Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: Thoughts on particular features of the book of Esther.

SPOILER: Not for the non-committed. What follows may take some time.

ESTIMATED LENGTH: 100+ tweets (!?).

WHY?: (To be completed).

Elsewhere, I’ve sought to explain why the book of Ruth describes Ruth and Boaz’s encounter in such suggestive/provocative terms,

and why it devotes so much space to an apparently insignificant description of ch. 4’s legal affairs.

The answer (I submit) lies in the author’s desire to portray Ruth and Boaz’s encounter as a resolution of past wrongs.

Those interested in the details can take a look here:

academia.edu/39775654/

The main idea, however, is simple enough, and can be summarised as follows:

Ruth and Boaz’s encounter is not merely a rendezvous of two isolated individuals;

it is a convergence of two *lineages*, both of which have long and at times unsavoury histories.

Ruth is a descendant of Lot, whose (Moabite) descendants stem from an incestuous relationship,

while Boaz is a descendant of Tamar, whose descendants have their origin in prostitution.

As such, when Ruth and Boaz, the text leads us to expect another unsavoury encounter (via its suggestive language),

but--and here is the important point--Ruth and Boaz manage...

...to make a break from the past,

and to draw a line under their unfortunate histories;

and these events find a remarkable parable in Esther’s story, as we’ll see.

But, first, let’s consider some independent reasons to think of Ruth and Esther as a couplet of books...

...which are able to shed light on one another.

Both books are named after an displaced woman, around whose exploits they revolve.

Both books are read at Jewish feasts--Ruth at Pentecost, Esther at Purim.

Both Ruth and Esther find themselves isolated: Ruth is a widowed Gentile among Jews, while Esther is an orphaned Jew among Gentiles.

Though isolated, both Ruth and Esther are/become important figures: Ruth becomes the ancestor of a Jewish king (David),

while Esther is a descendant of a Jewish king (Saul, cf. later).

Both stories involve a roadblock which takes the form of a law--in Ruth’s case, the claim of a ‘nearer redeemer’, in Esther’s, an irrevocable edict.

And both books make little (or no) explicit mention

...of divine activity.

As can be seen, then, the books of Ruth and Esther resonate with one another in a number of important ways.

Before we continue, however, the last of these resonances/parallels may require a word of explanation.

The book of Ruth’s references to God are confined almost entirely to articles of *speech*,

while the book of Esther does not mention God at all.

Instead, both books portray their events as the (apparent) result of chance and coincidence.

Ruth ‘happens’ (from קרה) to end up in a field owned by a wealthy member of her father-in-law’s clan (וַיִּקֶר מִקְרֶהָ חלקת השדה לבעז cp. the more modern יד המקרה = ‘coincidence’),

while Esther’s ability to thwart Haman’s plans essentially depends on the throw of a dice. (Haman determines when he should destroy the Jews by lottery, and Esther is able to stop him only because she has won a different kind of lottery, viz. Persia’s beauty contest.)

Needless to say, these coincidences are not what they appear to be.

Consider how some of them hang together:

When Haman decides to make his move against the Jews, Esther the Jew just happens to have recently acquired a position of influence in Persia’s palace.

When two of Ahasuerus’s servants devise a plot to overthrow him, who should overhear it but Mordecai, Esther’s guardian?

And when Haman casts lots to determine when he should destroy the Jews, the ‘lucky day’ falls in the last month of the year,

which causes Esther’s appearance before the king to coincide with the Passover (cp. 3.12, 4.16).

Such coincidences are clearly not the result of chance, but the handiwork of a God who orders heaven and earth, and even ‘the heart of the king’ (Prov. 21.1), in line with his will;

and that is the case, Ruth and Esther tell us, even when--or *especially* when--we cannot directly God’s agency (as is frequently the case).

‘The lot is cast into the lap, but its every determination (משפט) is from the LORD’ (Prov. 16.33).

All well and good (some might say).

But where do issues of ancestry come into these considerations?

The answer becomes clear once we consider what we know about Mordecai’s background.

Mordecai is introduced to us as ‘the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite’.

At least two of these names should already be familiar to us.

