Chapter One
First addition to the book: Mordecai’s dream and the revelation of a plot against the king. 1–9. Ahasuerus’s feast. 10–22. The refusal of Queen Vashti to come to the assembly of guests at the king’s summons and her removal by the king.
“Esther 1. Est.1:0a. [In the second year of the reign of King Artaxerxes the Great, on the first day of the month of Nisan, Mordecai, son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, had a dream,” In the story of Mordecai’s dream, one must first note the following contradiction: the narrator says that the dream appeared to Mordecai “in the second year” (Esth 1:0a) of Artaxerxes, with Mordecai already mentioned as “serving at the royal court.” Yet, according to the Hebrew text of Esther, the girl was taken to the king only “in the seventh year of his reign” (Esth 2:16, cf. Esth 2:19), when Mordecai was brought to the court and could render the known service to the king by revealing a conspiracy plotted against him. One can resolve the perplexity caused by this contradiction by either admitting an error in the indication of the year of Artaxerxes’s reign, or allowing for different circumstances under which Mordecai could learn of and report to the king the conspiracy against him, or, finally, by assuming a greater interval of time between the dream and the conspiracy. The story of the conspiracy appears in four different forms according to various manuscripts (Hebrew text, two Greek texts, and that of Josephus). According to the Hebrew text (Esth 2:21-23), the conspiracy serves as the reason for Mordecai’s advancement to court, whereas according to the basic Greek text (the first addition), Mordecai was already at court and he himself, not through the queen, informs the king of the conspiracy. Josephus generally follows this Greek text, but supplements it with the information that Mordecai does not learn of the conspiracy himself but through a certain Barnabas, a Jewish slave of one of the conspirators. Other Greek variants also allow for a repetition of the conspiracy, placing the first in the second year of Artaxerxes and the second in the seventh year, and thus trying to reconcile the disagreements and contradictions of the texts with the indicated different dates and representations of the conspiracy, or they adopt one version, eliminating the other.
“Esther 1. Est.1:0b. A Jew living in the city of Susa, a man of great importance, serving at the royal court.” “Mordecai” is a Persian name meaning “worshipper of Merodach.” According to Ezra 2:2 and Neh 7:7, Mordecai is mentioned as one of those who came from captivity with Zerubbabel after the captivity under Nebuchadnezzar. In the addition, Mordecai is also called a “man of great importance” (ἄνθροπος μέγας), that is, great in power and significance for the Jews (cf. Esth 10:3), and in Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, Book 11, Chapter 6, 2), he is designated as one of the foremost among the Jews. In the Hebrew text, the name of Mordecai first appears with Esth 2:5-6.
“Esther 1. Est.1:0c. He was among the captives whom Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, took captive from Jerusalem with Jeconiah, king of Judah.” “Esther 1. Est.1:0d. And his dream was as follows: behold, a terrible noise, a roaring and an earthquake and tumult upon the earth;” “Esther 1. Est.1:0e. and behold, two great dragons came forth, ready to fight one another;” “Esther 1. Est.1:0f. and great was their cry, and at their cry all nations prepared for war, that they might overthrow the nation of the righteous;” “The nation of the righteous”—the righteous nation, that is, the Jews.
“Esther 1. Est.1:0g. and behold—a day of darkness and gloom, sorrow and distress, suffering and great confusion upon the earth;” “Esther 1. Est.1:0h. and the entire righteous nation was troubled, fearing evils for themselves, and prepared themselves to perish” “Esther 1. Est.1:0i. and they began to cry out to the Lord;” “Esther 1. Est.1:0j. and from their cry, as it were from a small spring, a great river came forth with a multitude of water;” “Esther 1. Est.1:0k. and light shone forth and the sun rose, and the humble were lifted up and the proud were destroyed.—” The detailed explanation of Mordecai’s dream is given in a special seventh addition to the book (after Esth 10:3), to which we refer the reader.
