I want to
come back to Esther one more time and then move on. I have found the responses
to my article interesting, and I have received some really good questions from readers
in different contexts. Some of those questions I will not respond to, because
my first two articles cover most of the answers, and many questions are simply,
“I read it differently, why don’t you read it this way?” or some version of
that. The whole point of my articles is to bring into question the more common
reading, so responding to questions of this kind seems rather redundant.
However, I have responded to some such questions in the comments on Substack in some detail
anyway, so feel free to read them there. If you still hold to the common
reading, that is fine, I just think it is less justifiable from the text.
But one
question I think justifies an entire article of its own is this: Am I aware of the
Septuagint version of Esther and does that version of Esther change my opinion?
Yes, I am aware of it, and it is very different. No it does not change my position. I have an NRSV with Apocrypha
in my study, and an electronic version of the King James with Apocrypha. They
both also have other extra biblical books that go even beyond the Apocrypha in them. They both
have the additions to Esther in them, one in a separate section, the NRSVA, and the KJVA has them in
the actual text highlighted in blue. Many Baptists might be tempted to answer
that we have the canon as we are supposed to have it, therefore the Septuagint
version, which is vastly changed, does not factor in. However, I want to make a
different case. I think the Septuagint version of Esther actually strengthens
my position, in fact by some measure.
This is not
my main source for this response, but simply of interest. If you type “the Septuagint
version of Esther” into Bing you will get this description at the top of the
page,
“The
Septuagint version of Esther is a Greek translation of the Old Testament that
includes extra text. This extra text portrays Esther as a pious Jewess of the
Hellenistic period who disdains marriage with a non-Jew, eats only kosher food,
and does not drink wine used for libations to pagan gods.”[1]
This short
note already points to why I think the Septuagint version supports my case. It is
clear that early in the book of Esther’s history, faithful Jews had issues with
the book. The Hebrew version in our English Bibles is far more ambiguous, at
the very least, and so it appears that some of them sought to fix this
ambiguity by adding in several detailed elements of faith and expressions of
faith.
For this article
I am going to make reference to this fascinating article: The
Book of Esther. A Septuagint vs Masoretic comparison, from the website
Spiritual Discernment.[2] And to my own copy of the
Septuagint text in my NRSV with Apocrypha, and my e-Sword edition of the King
James with Apocrypha. All these texts quoted on this website, and in the bibles I
have in front of me seem to line up, though the wording is slightly different,
which is normal for different translations.
It is the general consensus that the additions to Esther in the Septuagint are extra-biblical addons from a later date. I can say this without controversy, because if this were not the case they would be in our canon. There is even a clue in the text when the Septuagint was modified and why. Of course, all the mentions of God, and visions are also this, we will come back to that, as they show that the believing Jews in later periods struggled with this book. But there is another clue, even more significant, that we should observe.
This verse is
a massive clue, "For whereas Aman, a Macedonian, the son of Amadathes, in
reality an alien from the blood of the Persians,…"[3] The Septuagint identifies
Aman, or Haman, as a Macedonian. But he is explicitly called Haman the Agagite
many times (Es. 3:1, 10; 8:3, 5, 9:24) identifying him either as a descendant
of Agag the Amalekite, or at least a spiritual descendent of Agag. In fact, the
Septuagint version goes even further than this, and notes that Haman’s or Aman’s,
plot was to wrestle control of Persia from the Persians and hand it to the
Macedonians,
“(16:10)
For Aman, a Macedonian, the son of Amadatha, being indeed a stranger from the
Persian blood, and far distant from our goodness, and as a stranger received of
us, (16:11) Had so far forth obtained the favour that we shew toward every
nation, as that he was called our father, and was continually honoured of all
the next person unto the king. (16:12) But he, not bearing his great dignity,
went about to deprive us of our kingdom and life: (16:13) Having by manifold
and cunning deceits sought of us the destruction, as well of Mardocheus, who
saved our life, and continually procured our good, as also of blameless Esther,
partaker of our kingdom, with their whole nation. (16:14) For by these means he
thought, finding us destitute of friends to have translated the kingdom of the
Persians to the Macedonians.”[4]
This is an ambitious plan for a Macedonian to have well over a century before Macedonia even became a player on the world stage. Persia and Greece would war with each other in this period. But it would not be till much later that Macedonia would conquer all of Greece under Philip and then Persia under his son Alexander.
However, when
you consider that in the intertestamental period, when the Jews created the
Septuagint, that one of their most hated enemies was the Macedonians, you
realize when they made these change and also why. They clearly wanted to
bolster their argument for standing against the Seleucids, such as Antiochus
Epiphanies and others. These were their Macedonian oppressors for some time in
this period. In fact, Antiochus Epiphanes serves as a type of the antichrist,
the evil ruler who seeks to compel idol worship from the people of God. It
seems incredulous that Haman, or Aman, was both a Macedonian and an Amalekite.
However, if this is a later edition this contradiction is explained.
These
Macedonians were enemies of Persia and Babylon as well, at least the elite
factions in Persia and Babylon, who they conquered and replaced. This would
indicate that many Jews in Babylon/Persia wanted to bolster the statements of
their loyalty to Persia, a power that was very friendly to Israel (ah the
historical irony there, Persia is Iran).
Many Jews in
the period were persecuted by the Greeks for opposing Hellenization, whereas
Persia had no problem with tolerating the peoples under their power practicing
their own faiths. Identifying Haman with the hated Macedonians makes sense for
the Jews in this period to do. Haman, to many Talmudic Jews, is whoever opposes
them in this way. He is Amalek. Amalek and Haman are spiritual synonyms in this
sense. Here we see an early application of this tradition.
The article I
have referred to above comparing the Septuagint and Masoretic versions of
Esther seeks to make the case that the Septuagint version is more biblical and
more trustworthy because of its many references to God. I think the authors
analysis is simplistic, but his intention is good. Rather these additions show
us that many early Jews had the same issues with Esther that I have pointed
out. Showing my framing of Esther as reflecting negatively on the Jewish leaders in
Babylon is an ancient reading, one that ancient Jews thought they needed to
address.
These
additions read as an apologetic to seek to vindicate the actions of Esther and
Haman. I think they make the case for my argument stronger. I will give a couple
of examples.
First, the modified
text of Esther begins this way,
“Est
1:1 (11:2) In the second year of the reign of Artexerxes the great, in
the first day of the month Nisan, Mardocheus the son of Jairus, the son of
Semei, the son of Cisai, of the tribe of Benjamin, had a dream; (11:3) Who was
a Jew, and dwelt in the city of Susa, a great man, being a servitor in the
king's court. (11:4) He was also one of the captives, which Nabuchodonosor the
king of Babylon carried from Jerusalem with Jechonias king of Judea; and this
was his dream:… (11:9)
And the whole righteous nation was troubled, fearing their own evils, and were
ready to perish. (11:10) Then they cried unto God, and upon their cry, as it
were from a little fountain, was made a great flood, even much water.”[5]
Straight away
the Septuagint seeks to remove any ambiguity about Mordecai’s faith. He is
immediately identified as one of the exiles taken by Nebuchadnezzar (though
with alternate spelling). This would make Mordecai well over a hundred years
old. The Book of Esther happened in about 486 BC to 465 BC, the
exile began between 597 BC AND 587 BCE. So, if Mordecai was taken in 587 BC, then
in 486 BC he was 101 years old, if he was in his mother’s womb when this began.
Not impossible, but the text does not imply such advanced age, and this is very
unlikely. If the text occurred in 465 BC he is even older. He is also
explicitly called a great man in this introduction, and God is mentioned very
early in the text, to take away any ambiguity about that. The people who wrote
these additions seem sensitive to the kinds of critiques of Haman that we have made
in previous articles.
Some have
even wondered if Mordecai’s response to Haman was simply pride. Well, the
Septuagint even answers this objection,
“(13:11)
Thou art Lord of all things, and and there is no man that can resist thee,
which art the Lord. (13:12) Thou knowest all things, and thou knowest, Lord,
that it was neither in contempt nor pride, nor for any desire of glory, that I
did not bow down to proud Aman. (13:13) For I could have been content with good
will for the salvation of Israel to kiss the soles of his feet. (13:14) But I
did this, that I might not prefer the glory of man above the glory of God:
neither will I worship any but thee, O God, neither will I do it in pride.”[6]
This shows
that those who made these additions were aware that some people read Mordecai
as a powerful and prideful man working for more power in Babylon. This shows
that this reading is very ancient, and some people thought it needed to be
addressed.
