Masking Revenge as Self-Defense: Domesticating the Book of Esther

Editor’s note: For discussion of whether the term יהודי in the Megillah should be translated Jew or Judean, see Ophir Yarden, “Jewish Not Judean: The Diaspora in the Book of Esther,” TheTorah (2022).

The meaning of Ahasuerus’ gesture with his scepter, which feels artificial in this scene, is likely repeated based on its appearance in 5:2, where it serves as a pardon for appearing before the king uninvited.

The comment is found in his first commentary on the Megillah (ad loc.). Ibn Ezra wrote a second commentary as well, in which he makes the same point.

English is from Simon Bellman and Anathea Portier-Young, “The Old Latin Book of Esther: An English Translation,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 28.4 (2019): 267–289. Similarly, in the Old Greek translation:

^{Esther OG 8:8} You also write in my name as it pleases you, and seal it with my ring, for whatever is written as the king commands and sealed with my ring cannot be countermanded (οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῖς ἀντειπεῖν).

In the Greek Alpha-Text version, the same phrase is used earlier in the story, when the king gives the seal to Haman to make the first decree, and tells him:

^{Esther AT 3:10} “Write to all the lands, and seal [the letter] with the king’s ring. For there is none who will reject the king’s seal.”

In this case, there is no earlier decree to return, making the point clear. The same meaning is possible regarding לא יעבור, which is said with reference to the proposal to write into law that Vashti’s queenship should be given to another (1:19). Exegetes commonly interpret this as meaning that Persian law cannot be revoked, but, as Adele Berlin forcefully argues, it may well mean simply that the written laws cannot be transgressed. Adele Berlin, Esther, The New JPS Commentary (Philadelphia: JPS, 2001), 18.

The text describes what happens on that day as following the king’s edict:

^{אסתר ט:א} וּבִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ הוּא חֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר בִּשְׁלוֹשָׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם בּוֹ אֲשֶׁר הִגִּיעַ דְּבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ וְדָתוֹ לְהֵעָשׂוֹת בַּיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר שִׂבְּרוּ אֹיְבֵי הַיְּהוּדִים לִשְׁלוֹט בָּהֶם וְנַהֲפוֹךְ הוּא אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁלְטוּ הַיְּהוּדִים הֵמָּה בְּשֹׂנְאֵיהֶם.

^{Esth 9:1} And so, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month—that is, the month of Adar—when the king’s command and decree were to be executed, the very day on which the enemies of the Jews had expected to get them in their power, the opposite happened, and the Jews got their enemies in their power.

This refers exclusively to one regal command – the one presented in the edict of Mordechai.

In the view of several scholars, the Greek Alpha-text preserves a pre-Masoretic version of the Esther story. See, David J. A. Clines, The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story, JSOTSup 30 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 71–92; Michael V. Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1991), 255–262; Frederic W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, WBC 9 (Dallas: World Books, 1996), 281–292. Others consider AT to be a revision of the LXX. See Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, VTSupp 72 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 1.535–548; Kristin De Troyer, The End of the Alpha Text of Esther: Translation and Narrative Technique in MT 8:1—17, LXX 8:1—17, and AT 7:14—41 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000). See, also, Karen H. Jobes, The Alpha Text of Esther: Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).

Note also the formulation in addition E of the Old Greek version of Esther:

^{Esth OG E:17} You are well advised, therefore, not to act upon the letters sent by Haman son of Hammedatha since he who contrived these things has been hanged at the gates of Susa with all his family…

At the same time, v. 20 reads, “and support them so that on the same day (the thirteenth of the twelfth month Adar) in the hour of trial, they may defend themselves against those who attack them.” See Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions, AB 44 (New York: Doubleday, 1977), 233.

The supplementer probably found the idea that Persian kings cannot revoke their own laws in the story of Daniel in the lion’s den (Daniel 6), where it features prominently, and imported it into our story, newly applying it to edicts written in the king’s name and sealed with his signet ring. Note that when Ahasuerus gives Haman his signet ring at 3:10, he does not state that its use renders edicts irreversible. It seems clear that the purpose of the ring is merely to authorize the edicts. For instances of reading elements from Daniel into the book of Esther in Rabbinic literature see Koller, Esther, 191–198.

This is not the first time that biblical polemics employs the claim that “they forced us to fight.” It can be seen clearly in the entire passage of Judges 11:12–28. See the discussion in Susan Niditch, Judges, OTL (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 131–133.

Yehezkel Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel, Volume IV, From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy, C. W. Efroymson trans. (New York: KTAV, 1977), 522–523. For Jewish exegesis on this matter in the medieval period see Barry Dov Walfish, Esther in Medieval Garb: Jewish Interpretation of the Book of Esther in the Middle Ages (Albany: SUNY Press, 1993), 127–135.

Clines, The Esther Scroll, 19; Edward L. Greenstein, “A Jewish Reading of Esther,” in Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine and Ernest S. Frerichs eds., Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 236; Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther, 95, 220—226; Bush, Ruth, Esther, 445, 452—453; Jon D. Levenson, Esther, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1997), 109—110 (as a possibility); Adele Berlin, Esther, The New JPS Commentary (Philadelphia: JPS, 2001), 77. See also, much more extensively, Tricia Miller, Three Versions of Esther: Their Relationship to Anti-Semitic and Feminist Critique of the Story, CBET 74 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 41—73.

See Berlin, Esther, 77, who raises this question, and suggests that the real purpose of Mordechai’s edict is to serve as a deterrent against would-be attackers.

For a discussion of the possible meanings of מתיהדים see Berlin, Esther, 80–81.

Robert Gordis attempted to circumvent the ethical difficulties with 8:11 by taking “women and children” as the objects of “those attacking them.” The text thus refers to the Jewish women and children that the enemies of the Jews would try to destroy. See Robert Gordis, “Studies in the Esther Narrative,” JBL 95 (1976), 49—53. For a compelling rejection of this apologetic interpretation, see Michael V. Fox, The Redaction of the Books of Esther: On Reading Composite Texts (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 284.

The report of the actual killings emphasizes that the Jews refrained from taking the booty that Mordechai’s edict had mandated (9:10, 15–16). Yet the removable phrase, וּבַבִּזָּה לֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶת יָדָם “and they did not take the booty” may be a secondary, apologetic addition, facilitated by the ambiguity in the original text that does not explicitly specify that the spoils were taken. The problem is that the text itself gives no explanation as to why the Jews refrained from taking the spoils of their enemies when this was granted to them and within their rights. Considering that Haman is presented as an “Agagite,” and that Mordechai is a descendant of Kish, father of Saul (1 Sam 9:1), many have suggested that the renouncing of spoils reflects a subtle “correction” of the sin of Saul and the Israelites in the conflict with Agag, king of Amalek, when they wrongfully to the spoils (1 Samuel 15). See, for example, Levenson, Esther, 122; Marc Zvi Brettler, “Megillat Esther: Reversing the Legacy of King Saul,” TheTorah (2017); Aaron Koller, Esther in Ancient Jewish Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 86—89, with bibliography at note 32. This approach falters, however, on the fact that Mordechai specifically mandates the taking of the spoils. If Mordechai is the new Saul, Haman the new Agag, and the anti-Semites the new Amalekites, then Mordechai fails to correct the sin of Saul. On the contrary, by allowing the taking of the spoils he risks its repetition! It is thus reasonable to assume that in an earlier version, the edict of Mordechai was implicitly carried out as specified. This may also be supported by the Alpha-text, which states, “In Susa the Judeans killed seven hundred men as well as Pharsan and his brother, and Pharna, and Gagaphardatha, and Marmasaima, and Izathouth, and the ten sons of Haman son of Hamadathos, the Bougean, the enemy of the Judeans, and they plundered all he owned” (8:44). Similarly, the Septuagint follows its report of the killings in Shushan with the comment, “and they plundered on the same day” (9:10–11). (See, however, Moore, The Additions, 242, who raises the possibility that the negation has fallen out of the Septuagint text.) We may also point out that Mordechai himself gains the spoils of his rival, Haman, as he acquires Haman’s presumably wealthy household (8:2).

According to Fredric W. Bush (Ruth, Esther, 453) the edict’s reference to נקמה “vengeance” must be interpreted within the context of the elements of self-defense highlighted in the text. The Jews, Bush asserts, are allowed to execute vengeance upon any group that attacks them.

Thus, Samson kills thousands of festive Philistines in a suicide attack inside their temple, in revenge for their having blinded him earlier (Judges 16). Earlier in the Megillah, it is vengeance against Mordechai for his refusal to bow to him that motivates Haman to annihilate the entire Jewish people, “the people of Mordechai” (2:6). Similarly, both Lamech (Gen 4:23–24) and Elisha (2 Kgs 2:23–24) slay children for relatively mild offenses. The abundant killing of anti-Semites, including their women and children, in retribution for their intention to annihilate the Jews fits well within this context, as it serves as an affirmation of fragile Jewish pride. The same may be said concerning the public hanging of Haman and his ten sons. For a fine treatment of related issues see T. S. Laniak, Shame and Honor in the Book of Esther, SBLDS 165 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). See also the wonderful comparison of the LXX version of Esther with Tarantino’s film “Inglourious Basterds” (sic.) in Adele Reinhartz, “LXX Esther: A Hellenistic Jewish Revenge Fantasy,” Eileen Shuller and Marie-Theres Wacker, eds., Early Jewish Writings (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 9—28. Reinhart’s analysis is most pertinent for an understanding of the MT as well.

The Alpha-text gives no hint that the killings were anything other than punitive. Thus, 8:18–20 reads, “Moreover, Esther said to the king, ‘Grant me permission to punish my enemies with slaughter… And the king said, So be it. And she smote the enemies in great numbers.” In complete accord with this, the killings are not dated. There is thus no reason to assume that they took place on the day of Haman’s edict. Presumably, Esther’s enemies and the enemies of the Jews are one and the same. Interestingly, Esth AT 8:46 reads, “And Esther said, ‘Let permission be given to the Jews to slay and plunder whomever they wish.’ And he agreed. And they slew 70,100 men.” This formulation fails to present those killed as “enemies” and instead presents them as “whomever” the Jews wished to slay!

See slightly differently, Amos Hakham, “Esther,” in חמש מגילות, דעת מקרא, 52—53. Hakham suggests that the phrase הַצָּרִים אֹתָם refers to the thwarted intention of the enemies to harm the Jews. Support for this interpretation may be found in 8:7, which refers to Haman as having “sent forth his hand against the Jews” even though he never actually harmed anyone. His intention to do harm is equated with the actual deed.

Editor’s note: For discussion of the theme of antisemitism in the Megillah, see Marty Lockshin, “Haman’s Antisemitism: What Did He Not Like About the Jews?” TheTorah (2017).

For a recent full scale moral evaluation of the book of Esther see Charles D. Harvey, Finding Morality in the Diaspora? Moral Ambiguity and Transformed Morality in the Book of Esther, BZAW 328 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003). Editor’s note: See also Meylekh Viswanath, “The Megillat Esther Massacre,” TheTorah (2016).

Lewis Bayles Paton, The Book of Esther, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908, reprint 1992), 96.

For a detailed discussion of scholarly antisemitism regarding the book of Esther see Eliot Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 23—45.