“Esther 1. Est.1:0l. Mordecai, upon awakening from this vision, which represented what God wished to accomplish, kept this dream in his heart and wished to understand it in all its parts, until night, that is, until the next night, the whole day.” “Esther 1. Est.1:0m. And Mordecai remained in the palace together with Gabatha and Tharra, two of the king’s eunuchs, who guarded the palace,” “Esther 1. Est.1:0n. and he heard their conversation and learned their intentions and discovered that they were preparing to lay hands upon King Artaxerxes, and he reported them to the king;” “Esther 1. Est.1:0o. and the king questioned these two eunuchs, and when they confessed, they were put to death.” “Esther 1. Est.1:0p. The king recorded this event in his memory, and Mordecai wrote down an account of this event.” “Esther 1. Est.1:0q. And the king commanded Mordecai to serve in the palace and gave him gifts for this.” “Esther 1. Est.1:0r. But at that time Haman, son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, was great with the king, and he sought to harm Mordecai and his people because of the two eunuchs of the king.]” “Haman”—according to Esth 3:1 of the main text—the Agagite—הָאֲגָגִי. The Greek texts, unlike the Hebrew, call him sometimes a Macedonian, sometimes a Bugaean (Βουγαῖος). The latter, however, is neither the name of a people, nor of a place, and still less a personal name. It is rather a nickname (Βουγαῖος) with the meaning “a great braggart.” As for the designation of Haman as “the Agagite,” it was long thought on this basis that Haman was an Amalekite, because one of the kings of the Amalekites was called Agag. And since already in antiquity the names of Esau and Amalek were taken as designations of the pagans of Europe, the LXX translated the Hebrew “Agagi” as Μακεδῶν, a Macedonian. However, the name of Haman, like the name of his father, has Mede-Persian origin. And we know now from the Carzabad inscriptions that the land of Agag indeed constituted a part of Media—a new circumstance showing the historical significance of the Book of Esther even in the smallest details. From this it is evident that the objection made against Есф.16.10—according to the Vulgate—and derived from the fact that in this place Haman is named “in spirit and race a Macedonian” (animo et gente macedo), has no weight. This passage is not contradicted by (as has been claimed) Esth 3:1. The word “Macedonian” in Chapter 16 arises from the fact that the Greek translators, after which the Latin translation of Chapter 16 was made, wrongly translated here, as also in Esth 9:24, the word “Agagite” as “Macedonian” (Vigouroux, Guide to Reading and Study of the Bible, Book of Esther). The names of the eunuch conspirators are not the same in different recensions. In the accepted Greek text they are named “Gabatha and Tharra” (Γαβαθά and Θάρρα); in Josephus Flavius—Βαγαθῶος and Θεόδεστος; in other variations Ἄστβγος (Ἀστυάγης) and Θεδευτός. The Vulgate has Bagatha instead of Γαβαθά.
Esther 1:1. And it came to pass in the days of Artaxerxes,—this Artaxerxes reigned over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces from India even to Ethiopia,— The king’s name, according to the Hebrew text—אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, according to one of the Greek variations Ἀρταξέρξης—“Artaxerxes”; according to others—Ασυηρος (cf. Tob 14:15, Ezra 4:6, Dan 9:1); according to the Vulgate—Assuerus. It is debatable which king is actually meant here. In any case, it is most reliable that only either Artaxerxes Longimanus or Xerxes can be meant here. The designation of this Artaxerxes as “great” in Addition 1 (τοῦ μεγάλου—Esth 1:0a) should be understood as the usual designation of Persian kings, and not as a particular distinction of Artaxerxes. Recent research has led to the idea that this “Artaxerxes” is none other than Ahasuerus (Xerxes I, 485–465 BC, son of Darius I, son of Hystaspes). “One of the very first results of reading Persian inscriptions,” says one of the researchers (Oppert), “was the identification of Ahasuerus (Assuerus) with Xerxes. Already Grotefend more than fifty years ago expressed this opinion, and the progress of science left not even a shadow of doubt about the truth of it.” And the biblical image of “Artaxerxes” is supremely consistent with “Ahasuerus” of history and the circumstances of his reign. Thus, all that is said about the extent of the Persian empire (Esth 1:1), about the customs of the court, about the capricious, lustful, cruel, vengeful, and whimsical nature of Ahasuerus—all of this is most applicable to Xerxes as described by Herodotus. The one hundred twenty-seven provinces from India to Ethiopia over which Artaxerxes reigned should not be confused with the twenty satrapies established by Darius, son of Hystaspes, in his realm. The basis of the former lay in geographical and ethnographic peculiarities for their division, whereas the satrapies were more general administrative units for facilitating the collection of tribute.
Esther 1:2. at the time when King Artaxerxes sat upon his royal throne, which was in Susa, the capital city, The action takes place “in Susa, the capital city,” where the king usually spent several months of the year.
Esther 1:3. in the third year of his reign he made a feast for all his princes and his servants, for the chief captains of the army of the Persians and Medes and the governors of the provinces, “In the third year of his reign”—approximately around 482 BC.
Esther 1:4. showing the great wealth of his kingdom and the splendid glory of his majesty for many days, one hundred eighty days. The duration of the feast—without any exaggeration—is indicated as one hundred eighty days. This was, more precisely, a whole series of feasts, opened for new and new guests of the king, who came at his summons from the most distant regions of the vast kingdom. Herodotus provides a remarkable confirmation of this, relating that, preparing for his campaign to Greece after the conquest of Egypt, Xerxes invited to his court all the dignitaries of his kingdom for deliberation with them about this war, and spent four years preparing for it.
Esther 1:5. After the completion of these days, the king made a feast for the people who were in the capital city of Susa, from the greatest to the least, a feast of seven days in the courtyard of the garden of the king’s palace. Esther 1:6. White, fine linen and blue fabrics were hung on silver rings and marble pillars. Esther 1:7. Gold and silver couches stood upon a pavement of green stones and marble and pearls and black stone. Esther 1:8. Drinks were served in golden vessels and vessels of various kinds, valued at thirty thousand talents; and there was much royal wine according to the wealth of the king. The drinking was done properly, no one was forced, for the king gave such an order to all the stewards of his household, to do according to the will of each. All that is related about the magnificence of the Persian kings, about the great wealth of their kingdom and the beauty of palace decorations is sufficiently confirmed by the results of excavations conducted at the site of Susa in 1884–1886.
Esther 1:9. And Queen Vashti also made a feast for the women in the royal house of King Artaxerxes. The queen’s name, according to Hebrew: וַשְׁתִּּי, according to the LXX: Αστιν, according to the Vulgate: Vasthi, in the ancient Persian language: Vahista—excellent. The queen was ordinarily able to dine with the king, but she could not be present at public feasts according to Persian conceptions of female honor.
Esther 1:10. On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he said to Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha and Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas—seven eunuchs who served before King Artaxerxes, Esther 1:11. to bring Queen Vashti before the king in her royal crown, so that he might show to the peoples and the princes her beauty; for she was very beautiful. Esther 1:12. But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s command, announced through the eunuchs. The whimsical thought of the king—“to show to the peoples and princes the beauty” of Queen Vashti makes his refusal all the more sympathetic, for it was in the very height of the feast and the sensuality of the king and his guests: “on the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine.”
Esther 1:13. And the king was greatly angry, and his wrath burned within him. And the king said to the wise men who knew former times,—for the king’s matters were done before all who knew law and justice,— “And the king asked the wise men, who know the times—for the king’s matters were done before all who knew law and justice,” that is, the king consulted with the wise men (natural philosophers or mages) present with him about this matter, for such was his custom—to render judgments and sentences openly, before the eyes of all who knew and respected the laws and justice.
Esther 1:14. and those who were near him were: Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, Memucan—seven princes of the Persians and the Medes, who had access to the king’s presence and sat first in the kingdom: “Had access to the king’s presence,” that is, had access to him in the performance of his royal duties. The number of these privileged persons was very limited (Esth 1:10); the king’s own consort, the queen, did not even belong to them, as we see later with Esther (Esth 4:11 and further).
Esther 1:15. how to deal according to law with Queen Vashti, because she had not done the word of King Artaxerxes, announced through the eunuchs? Esther 1:16. And Memucan said before the king and the princes: Queen Vashti has done wrong not only against the king, but against all the princes and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Artaxerxes; Esther 1:17. for the deed of the queen will come to all the women, and they will despise their husbands and say: King Artaxerxes commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, and she did not go. Esther 1:18. Now the princesses of Persia and Media, who have heard of the deed of the queen, will say the same thing to all the princes of the king; and there will be much contempt and wrath. In the judgment of the king’s courtiers on the matter of Vashti, any indication of circumstances mitigating her guilt is entirely absent; it is evident that the slavishness of the courtiers placed above all—acting in accordance with the mood of the king and to appease this mood; moreover, the courtiers even heightened the colors, exaggerated the matter, and unnecessarily generalized it, expressing the fear that “the princesses of Persia and Media” and all Persian women in general “will despise their husbands,” ruling out any possibility of cases where such despising might be a matter of a woman’s life and honor, and thus delivering women into complete slavish submission to all the caprices of a man.
Esther 1:19. If it please the king, let a royal edict go forth from him and be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes so that it is not altered, that Vashti shall not come before King Artaxerxes, and the king will give her royal position to another who is better than she. “Let a royal edict go forth from him and be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes and not be altered.” A very literal similar expression is found in the Book of Daniel—Dan 6:8, confirming the close connection of the authors of both books with Persian life and their exact knowledge of Persian legislative formulas and customs.
Esther 1:22. And he sent letters to all the provinces of the king, written in the script of each province and in the language of each people, “Letters,” that is, decrees. that every man might be master in his own house and speak in the language of his own people. A more exact translation: “that every man might be master in his own house and the speech of his people,” that is, in case of marriage unions between persons of different nationalities—the speech and life customs of the husband should be dominant in the household. This is something like how nowadays the law establishes that in mixed marriages the religion of the country should be taken as a guide in the education of the children.