Esther’s
prayer is also interesting. Because the editor went out of his way to make her
into a righteous Jewish woman, with a morality much like Daniel’s. Immediately
they show her praying the prayer that a righteous young woman would pray in
this situation,
“(14:1)
Queen Esther also, being in fear of death, resorted unto the Lord: (14:2) And
laid away her glorious apparel, and put on the garments of anguish and
mourning: and instead of precious ointments, she covered her head with ashes
and dung, and she humbled her body greatly, and all the places of her joy she
filled with her torn hair. (14:3) And she prayed unto the Lord God of Israel,
saying, O my Lord, thou only art our King: help me, desolate woman, which have
no helper but thee: (14:4) For my danger is in mine hand.[7]
She even
acknowledges the sin of Israel and God’s justice in having put the Israelites
in exile.
“(14:5)
From my youth up I have heard in the tribe of my family that thou, O Lord,
tookest Israel from among all people, and our fathers from all their
predecessors, for a perpetual inheritance, and thou hast performed whatsoever
thou didst promise them. (14:6) And now we have sinned before thee: therefore
hast thou given us into the hands of our enemies, (14:7) Because we worshipped
their gods: O Lord, thou art righteous. (14:8)
Nevertheless it satisfieth them not, that we are in bitter captivity: but they
have stricken hands with their idols,…”[8]
This prayer
follows some of the same beats as Daniel’s famous and wonderful prayer in
Daniel 9. Only the editor has made a mistake, because in Esther’s day the
people of Israel had already had their exile ended and were called to leave
Babylon, “Flee from the midst of Babylon; let every one save his life! (Jer.
51:6). This is more evidence that this is a later addition.
The editor,
in this prayer, also shows that Esther abhors her situation and refrains from
eating unclean food, or taking joy in being married to the King,
(14:16)
Thou knowest my necessity: for I abhor the sign of my high estate, which is
upon mine head in the days wherein I shew myself, and that I abhor it as a
menstruous rag, and that I wear it not when I am private by myself. (14:17) And
that thine handmaid hath not eaten at Aman's table, and that I have not greatly
esteemed the king's feast, nor drunk the wine of the drink offerings. (14:18)
Neither had thine handmaid any joy since the day that I was brought hither to
this present, but in thee, O Lord God of Abraham. (14:19) O thou mighty God
above all, hear the voice of the forlorn and deliver us out of the hands of the
mischievous, and deliver me out of my fear.”[9]
This prayer
shows that she would like nothing more than to get out of this situation. This
answers the objections of those who were concerned that Esther showed no
resistance to becoming the wife of an unbeliever in the original text. She may have been powerless
to stop this situation, but she could have at least said something. Daniel speaks
up about not eating the food of Babylon. Could not Esther speak up about not
wanting to be the Queen of a foreign unbelieving king? Well, in these additions
she does. In these additions all the objections we have mentioned previously
are addressed.
All these
additions are fascinating, and I think they prove at the very least that my
negative reading of the text has a long tradition. We know it does in the
Church, even Church fathers found issues with this book. But now we can see these
issues were even observed by ancient Jewish believers, long before the Canon
was compiled. This does not mean the book is not inspired. It is. I think it is
a valuable exploration of how God’s people can be corrupted by a quest for
power, and how God can even preserve his people through those who are using unbiblical
means.
You may read
the book differently, that is fine. But I think I have made a very strong case
for my position, and the ancient Jews felt the need to respond to people who
read the book in a way very similar to how I and many other believers have.
List of
References
[4] e-Sword
KJVA, e-Sword is a free program check it out.
[5] Ibid.
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
Ibid.
Please don't deface your own posts with this horrendous "AI art."
ReplyDeleteSorry I don't comment much! I find this all very helpful. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDelete