Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

ESTHER

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V09, Page 797 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
» Make a correction to this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

ESTHER . The See also:

Book of Esther, in the See also:Bible, relates how a Jewish See also:maiden, Esther, See also:cousin and See also:foster-daughter of Mordecai, was made his See also:queen by the See also:Persian See also:king See also:Ahasuerus (See also:Xerxes) after he had divorced Vashti; next, how Esther and Mordecai frustrated Haman's endeavour to extirpate the See also:Jews; how Haman, the See also:grand-See also:vizier, See also:fell, and Mordecai succeeded him; how Esther obtained the king's permission for the Jews to destroy all who might attack them on the See also:day which Haman had appointed by See also:lot for their destruction; and lastly, how the feast of See also:Purim (Lots ?) was instituted to commemorate their deliverance. Frequent incidental references are made to Persian See also:court-usages (explanations are given in i. 13, viii. 8), while on the other See also:hand the religious See also:rites of the Jews (except See also:fasting),and even See also:Jerusalem and the See also:temple, and the name of See also:Israel, are studiously ignored. Even the name of See also:God is not once mentioned, perhaps from a dread of its profanation during the Saturnalia of Purim. The See also:early popularity of the book is shown by the interpolated passages in the See also:Septuagint and the Old Latin versions. The See also:criticism of Esther began in the 18th See also:century. As soon as the questioning spirit arose, the strangeness of many statements in the book leaped into view. A moderate See also:scholar of our day can find no See also:historical See also:nucleus, and calls it a sort of historical See also:romance.' The very first verses in the book startle the reader by their exaggerations, e.g. a banquet lasting 18o days, " 127 provinces." Farther on, the improbabilities of the See also:plot are noticeable. Esther, on her See also:elevation, keeps her Jewish origin See also:secret (ii. 1o; cf. vii.

3 ff.), although she has been taken from the See also:

house of her See also:uncle, who is known to be a See also:Jew (iii. 4; cf. vi. 13), and has remained in See also:constant intercourse with him (ii. r1, 19, 20, 22; cf. iv. 4-17). We are further told that the grand-vizier was an Agagite or Amalekite (iii. 1, &c.); would the See also:nobility of See also:Persia have tolerated this ? Or did Haman too keep his non-Persian origin secret? Also that Mordecai offered a See also:gross affront to Haman, for which no slighter See also:punishment would satisfy Haman than the destruction of the whole Jewish See also:race (iii. 2-6). Of this See also:savage See also:design eleven months' See also:notice is given (iii. 12-14); and when the danger has been averted by the cleverness of Esther, the provincial Jews are allowed to See also:butcher 75,000, and those in the See also:capital 800 of their Persian See also:fellow-subjects (ix. 6-16).

It is urged, on the other hand, that the See also:

assembly mentioned in i. 3 may be that referred to by See also:Herodotus (vii. 8) as having preceded the expedition against See also:Greece. This See also:hypothesis, how-ever, requires us to suppose that Xerxes had returned from See also:Sardis to See also:Susa by the tenth See also:month of the seventh See also:year of his reign, which is barely credible. In the reckoning of 127 provinces (cf. See also:Dan. vi. 1; 1 Esd. iii. 2) satrapies and sub-satrapies may be confounded. It is at any See also:rate correct to include See also:India among the provinces; this is justified, not only by Herodotus (iii. 94), but by the See also:inscriptions of See also:Darius at See also:Persepolis and Naksh-i-Rustam. Herodotus again (vii. 8) confirms the See also:custom referred to in Esth. ii.

12. But what authority can make the conduct of Mordecai credible ? To-day the See also:

harem is impenetrable, while " any one declining to stand as the grand-vizier passes is almost beaten to See also:death."2 This, surely, is what a real Mordecai would have suffered from a real Haman. Even the capricious Xerxes would never have permitted the entire destruction of one of the races of the See also:empire, nor would a vizier have proposed it. Serious difficulties of another See also:kind remain. Mordecai is represented as a fellow-See also:captive of Jeconiah (J97 B.C.), and grand-vizier in Xerxes's twelfth year (474 B.C.) ! This is parallel to the See also:strange statement in See also:Tobit xiv. 15. And how can we find See also:room for Esther as queen by the See also:side of Amestris (See also:Herod. vii. 14, ix. 112)? How, too, can a Jewess have been a legal queen (see Herod. iii.

84) ? Then take the supposed Persian proper names. " Ahasuerus " may no doubt stand, but very few of the See also:

rest (see NSldeke, Ency. Bib. See also:col. 1402). As to the See also:style, the See also:general See also:verdict is that it points to a See also:late date (see See also:Driver, Introd.2, p. 484). Altogether, critics decline to date the book earlier than the 3rd or even 2nd century B.C. So far we have only been carrying on 18th-century criticism. In more See also:recent years, however, new lines of inquiry have been opened up. First of all by the See also:great Semitic scholar See also:Lagarde. His thesis (seldom defended now) was that Purim corresponds to Furdigan, the name of the old Persian New Year's and All Souls' festival held in See also:spring, on which the Persians were wont to See also:exchange presents (cf.

Esth. ix. 19). In 1891 came a new explanation of Esther from Zimmern. It is true that in its earlier See also:

form his theory was very incomplete. But in See also:justice to this scholar we may notice that from the first he looked for See also:light to Babylonia, and that many other critics now take up the same I Kautzsch, Old Testament Literature (1898), p. 130. 2 So See also:Morier, the See also:English See also:minister to the Persian court, quoted by See also:Dean See also:Stanley. position. There is also another new point which has to be mentioned, viz. that, judging from our experience elsewhere, the Book of Esther has probably passed through various stages of development. Here, then, are two points which See also:call for investigation, viz. (1) a possible mythological See also:element in Esther, and (2) possible stages of development See also:prior to that represented by the See also:Hebrew See also:text. As to the first point.

The Second See also:

Targum (on Esth. ii. 7) See also:long ago declared that Esther was so called " because she was like the See also:planet See also:Venus." Recent scholars have expressed the same See also:idea more critically. Esther is a modification of See also:Ishtar, the name of the Babylonian goddess of fertility and of the planet Venus, whose myth must have been partially known to the Israelites even in pre-exilic times,' and after the fall of the See also:state must have acquired a still stronger hold on Jewish exiles. A general knowledge of the myth of See also:Marduk among the Israelites cannot indeed be proved. Singularly enough, the Babylonian colonists in the cities of See also:Samaria are said to have made idols, not of Marduk, but of a deity called Succoth-benoth2 (2 See also:Kings xvii. 3o). Nor does the Second Targum help us here; it gives a See also:wild explanation of Mordecai as " pure See also:myrrh." Still it is See also:plain that the name of the god Marduk (Merodach) was known to the Jews, and the See also:Cosmogony in Gen. i. is considered by critics to have ultimately arisen out of the myth of Marduk's conflict with the See also:dragon (see COSMOGONY). At any rate the name Mordecai (the vocalization is uncertain) looks very much like Marduk, which, with terminations added, often occurs in See also:cuneiform documents as a See also:personal name.3 Add to this, that, according to See also:Jensen, Ishtar in See also:mythology was the cousin of Marduk, just as the See also:legend represents Esther as the cousin of Mordecai.' The same scholar also accounts for Esther's other name Hadassah (Esth. ii. 7); hadasshatu in Babylonian means " See also:bride," which may have been a See also:title of Ishtar. But we cannot stop See also:short here. Unless the mythological See also:key can also explain Haman and Vashti, it is of no use. Jensen, now followed by Zimmern, is equal to the occasion.

