Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: Offcuts from Esther (Part I).

As difficult as it may be to believe, my tweets go through a (minimal) filter before they see the light of day.

To prove it, here are some which didn’t make the cut last time round.

#ChiasticClaimsToCome

#AndManyWordReversals

Esther seems to be built around a chiastically-structured plot.

It begins and ends in a roughly symmetrical manner,

and its central plot--i.e., the rivalry between Haman and the Jews--reaches its climax in the events of ch. 6 (about halfway through the book),

which functions as a kind of ‘axis of reflection’.

Consider, by way of illustration, the observations set out below:

:: Esther starts and ends with a summons to observe two (consecutive) feasts.

The first is empire-wide, while the second is restricted to Susa

(1.3, 5 w. 9.23ff., 17-18).

:: Later, the king gives ‘gifts’ (מנות) to his people (on the day of Esther’s coronation), which finds a parallel in the ‘gifts’ (מנות) shared among the Jews at the time of Purim (cp. 2.18 w. 9.22).

Meanwhile, the ‘holiday’ (הנחה) granted by the king finds a parallel in the ‘rest’ (נוח) obtained by the Jews from their enemies (cp. 2.18 w. 9.16, 22).

:: Midway through the book (in ch. 6), a dramatic reversal takes place:

Haman *thinks* he is about to be honoured

above every other man in Persia,

but instead finds himself forced to honour Mordecai--the very man who first aroused his wrath because he refused to bow down before him!

The event in question is flanked either side by a feast (chs. 5 and 7 respectively).

At the first feast, Haman is honoured, while, at the second, he is deposed.

:: Then, after Haman’s fall, the king removes his signet ring from the hand of Haman and awards it to Mordecai,

who uses it to countermand the decrees Haman sealed with it (3.10, 12, 8.2, 10).

As such, Esther’s text exhibits a neat symmetry.

More specifically, the reversal narrated in ch. 6 functions as a pivotal moment--a watershed in Haman’s career, from which point on his plans gradually unwind.

As a result, the central chs. of Esther can plausibly be viewed as a chiasmus which traces the rise and fall of Haman. For instance:

That is not, of course, to say our proposed chiasmus is *the* sole structure in light of which Esther must be viewed.

The text of Scripture has a complexity which transcends rigid structures.

Furthermore, many things occur *between* the lines of our chiasmus,

and the correspondence between certain incidents in Esther go against its grain.

For instance, chs. 1-2 and chs. 8-9 narrate a number of similar incidents--e.g., feasts, executions, holidays, fire which must be fought with fire

(cp. how יֵצֵא דְבַר־הַמַּלְכָּה is answered by יֵצֵא דְבַר־מַלְכוּת per 1.17, 19), etc.--, the order of which is not chiastic (or even linear).

Meanwhile, Esther’s initial appearance before the king is oddly reminiscient of the incident described in ch. 6,

where Mordecai is led through the city of Susa on horseback.

:: Both Esther and Mordecai are ‘paraded’ in public (or at least before many people) and admired by those who see them;

:: both Esther and Mordecai are (temporarily) given royal gifts to take with them

(though neither request them); and

:: both Esther and Mordecai are subsequently returned to their place (or thereabouts), where they must await further word from the king.

Furthermore, the two events are described by means of a similar grammatical structure,

i.e., ‘Let X be the case, and let Y then be given to the relevant person’,

where X = a C-stem juss. (וְיַפְקֵד and יָבִיאוּ respectively), and Y opens with the form וְנָתוֹן (cp. 2.3b w. 6.8-9).

The correspondence between these two incidents, however,

does not fit our proposed chiasmus.

Our chiasmus should not, therefore, be seen as *the* sole structure of the book of Esther, but as a particular undercurrent at work within it,

or, alternatively, as a structure which arises out of an extant plot with a momentum and direction of its own.

Viewed as such, our chiasmus seems both valid and helpful for at least a couple of reasons.

First, its shape is implicit in the statement made by Haman’s wife once she hears about ch. 6a’s pivotal events, viz., ‘You have begun to fall before Mordecai’,

which coheres with our (chiastic) designation of ch. 6a as a watershed.

Second, Esther is a book which is intensely interested in reversals.

It explicitly spells out how--on the very day when the Jews’ enemies sought to ‘gain the mastery’ over them (שלט)--the situation was reversed (הפך)

and the Jews instead gained the mastery over their enemies (שלט: cp. 9.1),

how Haman’s plans were ‘turned back’ (שוב) on his own head (9.25),

and how a time of sorrow was hence ‘turned’ (הפך) into a time of gladness (9.22).

Note: In modern Hebrew, a ‘latte’ is referred to as a הפוך, since the roles of milk and coffee are reversed: rather than a glass full of coffee with a shot of milk in the top, you get a glass full of milk with a shot of coffee in the top--which I’ve always quite liked.