Earlier in the Biblical narrative, we read about a Benjaminite named Shimei, who is a son of Saul (2 Sam. 16.5),

and Saul, we know, is a son of a Benjaminite named Kish (1 Sam. 9.1 cp. 1 Chr. 8.29-33).

Mordecai therefore seems likely to have been a descendant of Saul, in which case Esther (his cousin) would also have been one.

Possibly, then, Jair was the member of Mordecai’s ancestry who was carried away to Babylon in 597 BC (along with Jehoiachin)...

...where he set down new roots and became a kind of ‘family head’ (cp. Ezra 2),

while Shimei and Kish are included in order to hint at Mordecai’s Saul-ite ancestry without any explicit mention of Saul (and the baggage associated with it).

The text of 2.5 may even reflect the way in which Mordecai preferred to introduce himself.

That a Saul-ite past is indeed hinted at here finds confirmation in two further considerations.

First, 2.5’s resonance with the syntax of 1 Sam. 9.1, where Saul is introduced:

1 Sam. 9.1: ויהי איש... ושמו קיש בן אביאל... בן אפיח בן איש ימיני

Est. 2.5: איש יהודי היה... ושמו מרדכי בן יאיר ...בן קיש איש ימיני

Second, Mordecai and Esther’s names.

A number of names in Saul’s lineage can be related to trees, possible examples of which include:

* Kish (קִישׁ) = ‘forest’ per Bab. ⟨qīšu⟩ = ‘forest, wood’, JAram./Syr. ⟨qēs⟩/⟨qaysā⟩ = ‘wood, tree’ (allegedly from PSem. *⟨qayś⟩),

* Mikloth (מִקְלוֹת) = ‘staffs, branches’ per Egyp. ⟨mqr⟩ = ‘staff’ (?), JAram. ⟨mqlh⟩ = ‘stick, staff’, BH מַקְלוֹת (plur. of מַקֵּל) = ‘branches, rods’,

* Armoni (אַרְמֹנִי) = ‘apricot tree’ per Syr. ⟨ʾrmwn⟩ = ‘pomegranate tree’ (cp. BH רִמּוֹן), OBab. ⟨armannu⟩ = ‘apricot tree’, and

* Pithon (פִּיתוֹן) = ‘pine tree’ per Syr. ⟨pytwn⟩, Gez. ⟨piton⟩ from Gr. πίτυς = ‘pine tree’,

in the context of which the name ‘Hadassa’ (הֲדַסָּה) = ‘myrtle tree’ is very much at home.

The same may also be true of the name ‘Mordecai’.

In Scripture, certain names appear to be have been chosen in order to straddle two languages.

For instance, ‘Uriah’ (אוריה) is a good Hebrew name (אוריה = ‘YHWH is my light’),

but the Hittite lexeme ⟨uriyas⟩ is a military title (‘captain of the guard’),

which seems unlikely to be a coincidence since Uriah was: a] of Hittite origin, and b] a member of David’s army.

Perhaps, then, just as the consonants -אורי could do double duty as both a Hebrew and a Hittite name,

so the consonants מרדכי functioned as both a local Mesopotamian name (derived from the deity name ‘Marduk’)

and a Jewish name derived from the JAram. lexeme מרדכי = ‘staff’ (which translates משענה in TN Exod. 21.9).

If so, Mordecai’s name (מרדכי) would have resonated with the name of his ancestor Mikloth (מקלות = ‘staffs’).

And the same hypothesis may also be able to explain why the heroine of our story has both a Jewish and a ‘local’ name (2.7), while Mordecai does not.

Note: The name ‘Esther’ (אסתר) is most likely Persian, and refers to a ‘star’ (from Pers. ⟨istāra⟩/⟨astar⟩).

At any rate, Esther and Mordecai appear to be descendants of Saul,

which is an important point for us to note,

since Esther and Mordecai’s arch-enemy (Haman) is also a descendant of a well-known Biblical figure, namely Agag the Amalekite--the age-old enemy of the Jewish people

whom Saul failed to make a full end of (1 Sam. 15).

Hence, just as the encounter between Ruth and Boaz is not simply an encounter between two isolated individuals,

so the encounter between Esther/Mordecai and Haman is more than meets the eye.

It is a resurgence of an old rivalry, and an echo of deep-seated historical events.