Haman, he says, is a corruption of Hamman or Humman or Uman, the name of the See also:

chief deity of the Elamites, in whose capital (Susa) the See also:scene of the narrative is laid, while Vashti is Mashti (or Vashti), probably the name of an Elamite goddess. Following the real or fancied light of these names, Prof. Jensen holds that the Esther-legend is based on a mythological See also:account of the victory of the Babylonian deities over those of See also:Elam, which in plain See also:prose means the deliverance of See also:ancient Babylonia from its Elamite oppressors, and that such an account was closely connected with the Babylonian New Year's festival, called Zagmuk, just as the Esther-legend is connected with the festival of Purim. We are See also:bound, however, to mention some See also:critical objections. (r) The Babylonian festival corresponding to Purim was not the spring festival of Zagmuk, but the summer festival of Ishtar, which is probably the Sacaea of See also:Berossus, an orgiastic festival analogous to Purim. (2) According to Jensen's theory, Mordecai, and not Esther, ought to be the See also:direct cause of Haman's ruin. (3) No such Babylonian account as Jensen postulates can be indicated. (4) The identifications of names are hazardous. See also:Fancy a descendant of See also:Kish called Marduk, and an "Agagite" called Hamman! Elsewhere Mordecai (See also:Ezra ii. 2; Neh. vii_ 7) occurs among names which are certainly not Persian (Bigvai is no exception), and Haman (Tobit xiv. so) appears as a See also:nephew of Achiachar, which is not a Persian name. Esther, moreover, ought to be parallel to See also:Judith; fancy likening the representative of Israel to the goddess Ishtar !

Next, as to the preliminary See also:

literary phases of Esther. Such phases are probable, considering the later phases represented in the Septuagint. There may have once existed in Hebrew a See also:story of the deadly See also:feud between Mordecai (if that be the See also:original ' See Zimmern, See also:Die Keilinschriften and das Alte Test.(3), p. 438. 2 Ibid. p. 396. 3 Johns, See also:Assyrian Deeds, iii. 198-199; Amer. Journ. of Sem. See also:Languages (See also:April 1902), p. 158. So too Zimmern, in Gunkel's Schopfung and See also:Chaos, p.

313, See also:

note 2.name) and Haman, with elements suggested by the story of the See also:battle between the Supreme God and the dragon (see COSMOGONY). As the legend stands, Mordecai and Esther seem to be in each other's way. In a passage (i. 5 in LXX.) only found in the Septuagint, but which may have belonged to the original Esther, reference is made to a See also:dream of Mordecai respecting two great dragons, i.e. Mordecai and Haman (x. 7). This seems to confirm the view here mentioned. If so, however, there must also have been an Esther-legend, which was afterwards worked up with that of Mordecai. This is, in fact, the view of Erbt. Winckler takes a different See also:line. Linguistic facts and certain points in the contents seem to him to show that our Esther is a See also:work of the See also:age of the Seleucidae; more precisely he thinks of the See also:time of the revolt of Molon under See also:Antiochus III. Of course there was a Book of Esther before this, and even in its redacted form our Esther reflects the See also:period of three Persian kings, viz.

See also:

Cyrus, See also:Cambyses and Darius. Lastly, See also:Cheyne (Ency. Bib. " Purim," § 7), while agreeing with Winckler that the book is based on an earlier narrative, holds that that earlier text differed more widely from the See also:present in its See also:geographical and historical setting than Winckler seems to suppose. The problem of the origin of the name Purim, however, can hardly be said to have received a final See also:solution. BiBLroGRAPHY.—Kuenen, See also:History of Israel, iii. (1875), 148-153; Lagarde, Purim (1887); Zimmern in See also:Stade's Zeitschrift, xi. (1891), pp. 157-169, and Keilinschriften and das Alte Testament (3), 485, 515-520, Jensen in Wildeboer's Esther (in See also:Marti's See also:series, 1898), pp.173-175; Winckler, Keilinschriftenunddas Alte Testament (3), p.288, Altorientalische Forschungen, 3rd See also:ser. i. 1-64; Erbt, Die Purimsage (1900) ; Ency. Biblica, articles " Esther " and " Purim " (a composite See also:article). (T.

K.

End of Article: ESTHER

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
ESTERS 		[next]
ESTHONIA (Ger. Ehstland and Ehshland, Esthonian Ees...

Site © 2006 - Net Industries