Note also: The pivotal ‘reversal’ (narrated midway through the book) is a particularly dramatic one,

since Haman is initially forced to honour Mordecai in the manner he chose out for himself (i.e., a royal parade),

and is subsequently dishonoured (and killed)

in the manner he chose out for *Mordecai* (i.e., a gallows).

It therefore seems apt for chs. 3-8 to form a chiasmus where Haman’s actions in chs. 3-5 are unwound in chs. 7-8 in the aftermath of ch. 6’s pivotal events.

Another noteworthy feature of our chiasmus is how its subject matter (viz. the rise and fall of Hamaan’s career) is reflected in its shape in a ‘visual’ way,

just as the shape of the flood narrative reflects the rise and fall of the world’s water-level, per Wenham:

Oddly, in both chiasmuses, the direction of travel is changed by a moment of ‘remembrance’ (זכר).

Other contact-points between Esther and the flood narrative include lexical parallels between the ‘machinations’ (-מחשב) of Haman and those of the pre-flood-world’s inhabitants,

who are alike expunged from the earth (Gen. 6.5, Est. 8.3, etc.) with the assistance of a wooden structure of width/height of 50 cubits (5.14 cp. Gen. 6.15),

at which point a fear/dread of God’s representatives descends on a previously hostile world (cp. 9.2, Gen. 9.2).

Perhaps, then, the events of Esther are to be seen as purgative of Persia’s anti-Semitic contingent, just as the flood purged the (then) world of its evil.

Either way, the ‘reversal’ (הפך) outlined in the chiasmus above is clearly an important undercurrent

and/or sub-theme of the book.

The same theme of reversal is brought out elsewhere, though in more subtle ways,

such as the way in which a number of the book’s key terms are rearranged/reworked in the book’s final chapters:

The same reversal motif is brought out elsewhere, though in more subtle ways,

such as the way in which a number of the book’s key terms are rearranged/reworked in the book’s final chapters:

:: The threat posed by the Jews’ ‘enemies’ (הַצָּרִים) is countermanded by a detachment of ‘runners’ (הַרָצִים) sent forth by Mordecai (8.10-11 cp. 3.15);

:: the decree sent out with ‘haste’ (דחף) by Haman is blunted by the Persians’ ‘fear’ (פחד) of Mordecai (3.15, 9.1); and

:: the events set in motion by the king’s wrath (חֲמָתוֹ) are finally laid to rest by his ‘seal’ (חוֹתָם).

:: Meanwhile, the ‘relief’ (רֶוַח) sought by Mordecai is attained in ch. 8 when Mordecai goes forth clad in ‘linen’ (חור);

:: the ‘deliverance’ (הצלה) he sought is anticipated as the city (fem.) ‘shouts’ (צהלה) for joy (cp. 4.14: רֶוַח והצלה); and

:: those who ‘hate’ the Jews (שנא) begin to assist (נשא) them (9.1, 3).

:: Consequently, the dangers previously associated with ‘Susa’ (שושן) give way to ‘celebration’ (ששון);

:: the ‘disdain’ (בזה) shown by Haman leads the Jews to (be able to) ‘plunder’ (בִּזָּה) their enemies (cp. 3.6, 9.10ff.); and

:: the disaster decreed by Haman (המן) is remembered by the exchange of ‘gifts’ (sg. מנה) among the Jewish people.

As such, the reversal described in Esther’s main storyline is embedded in Esther’s vocabulary.

But enough of literary structures and the like.

Let us turn our attention to some commonly-employed literary *features* of the book of Esther.

Esther contains a number of turns of phrase which anticipate what happens next in the story.

For instance:

:: Queen Vashti is first mentioned in 1.9, but her appearance is (homophonically) pre-empted in the previous verse (1.8) with the word וְהַשְּׁתִיָּה = ‘the service of drinks’.

:: Soon afterwards, a royal advisor named Marsena (מרסנא) is asked how to handle Vashti’s behaviour,

which anticipates *Esther’s* appearance insofar as both the names ‘Marsena’ and ‘Hadassa’ refer to ‘myrtle trees’ (where מרסנא is assumed to stem from Pers. mīrsīn).

:: And Vashti is then judged by her own words, which anticipates the way *Haman* will ultimately be judged.

(Specifically, Vashti refuses to enter the king’s presence, in response to which the king decides to banish her from his presence permanently.)

:: Similar ‘anticipation’ appears to be present in chs. 5-7.

In 5.3, the king asks Esther what her request is, adding, ינתן לך = ‘It will be granted to you’,

which is notable since one would expect the king to say תנתן לך (since the antecedent noun בקשה = ‘request’ is fem., hence the king elsewhere says, מה בקשתך...ותעש).

As such, the king’s request seems to anticipate its answer, since what Esther wants is a masc. noun, i.e., משתה = ‘a banquet’.

