, 40, 57, 66, 108, 150, 156,

194, 198, 200, 213, 222, 224,

246, 285.
Sihon, 262.

Simeon (tribe of), 105.
Sirach, 6, n6.
Smerdis, 298.
Sogdiana, 180.
Sogdians, 166.
Sogdianus (successor of Xerxes II),

54.

3H

GENERAL INDEX

Solar Year, l6S.
Solomon (king of Israel), 125.
Soma (Vedic = Haonia), 28.
Sopherim, 112, 113, 114, 263, 265,

280, 281.

(Tractate of), 283, 284,
Spanish Jewish preachers), 89, 90.
Sparta, 52, 53.
Spen-dat, Spetida-daf (father of

Vohuman), 129.
Sphenda-dates (= Pseudo-Smer-

dis), 129, 298.
Spiegel, 167.
Spring Festival, 159.
Sta (element in Persian names),

70.
Stade, B., 2, 170.
Stanley, A. P., 9, 106, ii6.
Stateira (wife of Artaxerxes II),

58-62, 68, 69, 158, 203, 232.
Steinschneider, M., 160.
Strabo, 127, 129.
Strassmeier, "jy.
Stromata (Clemens), 1 28.
Sumero-Babylonian, 106, 164.
Syria, 3, 79, 94.
Syrians, 14, 34, 241, 251, 254.

Ta'anith (Tractate of), 285.
Tallquist, K., 104, 298.
Talmud Babli Megillah, 7, 8, 67,
85, 90, 103, 104, III, 112, 113,
114, 115, 116, 138, 154, 167.
Menahoth, 7, 104.
Sanhedrin, 162.
Shabbath, 145, 162, 171.
Yoma, 20.
Tanyoxarces (= Smerdis), 298.
Targumim, 7, 8, (S:c.
Targum, Second, 19.
Tauranitis (worship of Anahita),

127.
Temple of Job, 95.

of Jerusalem, 169.

Ter (element in Persian names),

70.
Teribazus, Tiribazus (Persian

grandee), 46, 47, 49, 209, 210.
Teridates, Tiridates (brother of

Parthian Arsaces),7o, 75, 76, 81.
Teriteuchmes(brotherof Stateira),

58, 70, 158, 232,
TeiamiiiDi (Elamitic pr. n.), 28.
Thanksgiving Day (American),
■ 264.

Theocratic constitution, 121.
Thrace, 41, 51, 74.
Tibarenians (== people of Tabal),

26.
Tishri (month of), 172.
Tissaphernes (Persian satrap),

54, 53, 1^, 158, 201, 226.
Titus (Flavius), 284.
Tobit (Book of), 30.
Togarmah (= Til-garinm), 26.
Tubal (= Tabal), 26,
Turanians, 127.
Turkish empire, Turks, 1 23.
Twelve Tables (Roman Law), 63.

Ud-da (element in Babyl. pr. n.),

106.
Ud-du (= 7(d-da), 106.
Udiastres (murderer of Teri-

teuchmes), 158.
Um-vian (Elamitic deity), 28.
Ummanaldasi (Elam. pr. n.), 28.
Ummanigash (Elam. pr. n.), 28.
Urartu (= Armenia), 26.
urrtc (synonym oi ud-da), 106.
Urjid-Malik (pr. n.), 106.

Valmk (= Ochus), 70.
Vardan (= Rodanes), 70.
Varima (Aryan deity), 28.
Vashtak (Pers. pr. n.), 70.
Vashta-teira { = A sta-teira = Sta-
teira), 70.

GENERAL INDEX

315

Vashti (wife of Ahasuerus), 58, 60,

62-72, 199.
Vaumisa (Pers. pr. n.), 70,
Vedic, 28.

Vendiddd Fargard, 164.
Vernal equinox, 159.
Viakhna (= Adar), 168.
Vidama (= Hydarnes), 70.
Vindafarna (= Intaphernes), 70.
Vohuman (son oi Spen-dat), 128,

129.

Wasfi {= Vashti\ 70.

VVellhausen, J., 27, 102, 170.

Westland, 90.

VVildeboer, 9, 17, 18, 20, 21, 31,
40, 57, 66, 150, 165, 194, 200,
212, 213, 217, 220, 233, 234,
256, 285.

Willrich, H., 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 32,

133-
Winckler, H., 25, 26, 28, 32,

165.
Winged Ring, 99, 124.

Xenophon, 57, 179, 298.

Xerxes I, 12, 15, 16, 30, 31, 32, 35,

38, 41, 42, 51, 73-5, 100, 177,
231, 291, 292, 296.
II, 54, 78.

Yashtishat (temple of Anahita),
127.

Zadok (High Priest), 19.
Zarathustra — Zoroaster.
Zechariah (prophet), 116, 282.
Zeitschrift fiir Alttestamentliche

Wissenschaft, 2, &c.
fiir Assyriologie, "Jl.
der Deutschen Morgenlandi-
schen Gesellschaft, 165.
Zend-Avesta, 99, &c.
Zimmern, H., 160, 163, 165.
Zodiak (signs of), 90, 160.
Zoroaster, 98, 1 20, 125, 128, 1 43,

168.
Zoroaster (Jackson), 27, 122, 128,

141.
Zoroastrian, Zoroastrianism, 26,

38, 39>55> 98-100, 102, 103, 120,

122, 124-30, 137, 140-4, 235,

238, 250.
Zunz, L., 165.

II

^U, 25.

;;is*, UAN, ^\}x^r\, 14, 23, 25.
Oman niAx, 295.
D^JS-itw'ns (= Satraps), 31.
nmi'io mAo inoN |\s, 107.

IV B'^N, 220.
jn:^N (= Bagadatha), 27.
"iSDn Dy n?:s, 4, 267. 268,
271.

DHM riN NDOO irx -IDDN, 115.

I mcNJ ^i'lpn nna "inOwS. ii6.
nonn-iriDX (^no-in-iripN), loC.
nnpij moN: -inos, ii6.

74-
DM "N1 p-lN, 293.

m^i!:i ;'-iwX, 107.
ND'j-j'nmx, 5.
Th>.r\ TJ'N, 17, 18.
Tl'u'l NUn N^ TJ'wS', 68.

3i6

GENERAL INDEX

nicy^ 'hnn -ic'n ns, 265.
nasn T3n* nui nx, 198.

MA3, 24, 27.

nn-'jon, 167.

|on jT-n, 232.

mn p, 232.

'n b]) D"\b:r] -i3:n ^n, 253.

])\yb bv2 {=]^b2), 104.

□nyn irpa, 256.

^ANA, 25.

|D''J3 I3ynntr cd^ 'a, 286.

AU, 25.

^nu, 163.

niTW, 286.

I'yn n^n da, 226.

Dnvyj nnN*n nm, 285.
Dnvyj mnvn nan, 285.
nnpyn riDvn nai, 4, 282-9.
nnan nnann ^y niovn nm,

287.
oniD nan, 290.
r\i2ii) D1^:^' nnn, 282.
nnvya nnxi di!?^^ nan, 286.
nnin> nn, 108.
i5Nn:^'^1 ^:^'D nn, 108.

lanx m^tri noxn, 282.
>X2r], 14, 23.

na^DH nx mi^b dah, 226.
mnsn nyn o^ati'vn, 276.
onno nan noyn, 156.

ninc'^ 1a•L^''' jnni i^on, 182.
D'^onsn, 275.
■•JN ^jiriDi' nivn, 288.
nbvn, 220.

aTJsa n?oy i6 li^w, 257.

lana ddni, 239.

ibon ^jsi? ns'aai, 4^ 266-73.

I^DH ^jsi? nriDs* Naai, 268.

^^D^ '•32^ ■'Naai, 271.

l^ron ''jd!? '•annto xaai, 271.

nn'' riN in^tr s*^ niaai, 243.

n^:u^ nihna ppnai, 4, 150.

2)Db mar nrann dai, 227.

□■•t^nanni, 286.

pn nn s^an^ iSnaM, 217.

T rh^b vrya ra^i, 6, 175.

'D'2 n''i, 30.

D3i^»na Dn\s':vL:'a iB^n, 244.

DO 'n l^DH DC''"1, 4, 40, 53.

292-3.

nnaN nnas' nc-'wsai, 198.
loy pcb nanoi, 4, 66-7.
Dni3 ':D^:r Dva nijynn!? iahji,

284.
DH'-a^iNO niJi, 262.
nsDa anaji, 291.
isn pn ^3Di, 224, 226.
vja am, 4, 231.
Dnnno \n^^ '^^^ o'lam, 247-

54-

nab D^b^ri, 243.
n-iDi nhnA npv], 185.

GENERAL INDEX

317

nDi Dia bTi, 57.

VDDn, 214.

Dnin''n bv 3::'n, 266, 267,
272.

D'tt'JI 51^2, 240, 243.

nin\ Dmn% D''nin\n, 81, 83, 85,
86, 102, 118, 131, 132, 156,
i57> 159, 212, 213.

pni m ^ynv, 226.

n^jynn nv, 285.

niD Dv, 281.

Oman ••jos 277.

nnc:^'! nn'^n '^', 281.

nns* Dy 1:3C^ 173.

1TI nn^?2n n?:^pnrj'3, 32.

nnn^ ':nn3, 112.

-12D3 pnar nsr mna, 112, 114.

nniiTn {nv) ns* nnx^, 175-
m2K^, 266, 267, 269.
n>jyn n^u?^ n^on n^, 284.
noy ns' -inos* mun n^, 107.

I'DN"' DN^O QN^, 2 2.

v^'mn N*^, 162.

rh TAnb, 196.

nuyS Tui? nott'n^ 219, 220.

nnx^i >.)'i7]b "locn^, 175, 219.

d;iv-id Dn\s*3Vi:'a nvc'y^, 244.

Dvn ma nvj'yb, 260.

cn^rna nvj'y^, 244.

nnyn 'up2D, 256.

njno (= Judge's circuit), 31.

C'-IID, 8.

n^ Nin no, 232.

c"i3 nyi nino, 53.

Q^NB^JD, 257.

N^3-j N-iD (=-im nv^), 17, 104.
D>c'3n n-'a nvn '•jd^ ifpnnj^ •'^mn,

20.
nnnTiD, 251.

pr:, 220, 221.

^NJnj ( = Bagadatha), 27.

m IDJ, 268.

nsD, 290, 291.
nijn2Tn nao, 207, 291.

nnny. 257.

□nin^i IT" n^y' TC'N fjy, 239.

m^ioi Dy, 107.

iJc U^c, 225.

nns, 236, 247.
mnD, 31.

u'"N-i"n ::'n^D, 283.
••aT-io nSiA nc-ns, 295.
qoan nu-iD, 295.
Dl"S, 8.

"IV, 220.

74.

nnn^ ^^lyap, 114.
-133 ibp"J' na i':*p, 14;

3ii

GENERAL INDEX

nanp, 232. fjny ncyn bn) yy, 4.

90. ^

n-iNt:', 232. -iriDN n"':)yn, 280, 285.

Ill

Ayayatos, 2 3 .
'A\77^£ias (Kara T^s), 286.
AaTrafj.trpq'i, "JO.

'Ao-TctKTos (= Vashtak), 70.

'AcrracTTrTys, 70.
"Ao-TT^s, "JO.
"AcTTi (= Vashti), 70.
'AcTTi/Sao-as, 7°-
"Ao-Ttv (= Vashti), 70.
^Aa-vripos (= Ahasuerus), 79.
'A^avio-at TO yeVos twv 'lorioatwv,
175-

Bayaios, 23.

Bayovai (= "Un), 24.

Bouya^aj/ (= HayaOav), 23.

Bovyaios, 23, 26.

Bov'X^v ai'Twv {Kara rrjv), 2S6.

Tpdixfiara jxvy]p.6(Tvva, 29 1.
Fcoyaios, 23, 25, 26.

'Eypae^v^ eis /JLvrj/xoavvov, 29 I.

'ETTpa^v^jLicv (=ijmn:?), 220.

EuepyeTJjs ySao-iXe'cus, 155-

'I8€pv>?s (= Vidarna), 70.
'IvTa<^epv»/s (= Vindafarna), 70.

McipSos, 298.

Mvr;/u.do-wa Taiv ijfxepwv, 20 7.

MT^rpo-oAci?, 275.

Oivov TTLveiv TrXeLova kol ^cpcij/,

55-
'OpSdvrjs ( = 'Po8aj'77s = Vardan),

70.
Ouao-TT/ (= Vashti), 70.
OwcTTtv (= Vashti), 70.

Ouao-To/JaAo?, 70.
Oi'Sev StT/pTTacrai/, 263.

XIpocTKWTycrt?, I53>
'PoSavry?, see 'OpSdvr]<;.

^ira fXLTprj'; (^'AcTTrap-tVpT^s), 70.
%Tra(TLVY)<i ( = 'Yo-7ra(rtV7;s), 70-
2Ta/3a/c7;9, 70-

Yyi6t'as {kutu rr}?), 286.
'Yo-7racriVA?s, 70.

Xpi](r6ai Tois dvTiSt/cots . . . <Ls

f3ovXovTai, 243, 263.
X-prjcrOai tois vo/jloIs avToiv, 243,

244.

"fipavos (= Haman?), 129.
"i2p,io-os (= Vaumisa), 70.
12op.avta ( = Vohumanah), 129.
'Os ela-rjXOiv 7rpo5 tov /SaaiXia,

269.
J2;i^os (= Vahuk), 70.

^^

BS

llllllllllliilillilihliiiiiiiiiiin'

3 9097 00303359 5

Hoschander, Jacob,

The Book of Esther in the light

1923.

fHi