Was Queen Esther a real historical personage? Would she have been around at the same time as Alexander the Great, who is mentioned as the "Greek upstart"? I thought that the Babylonian captivity of the Jews was earlier? And the Persian king facing Alexander was Darius, not Ahasuerus?
shareEsther is not mentioned anywhere outside the Bible. And seeing as she was a queen, who should have been famous if she had existed, we have to question if she is a historical person. The king of Persia to whom she got married is named Ahasverus or Xerxes, depending on which version of the Bible you read.
But if she wasn't a historical person, then where does this story come from? So many other stories in the Bible have been proven to have a core of truth in them, so why not this one? That's what I like to know. But maybe it's just a symbolical story, just like many scholars now believe that the story about Judith, another beautiful Jewish woman, who managed to save her people from an enemy, is symbolical rather than historical?
Some people think that the story of Esther is supposed to take place during the Babylonian captivity (6th century BC). But it can also take place a bit later, at a time when most of the Jews had returned to Israel, but some had chosen to stay in Persia even after the captivity had ended. Esther would then have belonged to the group of Jews, who had chosen to stay in Persia rather than returning to Israel. And in that case, it can make sense that this movie put the story about Esther during the time of Alexander the Great (4th century BC).
Yes, it's true! IMDB has reached Sweden!
Hi again! I have just found a theory about where this story comes from, if it's not historical, and I thought you wanted to hear about it.
It seems like neither "Esther" nor "Mordokai" were traditional Jewish names before this story became famous. Some would say that they're distorted forms of "Ishtar" and "Marduk", the names of two ancient Babylonian gods. And according to one theory, not only the evil Haman, but also the unfit queen Vasti, represent the cruel winter, which is at last defeated by the lovely spring, represented by the heroes Esther (Ishtar) and Mordokai (Marduk). Which would make this story nothing but a distorted form of an ancient Babylonian myth about the change of seasons.
Even purim, the name of the Jewish holiday, which is celebrated in memory of Esther's and Mordokai's victory over Haman, would point to the same direction. Because while the Jews traditionally say that the name of the holiday comes from the Hebrew word for "lots", as Haman cast lots to choose which day he would have all the Jews killed, scholars have found that it might rather come from puhru, the name of an old pagan festival held at the spring equinox. The modern Jewish holiday Purim is also a spring festival, just like the Passover, which scholars today also belueve has its origins in an old pagan spring equinox festival. But it seems like the Jews had already given the old pagan festivals a "cleaner" meaning two thousand years ago.
But still, it is hardly like the ancient writer, who put this story down into writing, just sat down one day and deliberatrly started distorting the old Babylonian myth all by himself. Because it seems more likely that the old myth already had been watered down and turned into a Babylonian/Persian folk tale, which was about mortal people, even if they were kings, queens and other powerful people, rather than gods. And later on, the Jewish oral tradition would add its own flavor to the story, as it had not only turned its heroes into Jews, but they also had it connected to how the Jews feared the people around them and longed for independence from them. So we have to thank the Jews that this story still is known to us today, because nobody else seems to have bothered to write it down.
Yes, it's true! IMDB has reached Sweden!
[deleted]
But that would only make that theory even more plausible, as it would mean that the book of Esther still wasn't seen as just as holy as other books at the time. I believe it's also one of the only books in the Old Testament, except for "the song of songs"/"The song of Salomon", where God isn't mentioned.
Intelligence and purity.
[deleted]
You are so right about us not knowing for sure. But it's not impossible that some people back then still would have seen "Esther" as a historical novel rather than a holy scripture. There are no references to the book of Esther or the festival of Purim in the New Testamentet either.
Intelligence and purity.
[deleted]
What reasons?
Intelligence and purity.
[deleted]
It's my fault, as I took way too long time to post my reply. But yes, the book of Esther is interesting, because not only does it have a female main character, but she's also a female hero, which never was that common in the ancient stories.
But is that the reason why it's not mentioned in the New Testament? I can't really answer that. There are many other books, which never became mentioned or quoted either, so maybe it doesn't mean anything. What's most interesting is how the festival of Purim isn't referred to. We hear about Pesach (the Passover), Shavout (the Pentacoste), Sukkot and Chanukka, but not Purim. Maybe people hadn't really started celebrating that festival yet.
Intelligence and purity.
I realize that it’s been nearly two years since this thread was started, and I apologize for not responding earlier.
The events recorded in the Biblical book know in the English-speaking world as “Esther” likely took place sometime between 485 BCE and 338 BCE.
Yehudim (“Jews”) first began to be deported to Mesopotamia around 605 BCE and continued to be deported through 586 BCE.
Mégas Aléxandros (III), Basileus of Makedonía (aka “Alexander the Great”) lived from 356 BCE to 323 BCE.
This timeframe is arrived at by looking at the possible identities of the husband of the titular heroine.
In the Hebrew text, he is called something like "Axchašhvwuerôušh," which indicates that he could possible be the first Pad’Shah’an’shah (“Emperor”) named “Xkhašhâyâr-šhâh” (or something to that effect – “Xerxes”) or one of the first three Pad’Shah’an’sha named Artaxkhšhasthra (or something to that effect – “Artaxerxes”).
None of these Pad’Shah’an’shah had anything to do with Aléxandros.
The titular heroine herself was originally called something like “Had-hach-ah,” which is the feminine form of the ‘Ibv’rit (Hebrew) name for the plant known to us in the English speaking world today as “myrtle.”
She later changed her name to something like “‘AEshe-tereh” to hide her ethnicity.
There seems to have been a somewhat similar term for the myrtle plant in use in Iran at the time, and she was living in Iran.
Then again, the name also seems to be somewhat similar to the Parsi (Persian) word for “star.”
There is also the possibility that her new name has something to do with the goddess worshipped throughout the ancient Near & Middle East under many different (but extremely similar) names…
Names that start with “’A,” “A,” or “I;” followed by “s,” “sh,” “st,” “shr,” “sht,” “t,” “th,” “tr,” “tht;” followed by a vowel sound; followed by “d,” “r,” “t,” “rd,” or “rt;” some variations end there, but others go on to follow with another vowel sound; some variations end after this vowel sound, but others go on to add “h,” “m,” r,” “s,” “t,” “rd,” or “rt.”
She was raised by her relative named Mar-Douk-ay (or something to that effect – “Mordechai”); a name which is of Mesopotamian origin and has a less-clear meaning.
It literally means “Servant of Marduk” or Worshippper of Marduk.”
Marduk was one of the chief gods of Mesopotamia (if not the chief god), and the name could’ve been understood by Yehudim in exile to simply mean “Servant of God” or “Worshipper of God.”
Or, since Marduk was a war-god, the name could’ve been understood to mean “Warrior.”
The form of the name also seems to indicate that the person with the name was a man to be greatly admired & respected.
The name is also extremely similar to a term in the Parsi language which means “Little Boy” or “Little Man,” and it is quite likely that while Mar-Douk-ay was growing up in Šhou-šhan/ Šhou-šhun (one of the capital cities of the Parsi Empire), his family used that Parsi term as a nickname for him.
Others may have used that same term as a nickname for him later in life as well, although not in such an affectionate way.
“Esther” presents itself as a historical text, and I believe it to be a historical text – a reliable, accurate documentation of real events.
In addition, “Esther” is part of the cannon for all sects & denominations of Judaism & Christianity.
“Judith,” however, is a deuterocanonical book found only in the Bibles of some Christian sects & denominations.
I do not believe “Judith” to be anything more than a piece of Hashmonayim-era literature, and a work of fiction at that.
Now, if you want to talk about how this film fares in its depiction of ancient Iran on a purely visual level, I can talk about that, too.
Thank you for an interesting post. I will have to say though, that I'm not sure about how historical the book of Esther is. Of course it presents itself as a historical text, but you have to remember that most of the other books in the Old Testament (and also the New Testament) did that as well. There probably is some historical backdrop to it. After all, we have to remeber that the Jews were under Persian rule for several years and probably feared being prosecuted by them. But I wouldn't call the book of Esther a historical document. But back in those days, people weren't as concerned with facts as we are today, so history was more about spreading a message than spreading facts.
The big problem is that this whole story (the Jews of Persia were almost exterminated by an evil grandvizir, but fortunately, the queen (who happened to be Jewish herself) managed to save her people) can't be found in other texts outside the Bible. You would have expected something like that to be written down by Persian scribes, but it doesn't seem to be the case here. Scholars have actually discovered that many Biblical stories have some truth in them. Because two cities near the Dead Sea really were destroyed by a natural disaster, just like Sodom and Gomorra were in the book of Genesis. The walls of Jericho fell from the inside, just like it says in the book of Joshua. Even the very fantastical Exodus story seems to have some truth in it. And even if the Egyptians haven't written about that incident, that might just have been because they never wrote about their defeats! So maybe I'm a bit harsh towards the book of Esther. But I see it as an old story with historical elements rather than a historical document. And when I read about the theory about the story being a distorted version of an old Babylonian myth, it felt more plausible than what you might believe at first glance...
And the so called deuterocanonical books are just as important as the "real" Old testament to the Catholic church and the Ortodox churches. Because these books were a part of Septuaginta, which was the most famous and wide-spread translation of the Hebrew Bible to Greek in ancient times, so the first Christians considered them legitimate, even if the Jews themselves had decided not to see them as a part of their Bible anymore. But for some reason, the Protestant churches never valued these books as much, and in many traditionally Protestant countries, like here in Sweden, they weren't even included in most bibles (with my grandmother's family bible from the 1950s being an exception). But they're included in our newest translation of the Bible, "Bibel 2000", as a natural bridge between the Old Testament and the New Testament, just as they should be.
Well, I won’t get into discussions of hermeneutics or apologetics concerning the canon, Biblical inerrancy/literalism, criticism (higher or textual), etc., etc…
I will just say that I am thoroughly convinced that those books in the so-called “Protestant Canon” that present themselves as historical narratives are accurate, reliable, and completely true account of real events that actually happened just exactly the way that these books say that they did.
However, the various & sundry apocryphal or so-called “deuterocanonical” books that appear in the canons of various & sundry Catholic & Orthodox groups are works of fiction, although a few (such as the books of the Maccabees) have some basis in actual events. However, none of them come anywhere near being on the level of the books of the so-called “Protestant Canon.”
That’s the conclusion that I’ve come to, at least, and I realize that you’ve come to a quite different conclusion.
I’m far from the only person that holds my views, and you’re far from the only person that holds your views.
There are those who hold similar views to mine, are extremely knowledgeable about ancient history, and have no trouble whatsoever reconciling these views with what we know of ancient history from non-Biblical sources.
I don’t really care to enter into a debate or discussion on the matter, so I hope that I haven’t come across as combative.
I just wanted to be clear about our differences of opinion.
I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading what you have to say!
Thank you very much for your contributions!