The exchange described in 7.2-3 (at Esther’s second feast) works in the same way.

The king’s promise to Esther--ותנתן לך--anticipates a fem. answer,

which Esther duly provides when she asks for ‘her life’ (נפש).

As can be seen, then, Esther’s storyline subtly hints at what is about to come, though of course it remains a mystery to its characters.

Another noteworthy literary feature of Esther’s narrative is its employment of *couplets*,

which makes Esther an intricate and engaging story.

For a start, Esther’s *syntax* is full of couplets.

One commentator has identified over twenty syntactic couplets in ch. 1 alone,

e.g., ‘Persia-and-Media’, ‘officials-and-courtiers’, ‘law-and-justice’, ‘each-and-every-province (מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה)’, etc.

Couplets of *people* are also prominent insofar as the book revolves around relationships which develop between particular pairs of people,

e.g., {Esther & the King}, {Esther & Haman}, {the King & Haman}, {Haman & Mordecai}, {Esther & Mordecai}.

All of the relationships have their own particular means of interaction and power dynamics,

which adds colour and variety to our story.

On a related note, the book of Esther likes to arrange many of its *scenes* in couplets.

These scenes unfold simultaneously, and are juxtaposed for maximum dramatic effect.

:: After Haman’s fatal decree is issued, chaos erupts in the city, while Haman and the king sit down...

...on a balcony to enjoy a quiet drink (cp. Nero and the fire of Rome).

:: Soon afterwards, the Jews in Susa fast for three days while the Jews elsewhere (presumably) celebrate and observe the Passover. (The events of 4.16 seem to take place on 14th to 16th Nisan: cp. 3.12.)

:: And then, while the king plans how to honour Mordecai, Haman plans how to dispose of him. The statements recorded in 6.3 and 6.6 are particularly ironic, since the verb עשה can mean either ‘done’ or ‘made’.

Hence, when the king’s servant’s claim nothing has been ‘done’ (עשה) for Mordecai, they are quite incorrect; a gallows has been ‘done’ (עשה) for him (5.14).

:: Later, as the king seethes with rage outside, Haman ‘falls’ before Esther, which is the fulness of his (down)fall.

:: And, as the showdown between Mordecai’s and Haman’s people draws near, Mordecai goes forth in royal robes, which causes the Jews to rejoice while fear falls on the Gentiles (8.16-17).

:: A few days later, on 14th Adar, those in Susa fight, while those in Susa feast.

:: And, finally, on 15th Adar, those in Susa feast, while those outside of Susa rest.

Connected to these ‘dual scenes’ are an array of ‘dual instances’ of particular things/people.

We read of a second queen (Esther), a ‘second house’ (2.14), a second convention of Persia’s virgins (2.19), a second request (for a second feast), a second day of war, a second letter (9.29), and, finally, a promotion to second-in-command (10.3).

We also read of a number of repeated incidents, which turn out very differently on their second occurrence.

For instance:

When Vashti refuses to obey the king’s command, she is banished, but, when Mordecai does so, it turns out to his good.

When Haman issues an edict, it results in disaster, but, when Mordecai does so, it results in victory.

And, when Haman falls at the feet of a member of royalty, his action leads to his death, but, when Vashti does so, it leads to life.

These second/repeat incidents are not accidental features of Esther’s narrative;

on the contrary, they are central to its major theme,

for, as we have seen, the whole story of Esther is a repeat of a previous incident.

Specifically, it is a repeat of the battle between Saul and Agag (the Amalekite);

and, happily, it is one where things turn out very differently.

As such, the high-level message of the book of Esther is echoed at a lower, more detailed level,

which is further testimony to the brilliance of Esther’s composition.

When you have God on your side, to repeat the same action and expect a different result is not necessarily insanity.

A final thought:

As can be seen, then, Esther is a narrative of great intricacy and craftsmanship, which can be analysed in multiple ways.

Contrary to the impression often given, none of these analyses provide *the* unique key to unlock Esther’s text.

History is a complex business, in which multiple currents and undercurrents operate simultaneously,

and, since Scripture records the events of history, the Bible is a complex book.

Consequently, a whole range of different analyses of the text of Scripture are necessary to mine its full treasure,

which surpasses the capabilities of any one commentator,

and is why God has left the exposition of Scripture as a task for the Church as a whole.

The end.

P.S. Pdf available here: academia.edu/40087250/

#ChiasmusesOver

P.P.S. To close, something we see far too little of on Twitter: a horse with a crown on (per 6.2: סוּס אֲשֶׁר רָכַב עָלָיו הַמֶּלֶךְ וַאֲשֶׁר נִתַּן כֶּתֶר מַלְכוּת בְּרֹאשׁוֹ), which is part of the reliefs at Persepolis: