The Book of Esther—Fact or Fiction?

Let the Stones Speak, my name is Nicholas Irwin and I'll be the host of today's show.

On today's program, I interview Christopher Eames, he's one of the hosts of this podcast, he's also a contributing editor and staff writer here at Let the Stones Speak. He wrote a really fascinating article in the July-August issue of our magazine titled The Book of Esther, Fact or Fiction.

You can't fit everything into an interview, so I highly recommend that you go back and read his article from the July-August issue.

And then of course, if you're not already subscribed to our magazine, then please subscribe to our free bi-monthly magazine Let the Stones Speak.

It doesn't cost you anything, it's free of charge, so please subscribe to that if you're interested in all things biblical archaeology.

If you enjoy this video, then please give us a like and subscribe to our channel.

But for now, here's the interview with Christopher Eames.

Hello, Christopher, thank you for taking the time to do this interview.

My pleasure, Nicholas.

So, in the July-August issue of our magazine, you wrote The Book of Esther, Fact or Fiction.

At the start of that article, you first detail some of what has been said about the Book of Esther, such as the New American Bible, which says it is a free composition with many exaggerations.

Martin Luther himself said he was an enemy to this book, adding that he wishes it was never even canonized.

And then this is obviously an important book in Jewish history, but there's even those in the Jewish community, Jewish leaders, who have said they wish this book was taken out of the scripture.

So, you spend your article defending the Book of Esther as a historical text.

So, to start off, could you just give us some of the background of Esther, what time frame are we looking at, maybe some of the geopolitics for those who might not be familiar with the story?

Okay, sure.

So, the Book of Esther has, as you say, been slandered a lot, surprisingly by a lot of religious individuals.

Uh, and and compared to the number of scholarly and uh secular individuals, uh, it has come under quite a lot of religious criticism.

Uh, but like you say as well, generally it's pretty highly regarded, um, among Jews and in Judaism.

Uh, but there are detractors there as well.

So, it's it's interesting when it comes to the Book of Esther because it's right at the end of the biblical canon.

It's one of the last books in the canon to be to be added.

Uh, but here we have so many questions of historicity, usually it's on the other end of the spectrum, the earlier the work, the the more questions about historicity.

Uh, and about importance and this kind of thing.

Um, but here we have it on on the the closer end of the spectrum or the later end of the spectrum.

So, with the Book of Esther, we are dealing with a fifth century time period.

Um, there is pretty surprising unanimity in identifying the main protagonists in the text, Ahasuerus, as Xerxes I.

So he would be on the scene in the early 5th century BC.

Um, but a lot of the criticism for the text kind of circles around it being a sort of a fictionalized telling of events within the reign of Xerxes I.

Within the reign of Ahasuerus.

Um, akin or similar to Greek storytelling and perhaps on on the level of a novella.

Kind of like a Thousand and One Nights, it's been compared to that.

Uh, others have tried to explain it as uh perhaps uh mythologized back mythologized backstory for the origins of Purim.

Uh, or perhaps like a retelling of Moses in Egypt, but sort of like on uh on a Persian level within the courts of Persia.

So there are all these kinds of theories swirling about the book.

But there is a pretty uh remarkable amount of unanimity in identifying the main guy of the book, the king in the book.

Uh, as Xerxes I.

And there are a few reasons for that.

Uh, the biblical name used in the text, Ahasuerus, seems pretty far removed from the name Xerxes.

Uh, but the name Xerxes is actually the Greek version of this Persian king's name.

And Ahasuerus is a pretty fraught English transliteration of the Hebrew Ahashverosh.

And so the Hebrew is actually very similar to the Persian name of Xerxes, uh, which is more akin to Khshayarsha.

Um, which fits really well with the name of of Xerxes.

There's even uh documents in Aramaic from Elephantine.

Uh, which have a virtually identical spelling for the name of Xerxes as what we see in in the Book of Esther.

As being one and the same that this is the ruler featured in the Book of Esther.

Other theories have kind of speculated on Artaxerxes, one of the Artaxerxes.

As being this ruler, which would then put us in the later uh 5th century BC.

Um, but these are earlier theories based on more perceived similarities in name.

And one of the reasons we know it isn't Artaxerxes is within the Book of Ezra itself.

It has the the Hebrew name for Artaxerxes in distinction to the name of Xerxes.

It has Artaxerxes for Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus for Ahasuerus or Xerxes within that same text.

So these are different individuals.

And the overall setting of the book fits best with the early 5th century as well.

So, this was a time when there was less favor toward the Jewish people than what we see in the later 5th century.

At the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Um, and we also see some geographical details within the start of the Book of Esther as well, which match up well with Xerxes' reign.

It talks about his empire spanning from Egypt to or or rather from India to Ethiopia, to Kush.

So, all these details coming together fit pretty remarkably with the reign of Xerxes I.

They can agree on the ruler.

But then one of the first areas you address that people take exception with is how the Bible describes the Persian Empire was divided.

So what what can you say to that?

Okay, so this is one of the interesting uh controversies.

In Esther 1:1, we have the empire described as being divided into uh 127 parts.

And this is has often been interpreted to be satrapies.

The uh pretty typical Persian division of satraps, satrapies.

Uh, but this is a ridiculously large number.

If that is what it is.

So, the 5th century historian Herodotus, he talks about Xerxes' father, Darius.

Uh, and his empire being uh or consisting of 20 satrapies.

So, 127, that would be a crazy number.

Uh, to jump to for the reign of Xerxes.

So, is this passage referring to that, to satrapies?

Or is it something else entirely?

There's uh an Iranian history um expert, Morteza Sarbanani.

He he had a great article in ASOR last year, I think it was 2023.

And he examines this and some other questions uh about Esther and the historicity.

Of Esther, and he says this isn't referring to satrapies at all.

Um, this division is actually a smaller provincial number.

So right from the outset, the number 127, that's a pretty strange number to make up.

Uh, so what is this referring to?

Well, if you look at I think it's Esther 3:12, it lists some of the rulers.

The rulers uh of provinces and the satraps.

So we see a distinction here between provinces, Medinot, and satraps.

And if you look back at Esther 1:1, it uses the word Medinot.

So, provinces.

So this is a smaller uh provincial delineation.

So about 127 provinces.

Uh, which would have fit into a much smaller numerical amount of satrapies.

And the French historian Gerard Gato, he um.

He sees this as a reasonable sum because based on the average uh division of satraps.

Uh, or satrapies, you would expect about four provinces per satrapy.

And he expects during the reign of Xerxes, there would have been an increase from 20 during the time of Darius to about 30.

Times four brings you to about 120, which fits pretty nicely with the 127 number.

That we see attributed to Xerxes in Esther 1:1.

So then another area that you highlight is time elements within the Book of Esther.

So from Esther chapter 1, that's when Vashti is banished to Esther chapter 2, when Hadassah or our Esther enters the picture.

There's a gap of about three to four years.

What can you explain historically about that gap?

Okay, so this is really interesting as well.

We have uh two major time stamps in the Book of Esther for when Xerxes is on the scene or Ahasuerus.

Uh, we have one time stamp at year three in his reign.

And this is this big feast that he's putting on, like you mentioned in the first chapter.

And we have a time stamp where he comes back on the scene in uh his seventh year.

And there's no literary reason given for these time stamps.

Like this would be another thing to just uh.

That that would be strange to just sort of make up.

So what is the meaning of it?

Well, if you look into the reign of Xerxes, uh, Sarbanani brings this out as well.

We have a document from from the palace in Susa or Shushan that affirms that Xerxes was there in his third year.

And also we know historically that this is just following the uh the quelling of a major uprising in Egypt.

And so this celebration, this big feast festival in the first chapter of Esther, this could very well be a celebration of that victory.

That Xerxes had.

And this is further um evinced by the list of guests for this party that he's holding.

So right at the top of the list, you have military officials being described.

So this could very well uh be what is going on.

This fits very well with what we see in the the historical picture of Xerxes.

But then what about this seventh year?

Like we've got this three to four year span where we don't have anything from Xerxes.

We have more storyline, but Xerxes isn't on the scene.

Well, this fits really well with the Second Persian Invasion of Greece.

So it is during this time period that Xerxes is actually rallying his troops and then taking them personally on this campaign.

Uh, against the Greek forces.

And so in this campaign, you have a lot of these these famous battles.

Uh, Thermopylae of Spartan fame, battles of Salamis and Plataea.

Uh, and so you have Xerxes away on this campaign at that time.

And he actually returns in his seventh year, in the seventh month of his seventh year.

And this gets even more specific and interesting when you read about his return.

Uh, in in the Book of Esther, it it picks up again not only from his seventh year, but from the tenth month of the seventh year.

Which would correspond in the calendar to about uh December, January, wintertime.

Of his seventh year.

So, this fits with him leaving in the seventh month of the seventh year.

Coming back to his winter palace, which is what Susa was.

And the story picking up again from that tenth month of the seventh year.

It's really incredible to lay out the the the details like that.

And Dr. William Shay has some great information about that and some of the timing.

Uh, which I reference in in my article.

I think one of the really surprising parts about the Book of Esther is the king is monogamous.

Right, which is kind of not exactly a hallmark of the ancient world.

Where you have these kings who are monogamous, married to one woman.

But, I mean, this is something that's also historically accurate, correct?

Right, this is very specific to Xerxes.

Like you say, it's not something you expect in the round.

In the ancient world.

Or even in Persia.

Uh, Xerxes' father, Darius, was polygamous.

His son, Artaxerxes I, was polygamous.

But Xerxes.

Uh, he's long been described and and noted for his monogamy.

Which is amazing.

When you when you pair that up with the uh Esther account.

You see that monogamy reflected.

You see the emphasis on Vashti as the sole queen.

And then once she's gone, you have that interim period and then Esther comes along.

And the account describes Esther as taking the place of Vashti.

Not joining this whole harem of multiple queens, but like taking the place of this sole queen of Xerxes.

So this fits specifically well with Xerxes himself.

As opposed to anyone on either side of him.

So then what does if we know about Vashti, what does the historical text say about Xerxes' wife?

Like surely there's record of Xerxes being married in the history.

If we know he was monogamous, what does the text say about her?

So, this is the big problem.

So to speak, the big problem for why Esther, the Book of Esther comes under a significant amount of fire.

And why it is so often described as fictional.

It's because we know the name of Xerxes' sole wife.

And it doesn't appear to be Vashti, it doesn't appear to be Esther.

His the name of his wife is Amestris.

So, this has led to various speculations about how to reconcile Amestris with the biblical text.

Perhaps Amestris is one of one and the same as Vashti.

Some have made that case.

Perhaps Amestris was someone on the other side of Esther herself.

So, there are a number of different problems with some of these different theories.

Uh, one one case of this is that Amestris wields power uh through to the end of Xerxes' reign.

And on into the reign of their son, Artaxerxes I.

So it doesn't really make sense for her to be uh Vashti.

So, the the the best conclusion.

And there's some I think really interesting evidence to support this.

Is that Amestris is none other than Esther herself.

And there are a number of scholars that have reached this conclusion or suggested this conclusion.

Such as Gerard Gato, you've got Dr. Robert Gordis, Professor Robert Hubbard Jr.

Dr. Mitchell First.

You you do have a a contingent of scholars who have made this case.

Uh, and there's some really um uh.

Interesting reasons for why that would be the case.

So, the most convincing connection is actually the name.

So we have Amestris on the one hand and we have Esther on the other.

So right from the get-go, you can strike the ending from Amestris.

The is ending.

Amestris is the Greek form of her name and that's a pretty typical Greek suffix.

So we basically have Amester and Esther.

So you have that core element in there already.

E S T R, E S T R element.

And in the ancient world, it's it's not unusual to have a form of apocopation in the name.

Like dropping the start or the the ending.

Um, there are various examples of that.

One case would be with the name Alexander.

Uh, various forms of his name used elsewhere in the ancient world.

There's is something akin to Sander.

Uh, even the name of Xerxes himself.

Like you have sort of a form of that going on with Ahasuerus.

Ahashverosh and the Xerxes.

That that kind of dropping of elements at the start.

Uh there.

So, that has been suggested that a longer form of the name Esther might have been Amester.

Uh, but you already have that really similar uh element in there.

Amester and Esther.

Um, there are some difficulties that have been raised with that equivocation of Amestris as Esther.

So, one of them is Herodotus seems to give the name of Amestris' father.

As the military commander Otanis.

Whereas in the biblical account, we have the name of Esther's father as Abihail.

So Dr. Mitchell First, he provides an interesting solution to this.

Uh, the name Abihail in Hebrew literally means my father is a soldier.

So this would be like some kind of literalist interpretation of his job.

Uh paralleling that of Otanis, the military commander.

I prefer the explanation given by Professor Robert Hubbard Jr.

He it he has a really interesting article.

It's cited in in my piece.

And he goes through statements in Herodotus, who is our source for the father of Amestris supposedly.

And he actually believes that the passage in question in Herodotus is not referring to the father of Amestris at all.

Um, he he argues that the grammar of the sentence doesn't mandate that.

And actually it's quite the opposite.

Um, and this leads to another issue that Hubbard also resolves.

Which is.

Um, the belief that Amestris was the wife of Xerxes in about 480 BC.

In Susa during his campaign.

And so this would be just prior to his interactions in the biblical account with Esther.

Which would have taken place in the year following.

So this is the reason why some others have tried to explain that this was maybe a queen between Vashti and Esther.

Or that this was Vashti in some kind of continuing minor role as queen.

Both of which don't really make sense given the prominence of Amestris continuing in the reign of Xerxes and on into the reign of their son, Artaxerxes.

So, Hubbard goes back through these references and argues also that that um.

It can't be concluded from Herodotus that Amestris was the wife of Xerxes during that campaign.

That uh we need to go back through the the Greek passages in question in Herodotus.

And when you do that, it leaves open the chronological possibility.

He calls it uh that Amestris is chronologically a contender for being Esther herself.

So I think in the round, there are there are some difficulties.

But overall, the fit between Amestris and Esther seems to me to be as as good as we can expect from the evidence that we have.

So another one of the big personalities in the Book of Esther is Mordecai.

Do we have any historical evidence of Mordecai in Persia or anyone like that?

Yeah, Mordecai is another interesting figure.

Because we do have evidence for some people of that name in the administration of Xerxes.

Xerxes I.

In 1904, there was a tablet that was discovered with the name of an official of Xerxes I.

Called Maduka.

Which is the equivalent form of the name Mordecai.

And since then, more inscriptions have discovered have been discovered that point to up to four different individuals.

By the name of Maduka or Maduku.

So, it's anyone's guess as to which if any if any of these are our Mordecai.

Uh, the Mordecai of the Book of Esther.

Uh, but it does point to the name at at very minimum, it points to the name being used in the administrative uh classes of Xerxes' government.

Well, this is just such a research dense article.

I really hope the listeners will after this go back and read the article.

Because there's so much information in there.

Which means you put a lot of effort into it.

So, I thank you very much for your article and for this interview.

Thank you very much, Nick.

It's a pleasure.