It is a replay and/or reinvention of the battle between Saul and Agag, but on a bigger stage and with a Mesopotamian backdrop.

As such, the events of our text represent an opportunity...

for Esther and Mordecai to make amends for the disobedience of their ancestor, Saul.

And, once we notice that fact, a number of otherwise unusual features of our text start to fall into place.

Why, for instance, does Mordecai’s decree allow the Jews to plunder the spoils...

...of whoever rises up against them in response to Haman’s decree (which our author takes the trouble to note) when the Jews repeatedly decline to take any plunder from their enemies?

The answer is because what takes place is a reversal/rectification of Saul’s failures,

which is after all only to be expected in a book about reversals (cp. later).

Saul is not permitted to take Agag’s spoils, yet he disobediently does so, and thrice proclaims his innocence in the matter (15.13, 15, 20);

hence, in ch. 9, when the Jews *are* permitted to take Agag’s spoils, they thrice decline to do so (9.10, 15, 16).

A nod in the same direction can be found in 4.14, where Mordecai warns Esther,

‘If you remain silent at the present time, you and your father’s house (את ובית אביך) will be lost!’.

Esther is an orphan with no ‘father’ or ‘house’ to speak of (hence her adoption by Mordecai).

What, then, will be ‘lost’ if Esther fails to act?

The answer, I suspect, is as follows: Esther’s opportunity to make up for her ancestor’s misdeeds,

which may explain the resonance between Mordecai’s ref. to את ובית אביך and Samuel’s to the prominence of Saul’s household in 1 Sam. 9 (לך ולכל בית אביך).

Unless Esther grasps her opportunity with both hands, the line of Saul will go down in OT history as an unmitigated failure.

The rivalry between Esther and Haman’s ancestors is therefore ‘back and centre’ of our text.

Saul should not have spared Agag,

and Esther must not remain quiet and make the same mistake again.

The ancestral rivalry between Esther and Haman is played out in all sorts of other ways in our text.

Consider some of the parallels between Esther and Saul’s early years.

Both are selected because of their attractive physical appearance (1 Sam. 9.2), as is acknowledged by ‘all’ who see them (2.15 cp. 1 Sam. 10.24).

Both are chosen out by lot: Saul is literally the winner of a lottery (1 Sam. 10.21), while Esther’s ‘lottery’ is a beauty contest.

Both are anointed with oil--Saul by Samuel, and Esther courtesy of Persia’s harem.

Both are appointed by a ‘seer’: Samuel is (oddly) introduced as a רֹאֶה = ‘seer’, while Memucan is a רֹאֵי פְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ = ‘seer of the king’s face’.

And at first both act quite diffidently:

Saul does not ‘tell’ (הדיד) his uncle about his status as Israel’s king-to-be (1 Sam. 10.16) and keeps ‘silent’ (החריש) when his status is questioned (10.27),

while Esther does not ‘tell’ (הדיד) people about her status as a Jew (2.10, 20)

and must therefore break her vow of ‘silence’ (החריש) when Haman makes his move.

As such, 4.14 marks a critical juncture in our narrative.

Happily, however, it also marks the point at which Esther and Saul’s paths start to diverge,

and, in the process,

it explains why chs. 5-7’s events are so convoluted.

After all, consider Esther’s actions in ch. 5:

When the king gives Esther a blank cheque (up to the value of half his kingdom), why doesn’t Esther simply ask for the head of Haman on a platter (or something similar)?

Why all the feasts and wine and further requests?

A practical answer can be provided (which we may come to later), but a literary/textual reason can also be supplied from the life of Saul.

In the aftermath of 1 Sam. 20’s events, Saul begins to rapidly deteriorate.

David fails to attend two feasts on consecutive days, and Saul--utterly enraged--sentences him to death (1 Sam. 20.24-31), from which point on Saul is never the same, and lives a life consumed by envy and anger.

Esther’s story is in some respects similar, but in other respects very different,

which brings about a reversal/inversion of Saul’s direction of travel.

Esther plays her cards carefully, and turns the *king’s* rage against her enemy (Haman),

whom the king sentences to death on the second of two feast days (ch. 7).

Meanwhile, Haman’s life begins to deteriorate--and in fact has *already* begun to deteriorate--in decidedly Saul-esque fashion.

Haman has been consumed by his jealousy of Mordecai’s status,

which has led him to a desperate and unfortunate course of action (ch. 6).

And now, here in ch. 7, Haman suffers the same fate as Saul.

A man who has previously exalted him pronounces his downfall (in Saul’s case, Samuel; in Haman’s, Ahasuerus),

at which point Haman finds himself at the feet of a Jewish woman (in Saul’s case, the witch of En-Dor; in Haman’s, Esther), overcome with grief and fear.

Soon afterwards, Haman’s life comes to a violent end, and his ten sons are later impaled on the same stake as him.

These last events are particularly resonant with those of Saul’s demise.

In 1 and 2 Samuel:

Saul falls on his own sword in battle;

Saul and three of his sons are hung/impaled (תקע) on a wall in Bet-Shean the next day;

news of their deaths is broadcast throughout the land;

and then, finally,

seven more of Saul’s sons are impaled (יקע) at the start of a subsequent barley harvest (c. March).

In a similar way:

Haman is hung/impaled on his own gallows/stake (cp. 9.13);

Haman’s ten sons are killed in battle;

the next day, Haman’s ten sons are impaled on the same stake as Haman, which happens midway through the month of Adar (c. March); and then, finally,

news of their death is sent throughout Persia’s provinces (9.20-22).

As can be seen, then, the narrative of Esther contains multiple and well-thought-out allusions to the life and struggles of Saul.

That fact can be underlined by means of various gematrial and grammatical considerations, which draw complaints when omitted.

First some gematria then.

Haman’s lucky day is not selected until the lot (פור) has been cast 336 times--i.e., from 1st Nisan to 12th Adar inclusive--, which is relevant since the gematrial value of ‘Purim’ (פורים) is 336.

Consequently, the date set for Haman’s showdown with the Jews is the 337th day of the year,

which hints at Saul’s showdown with Agag,

since both the titles ‘Saul’ (שאול) and ‘Agag the king of Amalek’ (אגג מלך עמלק cp. 1 Sam. 15) have a gematrial value of 337.

As for Esther’s grammar:

thoughout the book of Esther, constructions of the form {Verb, Subject A, vav, Subject B} are conjugated on the basis of Subject A--i.e., the lead subject--rather than on the basis of Subjects A and B combined,

which is indictative of the way in which people act on behalf of broader people-groups. We have:

Est. 2.21: קָצַף בגתן ותרש.

Est. 4.16: גם־אני וְנַעֲרתַי אָצוּם כן.

Est. 5.4, 5, 8, 7.1: יָבוֹא המלך והמן.

Est. 5.14: וַתֹּאמֶר לו זרש אשתו וכל־אהביו.

Est. 7.1: וַתֹּאמֶר לו זרש אשתו וכל־אהביו.

Est. 9.29: וַתִּכְתֹּב אסתר המלכה בת־אביחיל ומרדכי.

Est. 9.31: קִיַּם עליהם מרדכי היהודי ואסתר.

The pattern above is almost invariant.

The only exception is the clause נמכרנו אני ועמי (cf. 7.4),

where Esther addresses the king and does *not* want to be seen as a representative of her people (as others who have no particular point to prove have noted, discussed later).

The book of Esther’s grammar is, therefore, consistent with the way in which its characters represent whole people-groups.

With these things in mind, then, let us consider some further and deeper-seated ways in which Esther and Mordecai’s history is reflected in our text.

As we’ve noted, Esther is not about the lives of isolated individuals, but is rooted in the historical rivalry between Saul and Agag.

But, of course, Saul and Agag are not isolated individuals on the pages of Scripture;

they too are people with past histories,

and their rivarly finds its root in an even more ancient rivalry, namely the rivalry between Jacob and Esau.

Why? Because Saul is a descendant of Jacob, while Amalek is a descendant of Esau (cp. Gen. 36.12).

The rivalry between Jacob and Esau is played out in many different ways in our text.

For starters, consider Mordecai and Haman.

At the outset of our story, Mordecai resembles Esau.

Just as Esau lets out ‘a great and bitter cry’ when he loses his birthright

(cp. וַיִּצְעַק צְעָקָה גְּדֹלָה in Gen. 27.34), so Mordecai lets out ‘a great and bitter cry’ when his people’s future is lost to Haman’s decree (cp. וַיִּזְעַק זְעָקָה גְדֹלָה in 4.1)--a point noted in at least one Rabbinic text (Ber. Rabbah 67.4).

Meanwhile, Haman acquires a Jacob-like position insofar as he manages to ‘buy’ the future of the Jewish nation. (It is ‘sold’ to him in much the same way as Esau ‘sells’ his birthright: cp. מכר in 7.4, Gen. 25.33.)

In the events of chs. 6-7, however, an Esau-and-Jacob-like reversal takes place.

Just as Esau enters Jacob’s presence in order to be honoured, so too does Haman enter the king’s presence.

But, just as Esau finds the tables turned on him on the basis of events at a recent meal

(cp. Gen. 25), so Haman finds the tables turned on *him*, which will be confirmed to him at an imminent feast.

Hence, just as what Esau expects to receive is instead given to his rival (Jacob), so what Haman expects to receive is given to Mordecai.

And, just as the contempt (בזה) which Esau shows for his birthright brings about his demotion (Gen. 25.34),

so too does the contempt (בזה) which Haman shows for Mordecai (3.6 cp. Est. Rabbah 7.10).

Prophetic utterances related to Jacob and Esau also come into play.

On the basis of Jacob’s birthright, Jacob’s brothers are destined to bow before him (Gen. 27.29),

which is reflected in Haman’s prostration before Queen Esther (7.6-8).

Meanwhile, YHWH’s promise to ‘be at war with Amalek from generation to generation’

(cp. מִדֹּר דֹּר in Exod. 17.16) is reflected in Mordecai’s refusal to bow before Haman,

as well as in the remembrance of Purim ‘from generation to generation’ (בכל־דור ודור in 9.28).

Also relevant is the Mesopotamia-born prophecy of Num. 24, where Balaam declares,

‘A star will come forth from Jacob, and a sceptre arise from Israel,...and Amalek’s end will be destruction (אבד)’.

The ‘star’ and ‘sceptre’ depict the rise of ‘Esther’ = ‘star’ (from Pers. ⟨istāra⟩) and ‘Mordecai’ = ‘staff’ (from JAram. מרדכי),

and the relevant ‘destruction’ is meted out on Amalek by means of Esther and Mordecia’s people.

Note: ‘Destruction’ is an important theme in Esther.

Haman repeatedly threatens the Jews with אבד = ‘destruction’, which he schedules for the 13th day of the month,

but the number 13 turns out to be unlucky for him.

The 13th occurence of the root אבד occurs in 9.12,

and describes the Jews ‘destruction’ (אבד) of Haman’s sons.

The ‘destruction’ in question takes place on the 13th day of the 13th year of the king’s reign (3.7, 12, 9.1ff.),

is associated with a gematrial value of 13 (cp. ואבד in the phrase ואבד את עשׂרת בני־המן), and,

if the year in question was intercalated (so Jacobus 2008:116), takes place in a 13th month (i.e., a second Adar)!

FINAL THOUGHTS:

Obviously, all of the above points require further expansion/demonstration/etc.,

but they hopefully suffice to show what is at stake in Esther’s story, and how the book of Esther relates to--and builds upon--its OT background.

Just as Ruth and Boaz make a break from their past, so too do Esther and Mordecai.

Esther and Mordecai make amends for many of Saul’s wrongs, and succeed in many of the areas in which he fails.

As such, they continue and contribute to the story of God’s people.

But, of course, as great as their achievements may have been, Esther and Mordecai are only members of a sub-branch of God’s line of promise.

Consequently, their legacy in Persia does not last.

They provide their people with temporary relief,

but permanent relief must come from a different line, namely the line of Judah.

Nonetheless, the lives of Esther and Mordecai are instructive,

and Esther’s in particular is a great example.

Esther trusts God, takes risks when necessary, and is not afraid to make big requests of important people.

As such, she makes the most of her God-given opportunities and abilities to influence the world around her.

THE END.

P.S. For those who like paragraphs and such things: academia.edu/40042595/