Esther, Queen of The Jews The Status and Position of Esther in The

Esther, Queen of the Jews
CB
Coniectanea Biblica
Old Testament Series
59
ISSN 0069-8954
Editors:
Fredrik Lindström and Göran Eidevall
Esther, Queen of the Jews
The Status and Position of Esther
in the Old Testament
Tal Davidovich
Winona Lake, Indiana

Eisenbrauns
2013
Copyright © 2013 by Eisenbrauns
Winona Lake, Indiana
All rights reserved.
www.eisenbrauns.com
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Davidovich, Tal, 1969–

Esther, Queen of the Jews : the status and position of Esther in the Old Testament /
Tal Davidovich.
pages cm. — (Coniectanea biblica. Old Testament series,
ISSN 0069-8954 ; 59)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-57506-818-3 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Esther, Queen of Persia. 2. Bible. Esther—Criticism, interpretation, etc.
I. Title.
BS580.E8D295 2013
222′.906—dc23
2013012682
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American
National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.♾™
To my bright and beautiful queens,
Danielle and Katalin
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank those who helped me to bring this study to completion.
First, I would like to thank Professor Stig Norin, who read through the text
and offered many clever ideas and remarks.
I would also like to thank Professor Bo Isaksson and Dr. Torkel Lindquist
for reading some parts of the study and for their useful comments. Dr. Mehrdad
Fallahzade and Dr. Darius Kargar deserve thanks for their advice concerning the
Achaemenid Empire.
I am also indebted to the Linders, Sven stipendium, to Carlo Lamberg

Stiftelse and to the Swedish Research Council for financially supporting parts of
this study and the Department of Linguistics and Philology at Uppsala Universi-
ty for providing me with facilities.
And last but definitely not least, I would like to thank Dr. Adam Goldwyn
for his proofreading of the text.
Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................13
1.1 Background.............................................................................................13
1.2 Structure and Method .............................................................................16
1.3 Earlier Studies ........................................................................................19
1.4 Aim of investigation ...............................................................................23
1.5 The Achaemenid Dynasty and the Status of Royal Women: The Socio-
Historical Background ..................................................................................24
1.6 The Achaemenid Kings and Their Royal Women ..................................27
1.7 The different Versions of the Book of Esther .........................................35
1.8 Queen Esther in Proof of History ...........................................................37
2. “A Beautiful Orphan Queen,” or “To Be or Not To Be” ...............................38
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................38
2.2 The Story ................................................................................................38
2.3 Direct Characterizations/Descriptions of the Status of Esther as
Described in the OT Book of Esther .............................................................39
2.3.1 Her Name ..................................................................................39
2.3.2 Her Nickname and Other Direct Description ............................41
2.3.2.1 “Without father and mother” .............................................41
2.3.2.2 “Esther Bat Abihail”..........................................................41
2.3.2.3 “The young girl” ...............................................................42
2.3.2.4 ‫תַֹּאר‬-‫ יְפַת‬and ‫ טֹובַת מ ְַר ֶאה‬........................................................42
2.3.2.5 “Malkah” ...........................................................................43
2.4 Indirect Characterizations for the Status of Esther as Described in the OT
Book of Esther ..............................................................................................45
2.4.1 Her Actions ..............................................................................45
2.4.2 Her relations with Other Characters ..........................................48
2.4.2.1 Her relations with Mordecai ..............................................49
2.4.2.2. The Scenes with Haman ...................................................55
2.4.2.3 Esther and the Eunuch .......................................................61
2.4.2.4 Esther and Ahasuerus ........................................................63
2.4.3 The Description of the Other Women in the Text .....................67
2.4.3.1 Vashti ................................................................................68
2.4.3.2 Zeresh ................................................................................68
2.5 The Description of Her Life in the Palace as One of the Royal Women 71
2.5.1 The First Period.........................................................................71
2.5.2 The Second Period ....................................................................77
2.6 “In the Evening She Came” ....................................................................81
2.6.1 The Process ...............................................................................81
2.6.2 The Regulations ........................................................................83
2.7 Conclusions ............................................................................................85
3. Your Majesty.................................................................................................88
3.1 The Gathering of the Girls ......................................................................88
3.2 Approaching the King ............................................................................95
3.2.1 Approaching the King Outside His Throne Room ....................95
3.2.1.1. Abigail Approaching David .............................................95
3.2.1.2. Jezebel Approaching Ahab ...............................................98
3.2.2 Approaching the King: Esther Versus Bathsheba .....................99
3.3 The Ring ...............................................................................................108
3.4 Esther as a Possible Chief Concubine...................................................112
3.5 Summary...............................................................................................119
4. Head of the Diaspora ....................................................................................123
4.1 Before Concluding ................................................................................131
5. Conclusions ..................................................................................................133
Bibliography.....................................................................................................144
Index of Old Testament References .................................................................161
Abbreviations
AJA American Journal of Archeology

AnBib Analecta Biblica
AT The Greek Alpha-Text
BA Biblical Archeologist
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BDB Brown, F. (1979), The New Brown-Driver-
Bridges-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon
BES Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar
BibRe Biblical Research
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
CAD Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, ed. A.L. Ophenheim
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
G-K Kautzsch, E., ed. (1946), Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2ed.,
Oxford.
HAR Hebrew Annual Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
JAOS Journal of American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archeology
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JSOT Journal of the Study of the Old Testament
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
KB Koehler, L. and W. Baumgartner (2001), The Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Leiden-Boston-Köln.
LXX Septuagint
MT Masoretic Text
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
RevQ Revue de Qumrân
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
VT Vetus Testamentum
ZAW Zetschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
There are only two books in the OT named after a woman: the books of Ruth
and Esther. Both are named after their main character. Both are called Megila
(‘scroll’) and are located in the last part of the OT, the Ketuvim (‘Writings’).
These books are read only once a year on special occasions: the Book of Ruth
on the Jewish holiday of Shavuot and the Book of Esther on Purim. Both Ruth
1
and Esther occupy an important place in the history of Jewish thought. Ruth is
the foreign woman whose descendants established the house of David and Es-
ther is the only Jewish woman who became queen of a foreign empire, in which
capacity she saved the Jews from destruction.
Though Esther’s position as a queen in the Persian court is unquestioned in
Jewish thought, scholarly opinion is not similarly in agreement. Scholars have
pointed out that Esther, as a Jew, could not have become King Ahasuerus’ wife
according to a Persian law that allowed Persian kings to marry only women
2
from seven particular noble families. This law, reported by Herodotus (484-425
BCE), is itself the subject of scholarly dispute. Furthermore, according to these
scholars, this law is actually from a later period of the Persian Empire, after the
time in which Esther is set.
Scholars, do, however, agree on the “late” production of the Book of Esther,
though they differ concerning the approximate dating of its composition: earlier
opinions regarding its date included a wider range; later scholarship suggests a
range from as early as Xerxes I (486-465 BCE) and as late as the second century
CE. Bush, for instance, claims the Book of Esther was written after (perhaps
3
even generations after) the reign of Xerxes I. In dating it thus, he disagrees with
_______________
1
On the difference between the position of the Book of Esther in Jewish and Chris-
tian thought and for a review of previous research on the position of the book in Christi-
anity, see Greenstein 1987:225ff. For a different approach to the place of the book in
Christianity, see Beal 1997. See also Anderson 1950:32-43, Bardtke 1964, and Aus 1988.
2
This was also one of the main scholarly arguments in support of the lack of histo-
ricity in the Book of Esther. For a summary of these arguments, see Moore 1971:xlv; for
the opposite opinion, see Gordis 1981.
3
In his commentary from 1996.
14 Esther Queen of the Jews
4
Pfeiffer, who claims that it was written in the Common Era. Some scholars,
dating the book from linguistic evidence, propose a late date not only due to
Persian loan words but also to other linguistic aspects that suggest a post-exilic
5
date.
Nevertheless, in Jewish thought Esther was, is, and will always be regarded
as the queen of Persia, an idea based, perhaps, on the need for security and com-
fort for diaspora Jews, who passed this story on to their children through the
6
generations to give them hope even in their darkest hours. Esther’s status as a
Persian queen in Jewish thought is based on what is written in the different
versions of the Book of Esther and also on the Persian socio-historical back-
ground of the events described in the book.
As the status of the book in Judaism was the subject of debate, so too was
its place in Christianity. For many reasons, among them the fact that God is not
mentioned and, more importantly, that some understood it as including a massa-
cre of innocent people by the Jews, the book was the target of deeply negative
attitudes from early Christianity until the most recent decades, when its position
7
changed. This issue will not be discussed in the current study beyond this short
reference, though it is necessary to mention it due to its importance.
Two main issues impeded its acceptance in mainstream Christianity. The
first was the result of its place in the Christian Bible. While in the OT the book
was placed among the Megiloth rather than the historical books and gained its
power from its importance in Jewish liturgy, in the Christian Bible, by contrast,
8
it was placed next to Ezra and Nehemiah among the historical books. Further-
more, the Book of Esther was a source of great pride for Jews in the diaspora; as
such it was not so popular among different Christian authorities.
Attitudes in Christianity have varied from complete rejection to bare tolera-
tion. There were also those who simply ignored its existence. And, as Green-
stein describes it, “Many Christian theologians … would drop the book from the
9
scriptural canon.”
According to Bush, it was not until Rhabanus Maurus in the ninth century
10
that a commentary was devoted to the OT Book of Esther. The book had been
_______________
4
Pfeiffer 1941:741. For a discussion of the date of composition, see Bush 1996:296.
For a survey of this issue, see Paton 1908:60-63. Wright 1970:43 assumes the book was
written in 473BCE.
5
For one such study, see Bergey 1983:185.
6
One should note that the Book of Esther in its MT form is not found among the
Dead Sea Scrolls.
7
About the rejection of the book by the church fathers, see Anderson 1950:131 and
Bush 1996:276.
8
On the place of the Book of Esther in the Christian canon, see Bush 1996:277.
9
Greenstein 1987:225.
10
Bush 1996:277.
Introduction 15
officially recognized as part of the Christian canon in the middle of the first
millennium CE; it had, however, frequently been given a very negative evalua-
tion in the Christian world. Carruthers has shown that this attitude of non-Jews
11
towards the Book of Esther persists and can still be found in modern literature.
The Book of Esther, whether a legend or a historical account, contains sev-
eral elements that are common to the literary genre of folk tales, such as a young
12
orphan becoming a queen. It also contains descriptive passages that reveal the
narrator’s comprehensive knowledge of Persian society and the Persian court.
Nonetheless, the text of the Book of Esther neither reveals the nature of the
narrator’s knowledge nor the way he used this knowledge when writing the
book. Therefore, the assumption that the story of Esther has a historical origin
13
must remain only an assumption.
Both the approximate date of composition of the Book of Esther and the de-
scription of customs and manners in the story suggest that its author was well
14
acquainted with life in Persia under the Achaemenid dynasty (539-332 BCE).
Therefore, many scholars have come to the conclusion that Ahasuerus, the king
described in this book, is the Hebrew name for King Xerxes I of the Achaeme-
15 16
nid period. Others thought this is only one possible assumption. Still others
17
were of the opinion that the king is Artaxerxes II. A final group of scholars
claims that the whole story is only a legend with no connection with any histori-
18
cal king.
In this study, the possibility that Ahasuerus is based on one of the Achae-
menid kings will not be further investigated. Taking into consideration the nar-
rator’s comprehensive knowledge of the Persian Empire, it is most likely that he
based his story on different aspects of Persian history, and therefore the Book of
19
Esther can be seen at least as a historical legend. The identity of the king is not
essential for this investigation. Nevertheless, the rules and customs of the
_______________
11
See his book from 2008.
12
This issue was discussed and mentioned in several previous studies. On the differ-
ent opinions concerning the genre of the Book of Esther, see Fox 1991:291.
13
Most scholars agree on that, but see, for example, Horn 1964:14-15.
14
On the Achaemenid dynasty, see pp.26-38. See also surveys by Sykes 1921,
Olmstead 1966 and Briant 1996.
15
Thus Paton 1908:65 and 183, Wright 1970:37, and Moore 1975:70, and see other
assumptions concerning the identity of this king as Artaxerxes I and Artaxerxes II. See
further Wright 1970:40 for the claim that Vashti is Amestris.
16
Moore 1975:69 claims that, linguistically, the Hebrew name corresponds to the
name of Xerxes.
17
Thus Bickerman 1951:254, 260, Olmstead 1966:452, and Greenstein 1987:230.
18
Thus Moore 1975:79.
19
As proposed by Moore 1975:79.
Achaemenid court are of importance for this study because of the narrator’s
extensive knowledge of them and the wide use he makes of them in the story.
I do not argue for the book’s historicity. Nevertheless, since in Jewish
thought Esther is considered a queen in the palace of a mighty Persian king, she
20
will be analyzed from this perspective.
Although Esther is introduced later than the other main characters (such as
Ahasuerus and Mordecai) and although she is first introduced as part of the
21
description of Mordecai, Esther is the most important figure in the story.
22
Some scholars emphasize the use of irony in the Book of Esther and, in-
deed, there is no difficulty in finding such passages. One can further argue that
Esther’s actions in the OT are inconsistent with the laws of the Persian Empire.
No woman, not even the queen mother, who exercised the most rights and held
the highest status among all women in the palace and in the empire, could take
the law into her own hands. It was the king who decided the verdict and what
actions should be taken, not the queen or the queen mother. Royal women had
the right to plead with the king, but under no circumstances could they take
action without the king’s approval. The use of the book during the time of Purim
increases the carnivalesque aspects of the text. The writer, knowing the rules
and customs of the Achaemenid dynasty, may have thought it amusing to use a
Jewish orphan as the main wife of such a mighty king. In this reading, such a
detail, ignored by scholars, would be the most ironic detail of the whole story.
Though the version found in the OT is well known, for those readers who,
for some mysterious reason, have not heard this story before, it will be briefly
summarized at the beginning of part 2.
1.2 Structure and Method
This study includes the following elements: an introduction, an examination

of Esther’s character in the OT Book of Esther, an examination of Esther’s
character in comparison to other royal women in the OT, an examination of
Esther’s character in light of the Resh Galuta, and conclusions. The study will
_______________
20
Fox’s argument (1991:248) supports this approach: “The worldviews that authors
project into their stories need not be images of their own worlds, but it is fair to assume
that Esther’s world is meant in some way to reflect life. The recognition that the book’s
intrinsic genre is history implies that the author is making a statement about the world as
he knows it. The picture he gives of the world is not necessarily meant as a “true-to-life,”
naturalistic replica, but it is at least a schematic or typical representation of the world as
the author sees it or wishes it to be seen.”
21
On this issue, see also Fox 1991:196-205, and Bush 1996:319.
22
For example Greenstein 1987, Levenson 1997, and Berlin 2001.
Introduction 17
follow the evolution of Esther’s status and position inside and outside the royal
palace and her power in comparison to other similarly placed women. However,
some things have to be done first.
The first part of this study, the introduction, will, in addition to a description
of methods, include a short survey of the previous literature and a survey of, for
example, the socio-historical background of the Book of Esther. Because of the
author’s use of his wide-ranging knowledge of the Achaemenid dynasty and its
laws and customs, it will be very helpful for this study on the position and status
of Esther in the palace of King Ahasuerus to know about this period in Persian
history, and especially about the Persian royal women during that period. There-
fore, a short review of the available information on Persian royal women of the
Achaemenid Empire, especially royal women from the time of Darius I onward,
will be presented. And, as Smith notes:
The biblical narratives about royal women, like all narratives,
cannot be considered without reference to the contexts in
which they appear. … My own belief is that some comparisons
might be possible, on the assumption that it would be unlikely
that Israel and Judah were completely unlike their neighbours
23
with regard to queen-ship.
A short survey of the Greek versions of the book will contribute to a better
understanding of the OT book. The different versions make it easier to see Es-
24
ther’s development in the OT, including the changes in character and ideology.
A subsequent section will include some words about the Jewish holiday of Pu-
rim, which is based on the OT book of Esther.
This introductory material will provide the background and context for the
main part of the investigation, which will take place in part two of the study.
“‘A Beautiful Orphan Queen,’ or ‘To Be or Not to Be’” will open with a plot
summary of the OT Book of Esther followed by a character analysis accounting
for both direct and indirect characterization of Esther in the OT Book of Esther.
These discussions will be followed by examinations of two of the issues de-
scribed in the second chapter of the Book of Esther: the process of becoming a
royal woman and the regulations governing the lives of such women.
The third chapter of this study, “Your Majesty,” will address the different
points of comparison between Esther and other royal women described in the
OT: (1) the process of gathering new girls into the palace, (2) approaching the
king by a woman both outside and inside the palace, (3) the king’s seal, and,
finally, (4) the possibility of defining Esther as a chief concubine.
The fourth part of this study proposes the unconventional suggestion that
Esther held the position of Resh Galuta, the head of diaspora. This section will
end with conclusions reiterating the study’s major objectives.
_______________
23
Smith 1998:147.
24
For which, see Bush 1996:279-294.
This study will use three methods in combination: the philological, the liter-
ary (including analyses of the narrative and the characters), and the intertextual.
Each of these will be used according to the various aims and subjects of investi-
gation in the subsections. Though each subsection is an independent unit, each
builds on previous ones to form a unified whole.
By philological analysis, I mean, in addition to the semantic investigations
of different concepts, the examination of the syntax of some verses as well as
dialogue in the Book of Esther. Regarding the literary approach, two dimensions
will be used, as Culley suggests:
Most of the attention is focused on two features important to
narrative: narrative action, or plot, and the major roles that par-
ticipants can assume in narrative action.25
and:
The examination of the text involves both narrative syntax,
having to do with plot structure and character roles, and narra-
tive semantics, dealing with matters of content and features like
space and time.26
Among the literary approaches is narrative analysis. According to Bar-Efrat,
narrative analysis includes the following aspects: the narrative persona, charac-
27
terization, structure, space, time and style. This study will examine some of
these aspects in the Book of Esther to help define Esther’s character.
Like any other work of literature, the texts in the OT create and describe
their own reality. This literary reality should be treated as reality according to
28
the terms of the narrative but not necessarily historical reality. This application
of character analysis follows many other scholars in discussing literary figures
as though they were real, as Fox suggests:
I take it as a given that readers commonly learn about, react to,
and speak about the creations of a writer’s imagination as if
they had intentions, thoughts, feelings, even subconscious
minds of their own. We can even imagine them leading lives
outside the events narrated in the text. 29
_______________
25
Culley 1985:171.
26
Culley 1985:172.
27
Bar-Efrat 1989:10.
28
On this method and the change it made in biblical scholarship as well as other
methods, see Clines 1998:34. See Clines 1998 also for other methods used in biblical
scholarly.
29
Fox 1991:6. For other examples, see Harvey 1965, Chatman 1978:107-145,
Hochman 1985, and Phalen 1989.
Introduction 19
Furthermore, a comparative method will be used in order to study the posi-

tion and status of Esther in the palace of King Ahasuerus. By comparing some
of her actions, the other characters’ attitude toward her, their relations with her,
and some of the background details to similar elements in the other texts in the
OT, further conclusions about her status and rank among other royal women can
be drawn. As a comparative method, I will use intertextuality, by which, accord-
ing to Graham,
Meaning becomes something which exists between a text and
all the other texts to which it refers and relates, moving out
from the independent text into a network of textual relations.
The text becomes the intertext.30
This work will use an inter-biblical contextual method, comparing the Book
of Esther to other biblical texts in which royal leading women appear. Certain
issues and ideas important to the present study, which can be traced in the dif-
ferent texts in comparison to one another, will also be discussed. Esther will also
be discussed in an extra-biblical context. The importance of such a method can
31
be supported by the previously cited words of Smith. I will, however, discuss
different aspects of the development of the biblical character of Esther in differ-
32
ent kinds of Jewish literature.
1.3 Earlier Studies
This part of the introduction is not intended to include all the research that has
been made throughout the years about the OT Book of Esther. Therefore, much
of the previous research will not be mentioned here. Furthermore, two great
surveys of previous research on the Book of Esther have been made by two
leading scholars in the field: Moore 1983 and Fox 1991 (expanded in a subse-
quent 2001 edition). These two surveys are recommended for those who wish to
have a thorough survey on this subject.
In order to more easily direct the reader to relevant sources, those that have
33
had the most influence on this study are ordered chronologically.
Lewis B. Paton, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther
(Edinburgh, 1908) is the oldest commentary referenced in the study. Despite its
_______________
30
Graham 2000:1.
31
See p. 19.
32
These will be made in a forthcoming book: Surviving between Judaism and Anti-
Semitism.
33
Two works of the same author that are not included in this survey have to be men-
tioned: The Book of Hiding (1997), and Esther (1999) by T. K. Beal.
age, it remains a thorough and brilliant work. In this commentary, Paton careful-
ly analyzes some words found in the book of Esther and finds their original
meanings in other languages. He gives the Greek versions in parallel with the
OT Book of Esther and explains some of the differences between them. Even if
I do not agree with some of his analyses and conclusions, I think that it is still a
“must” for all who are interested in the scholarship on the OT book of Esther.
Carey A. Moore wrote some very interesting studies on the Book of Esther
in which he studied the book from different perspectives and used various ap-
proaches. One should mention, among others, both his work from 1967, in
which he examines the Greek version of Esther: “A Greek Witness to a Differ-
ent Hebrew Text of Esther,” (ZAW 79:351-358). And, of course, his thorough
and useful commentaries, Esther (Garden City, 1971) and Daniel, Esther and
Jeremiah: The Additions (New York, 1977).
Esther Fuchs’ “Status and Role of Female heroines in the biblical narra-
tive,” (Mankind Quarterly 23:149-160, 1982) is a feminist critique of the depic-
tion of women in the Book of Esther. Her view of the Book of Esther is shared
by many other feminists. According to her, the Book of Esther contains a patri-
archal ideology in which women have to be submissive an ideology found
throughout the book.
Edward L. Greenstein’s “A Jewish Reading of Esther” in Judaic Perspec-
tives on Ancient Israel (eds. Neusner, J., B. A. Levine and E. S. Frerichs, Phila-
delphia, pp. 225-243, 1987) highlights the humour in the Book of Esther and its
different features. He also scrutinizes the unexamined assumption taken as fact
by many other scholars regarding the killing of innocent people by the Jews.
David J. A. Clines, The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story (Sheffield,
1984) is a comprehensive literary-stylistic analysis; this work is a very nice
study of Esther that deals with many different aspects of the book mainly with a
literary approach.
Fredric William Bush’s Ruth, Esther (Waco, Texas, 1996) is a commentary
that deals with quite a few issues in Esther’s book. These issues can be divided
into two main groups – the book’s redaction and a literary examination. Accord-
ing to Bush, there were two redactions of the text that at the end served as the
background of the Jewish holiday of Purim. In the section of literary analysis, he
uses mainly discourse and structural analysis. He claims that there are three
genres to the Book of Esther. He further discusses the problem-based plot struc-
ture of the book and its different characters and comes to the conclusion that of
the four main characters, Esther alone undergoes personal development.
Jon D. Levenson’s Esther: A Commentary (London, 1997) includes transla-
tion, analysis, and discussion of the OT text of the Book of Esther. It includes,
moreover, a discussion on the different versions of the book. Though he focuses
in this study on the OT Book of Esther, his analysis incorporates different ver-
sions and additions to the book and rabbinic sources. He also discusses theolog-
ical issues and argues against the possibility that the book of Esther was not a
religious one.
Introduction 21
Adele Berlin’s ‫( אסתר‬Esther) (Jerusalem & Tel Aviv, 2001 [in Hebrew] and
Philadelphia, 2003 [in English]) takes a literary approach familiar from some of
her other studies. According to Berlin, the Book of Esther is a comedy. She
shows the different humorous elements in the book and analyzes them in the
context of the Book of Esther and in comparison to Greek and Near Eastern
texts, especially those connected to the Persian Empire. Berlin dates the writing
of the Book of Esther to approximately 400-300 BCE and defines it as a diaspo-
ra tale. She tries to prove the connection of this book to other texts from that
time by discussing literary motifs found in these texts and in the Book of Esther.
Michael V. Fox’s Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Grand
Rapids, 1991 [1st ed.] and 2001 [2nd ed.]) The second edition of this very good
book has an additional section in which Fox reviews the studies of the interced-
ing ten years. The book also has four additional chapters: commentary on the
Book of Esther, including translation and discussion, literary discussion in
which Fox analyzes the genres of the book, character analyses of individuals
(including God) and the Jews, and text history. This is a very important book
not only for understanding the Book of Esther but also for character analysis as
such.
Leonard J. Greenspoon and Sidnie White Crawford’s (eds.) The Book of Es-
ther in Modern Research (New York, 2003) is the proceedings of a meeting of
some of the great scholars on Esther that occurred in 2000. The volume contains
studies presented in the meeting that deal with various issues connected to the
OT book of Esther and its interpretation.
For Jewish midrashic interpretations see, among others:

Barry Dov Walfish’s Esther in Medieval Garb: Jewish Interpretation of the
Book of Esther in the Middle Ages (Albany, New York, 1993). In his thorough
inquiry into the Book of Esther in medieval texts and interpretation, Walfish
claims that in each of the interpretations one can find both the personal approach
of the writer and the influence of the wider society, meaning that each interpre-
tation mirrors the medieval society in which it was produced. He further shows
how these interpretations use the characters of the Book of Esther in order to
explain Jewish life in medieval times.
Eliezer Segal’s The Babylon Esther Midrash; A Critical Commentary (At-
lanta, Georgia, 1994) examines in detail the Megila tractate of the Babylonian
Talmud. This commentary stretches to three volumes, each of which is some
300-360 pages. Segal’s study not only offers many rabbinic interpretations, it
also analyzes them from a variety of different perspectives. He discusses this
Midrash as a part of the Babylonian Talmud and its context.
Some major works on the Achaemenid Empire with emphasis on their women
should also be mentioned:
Olmstead’s History of the Persian Empire; Achaemenid Period (Chicago,

1966) is not to be ignored due to the fact that it is one of the most detailed books
written on the history of the Achaemenid dynasty.
Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg’s “Exit Atossa: Images of Women in Greek
Historiography on Persia,” in Images of Women in Antiquity (eds. A. Cameron
& A. Kuhurt, London, pp. 20-33, 1993), deals with queens and princesses in the
Achaemenid period, mostly during Xerxes I’s reign. According to her, most of
the information presented in the Greek sources as facts are not facts at all. Fur-
thermore, most of the women left no trace in the records of their time, and the
ones who were mentioned were extraordinary in the acts or the deeds that were
connected to them.
Maria Brosius, Women in Ancient Persia, 559-331 BC (Oxford, 1996) is a
great work. I will use her words for its definition: “This book discusses Greek
attitudes towards the royal women of the Achaemenid court (559-331 BC). It
also attempts to look at the position of royal and non-royal women from a Near
Eastern point of view by examining the evidence of the Fortification texts from
Persepolis and Neo-Babylonian texts.”34
Many studies on the different versions of the Book of Esther have been made.
Among them, the following were used:
Michael V. Fox’s The Redaction of the Books of Esther: On Reading Com-
posite Texts (Atlanta, 1991) is a critical study of the different versions of the
Book of Esther, especially of the Alpha text (AT) and the MT. The book in-
cludes five chapters and several appendixes. It discusses the assumption that
both these versions are redactions of earlier texts, but while the MT is a redac-
tion of proto-Esther, the AT is a redaction of proto-AT. Fox further discusses
the connection of these texts to the LXX.
J.T. Milik’s “Les modéles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la grotte 4 de
Qumrân” (RevQ 15-16:321-99, 1992-93) attempts to interpret 4Q550 as contain-
ing a series of stories of Jews at the Persian court that specifically formed the
sources of the narratives of Esther.
Linda Day’s Three faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Es-
ther (Sheffield, 1995) uses a literary approach to compare the portrayals of Es-
ther in the MT, the AT, and the LXX. Her focus is literary rather than editorial
and she uses comparative analyses of the verses referring to Esther in each of
these three versions of the book.
Karen H. Jobes, in The Alpha-Text of Esther: Its Character and Relation-
ship to the Masoretic Text (Atlanta, Georgia, 1996), argues for a complex pro-
cess in the formation of the AT. According to her, the AT was the first Greek
translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic text of Esther, and further, the version of this
Hebrew text was quite similar to the MT.
_______________
34
Brosius 1996:1.
Introduction 23
Charles V. Dorothy, in The Books of Esther: Structure, Gender, and Textual

Integrity (Sheffield, 1997) makes a textual and stylistic analysis of the three
Greek versions, which concludes that each version has its tradition derived from
a different society and that neither the LXX or AT derived directly from the
other.
In Kristin De Troyer’s Het Einde van de Alpha-Tekst van Ester (Leuven,
1997, published also in English in 2000), the author argues that AT 1:1-7:41 is a
rewriting of the LXX and was partially Hebraized by reference to the MT.
Ruth Kossmann, in Die Esthernovelle: vom Erzählten zur Erzählung (Lei-
den, 2000) uses and supports the assumption that the AT is based on the original
text of Esther, the “pre-Esther.” She rejects Milik’s argument for Q550a-f.
A. Evans’ “‘And Mordekhai's order Esther obeyed’ - Comparison of Struc-
tural Delimitation of the Narrative Flow in MT and LXX Esther 2” (Journal for
Semitics 20/1:233-249, 2011) starts from the assumption that the structure of
chapter 2 in the OT book of Esther is of significant for the meaning of the text,
positioning Esther and Mordecai as the central characters of the work. Accord-
ing to Evans, the LXX missed the importance of this structure and therefore had
to have the additions for the same purpose.
Emanuel Tov has written some studies on this topic, they all are brilliant
and very interesting. Among them “The ‘Lucianic’ Text of the Canonical and
the Apocryphal Sections of Esther: A Rewritten Biblical Book” (Textus 10:1-25,
1982) and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Assen, 2001 [2nd ed.] ) the
latter is a masterpiece in the field of textual criticism of the Old Testament.
1.4 Aim of investigation

The aim of this study is to define the status of Esther in OT/MT Book of Esther
according to power and authority dynamics. Of course, this is related to the
important concern of Esther’s power and authority both inside and outside the
walls of the palace. These changes are also followed in the study.
35
As already mentioned by Fox, one of the major themes of the Book of Es-
ther is the “reversal.” This theme can be seen also in Esther’s character and her
position and status in the palace. The questions of the purpose for which she
came to the palace, her position after she came into it and whether or not this
position suits that given her by the other readers of the book will also be ad-
dressed.
This study will add to the existing scholarly debate both concerning Es-
ther’s status and position in the OT and the reasons for Esther being a leading
character in Jewish thought. However, this study does not intend to find the only
truth about the character of Esther in the OT; rather I am going to suggest an
_______________
35
See Fox 1991:158.
explanation that I think is the best and most accurate for the character, status and
position of Esther.
According to the above, there are several previous studies on the Book of
Esther. What distinguishes this study from previous ones is that, with the sup-
port of the biblical sources, Persian history, and traditions, it questions the
common belief that she was the ruling queen of the kingdom of Ahasuerus; at
the same time, however, it raises new possibilities for understanding power and
politics among the Jewish community in diaspora and its exercise to ensure the
community’s success and survival.
Although the main question of the study concerns Esther’s status, as Fox
mentioned: “characterization does not…exist in isolation from a great array of
36
other artistic and conceptual concerns,” and, therefore, other aspects related to
this OT book will be explored when necessary.
1.5 The Achaemenid Dynasty and the Status of Royal

Women: The Socio-Historical Background
In the Book of Esther the king is called Ahasuerus. Scholars have tried to define
which Persian king of the Achaemenid period the character of Ahasuerus, as
described in the Book of Esther, might fit.
Studying the Book of Esther, many scholars came to the conclusion that the
name of the king described in this book is the Hebrew name for King Xerxes
37
from the Achaemenid period. Furthermore, some thought that the entire story is
fictional and has nothing to do with the reality of those days and that the king
38
too is imaginary. This study will follow the scholars who suggest the possibil-
ity that the king described in the Book of Esther might have been a historical
character, or more correctly, the character of the king in the Book of Esther was
based on a Persian king from the Achaemenid dynasty and of some events dur-
39
ing his reign.
Whether this book accurately reflects the past the past or only uses the main
characteristics of Achaemenid kings, there can be no doubt that the writer of the
book knew the history of the Achaemenid dynasty, and made use of his
_______________
36
Fox 1991:2
37
Thus Paton 1908:65, Wright 1970:37. See there too for other assumptions con-
cerning the identity of this king as Artaxerxes I and Artaxerxes II.
38
But see Wright 1970:46, who claims the book is a ‘first-hand historical document.’
39
For some points of comparison between the historical events during the reign of
Xerxes and the Book of Esther, see Wright 1970:37. For some notes of inaccuracies, see
ibid.
Introduction 25
knowledge in his writing. Therefore, available information on the manners and

customs of these kings should also be used.
Nonetheless, one cannot know either the nature of the writer’s knowledge or
how he used it. Therefore, the conclusion that there is a historical origin to the
40
story of Esther would be hasty. Assuming that there is no historical origin for
the book, one must admit that the narrator colored his story with the background
and details from the Persian court during the Achaemenid dynasty (539-332
41
BCE).
According to the customs described by Greek historians and in Persian
texts, Esther, even if she was one of the king’s wives, could not become his
chief wife. Namely, she could not have been the ruling queen of the empire. She
did not come from the right family and, even more importantly, the Book of
Esther mentions no offspring between Esther and the king. If the writer of the
book had really wanted to legitimize Esther’s position in the king’s palace and
in his empire, he could have added to the story the birth of a male child to Es-
ther and the king. The writer did not do so. Since, however, the historicity of the
Book of Esther is not under examination, this matter need not be conclusively
42
decided here.
Knowledge about royal women in Persia during the Achaemenid dynasty
would be very valuable for this study on the position and status of Esther in the
palace of King Ahasuerus.
In the following sections, the possible historical and sociological back-
ground of the Book of Esther, that is, the Achaemenid dynasty of the Persian
Empire and its royal women, will be reviewed.
The Sources:
The data on the Achaemenid dynasty is available from Persian and Greek
sources. For the purposes of the present study, Persian sources can be defined as
those that the Persians themselves or the people under their authority wrote.
These sources were written in several languages, including Elamite, Old Per-
sian, Assyrian, and Aramaic.
Greek sources are those written by the Greek historians. Among these
43
sources are Herodotus’ History of the Persian Wars, Ctesias’ History of Persia,
and Aeschylus’ Persae. A review of these sources will offer a better picture of
the customs and rules of the Persians concerning royal women during the
Achaemenid period. These are the main Greek sources for information about
_______________
40
Most scholars argue against the existence of such an origin, but see Horn 1964:14-
25 and Hoschander 1923.
41
This is the common scholarly opinion.
42
For the various opinions about the false historicity of the book, see Moore,
1971:xlv, and Greenstein1987:227. For the historicity of the book, see Gordis 1981:358-
388.
43
Herodotus lived between 484-424BCE. Ctesias wrote his book in ca. 398BCE.
44
women in the Achaemenid period. Nevertheless, these sources should be taken
45
with some reservations since they are not to be regarded as entirely accurate.
46
This type of source reflects the Greek approach to that period.
The Persian sources on the Achaemenid dynasty were discovered much lat-
47 48
er than the Greek sources. First, in 1893, a Persian source was found. It con-
tained many details about three kings from the second part of the Achaemenid
dynasty: Artaxerxes I, Darius II, and Artaxerxes II, and some other descriptions
49
on issues that had been discussed previously in the Greek sources. It further
included some other pieces of information, which now and then contradicted the
50
information found in the Greek sources.
This source, named The u r sú Archive of Nippur, was identified as late
51
Babylonian. The study of this source caused changes in some of the most basic
assumptions made previously by scholars concerning the Achaemenid period. In
addition, it was used as proof for some elements concerning the Persian kings
that were until then considered assumptions. Sources from earlier periods con-
sisted mainly of many small fragments of written materials that cannot be used
52
as historical documents.
_______________
44
Other issues concerning this period can be found also in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia,
and Strabo’s Geography.
45
But rather as describing events in history as those who lived during the time when
these documents were written wished the history of the Persian Empire to be described.
For this, see Brosius 1996. Concerning Herodotus’ writings on Persian history, there
were studies that proved that the reason for the incorrect data in his description of the
Persian Empire might have been due to the nature of the sources that he based his work
on, which were to some extent unreliable. Thus Wells 1907, who tried to define this
source with Zopyrus, grandson of Amestris.
46
Other sources include the Greek versions of the Book of Esther. It should be
pointed out that the Greek sources were and still are among the most important sources
on the Achaemenid dynasty.
47
On the Greek sources and their reliability, see Bickerman 1944 225-245, Bicker-
man 1951:246-275, Stolper 1985:15. On their shortcomings, see Olmstead 1966: xiii-xv,
and Brosius 1996:1-12.
48
For this date, see Stolper 1985:ix. An overview and discussion of the sources that
have been found can be found in Stolper 1985.
49
According to Stolper 1985:1, this is the largest source on the conditions in Baby-
lon during the time of the Persian Empire. For a detailed discussion of this archive, see
Stolper 1985. For a review of Old Persian inscriptions of Darius I and different studies on
this issue, see Stolper 1985:7 n.19.
50
Stolper 1985:ix.
51
Stolper 1985:11.
52
Stolper 1985:2. For further information on the Persian sources of the Achaemenid
dynasty, see Stolper 1985:17. The number of this kind of sources has grown considerably
since 1933 with the discovery of thousands of Fortification texts from Persepolis by
Hallock. For this, see Brosius 1996:9-11.
Introduction 27
The gap of information in both Greek and Persian documents about the
Achaemenid Empire can partly explain the lack of information about Persian
women during that time. There are, however, a few documents about women in
general and especially about royal women during the Achaemenid Empire in the
53
Greek sources.
1.6 The Achaemenid Kings and Their Royal Women
Discussing the Achaemenid period of the Persian Empire, one should keep in
mind that the so-called Achaemenid dynasty was not a homogenous one due to
the fact that it was not a continuation of rulers from the same lineage. Two parts
can be identified, that is, the first part, which covers the period from Cyrus II
and the establishment of the dynasty to the year 525 BCE, and a later period
which covers the time from the accession of Darius I to the throne to the fall of
54
the dynasty in 330 BCE. According to Brosius, the kings of the second period
55
are to be called ‘Achaemenid.’ Her approach is used in this survey.
In her discussion of the role of royal women in the Achaemenid period,
Brosius presents two questions concerning the marriage customs of the Persian
kings which were described by Herodotus: “a. did the nobles have any influence
over the choice of the king’s wives at all, and b. should the historical validity of
56
this story be doubted?” She concludes that the historical validity of this custom
is suspect, mainly because there is no evidence that all the Achaemenid kings
after Darius I followed it. She further argues that if there was such a custom, it
57
applied only to Darius I.
However, these conclusions, though reasonable in light of the different
sources, should not be used in order to dismiss the fact that there was a custom
among the kings of the Achaemenid dynasty of having women in their royal
houses who belonged to certain noble families. Herodotus’ claim that there was
a Persian law from the Achaemenid period according to which Persian kings
_______________
53
Brosius 1996:1. Brosius counts three main reasons for the unreliability of the
Greek sources about women: 1) the selection of the stories was politically motivated; 2)
the Greek idea of what was acceptable behavior for women and their role in society; and
3) the literary function of descriptions of Persian royal women in Greek historiography,
for which see Brosius 1996:1-3, 12, 14, 196, and Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993:27. For
previous research on Greek evidence for Persian royal women, see Brosius 1996:6.
54
For the different assumptions about the length of the reigns of the different kings
of the Achaemenid dynasty, see Stolper 1985:116-124.
55
Brosius 1996:15.
56
Brosius 1996:47.
57
As argued by Brosius 1996:62, 68, 81, and 193.
were to take their women from one of six noble families as their wife is doubtful
due to the following: Darius I came to power in 522 after participating in an
uprising against the controversial ruler, Bordia, who, through a coup d’état, had
seized power earlier that year. Darius is thought to be a distant relative of Cam-
byses II, and therefore was a descendant of the parallel lineage in the first
Achaemenid period. In order to be able to succeed with his plans to rule over the
58
Empire, he allied with heads of six noble families. They agreed to assist him on
the condition that, when he took the throne, he should marry one of the women
in their families. Such an act would support the ruling king and, at the same
time, secure the political and social position of these families. Nonetheless, this
woman was not the only woman whom Darius I married or with whom he had
59
relations.
The circumstances by which Darius I rose to the throne differed from both
earlier and subsequent Achaemenid rulers. He was the first king who did not
have a direct connection with the royal family and earlier kings. Consequently,
he had to prove his right to the throne. Therefore, he married Artystone and
60
Atossa, daughters of Cyrus, and Parmys, daughter of Bordia. According to
Herodotus (7:69.2), Artystone was his favorite wife, and two sons of her, Ar-
sames and Gobryas, reached high military positions as leaders in the Empire’s
61
army. As for her sister Atossa, the reason for the absence of her name from
62
Persian sources is unknown. However, the Greek sources paid great attention
63
to Atossa and described her as the most powerful woman of that time.
64
Darius married Phaidyme, daughter of Otanes, one of the nobles, though
this marriage was not implemented directly after Darius I’s accession to the
throne. Brosius refers to Herodotus (3:88.4 and 7:2.2), indicating that Darius I
65
already married Phaidyme in 522 BCE, before his accession to the throne. She
claims that this marriage cannot be used as proof for Darius I acting according
_______________
58
For further information, see Stolper 1985:6 n.14.
59
For further information on royal women in the times of the Achaemenid dynasty,
see the following paragraph.
60
On this aspect in the marriage of Darius I to these women, see Olmstead 1948:109,
Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993:26, and Brosius 1996:193-94.
61
Olmstead 1948: 177-178.
62
If we take into consideration that women did not get much attention in Persian
sources, this is not an unusual fact. For the lack of attention to women in Persian sources,
see Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993:20, 22, and 25.
63
On Atossa in the Greek sources, see Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993:22, Brosius
1996:4 and 14.
64
Thus Olmstead 1966:214 and Dandamaev 1989:90.
65
Brosius 1996:51 n.29 emphasizes the importance of the precise date of this mar-
riage for Herodotus since, if a child was born before Darius’ reign, this child could not be
considered his legal heir.
Introduction 29
66
to his agreement with the nobles. Her assertion that the marriage of Darius I to
the daughter of Otanes is not necessarily proof of acting according to the agree-
ment with the nobles is only partially convincing, but in this case is not suffi-
cient to rule out that possibility.
Interfamilial marriage also took place during this time. An example of such
a marriage is Darius’s marriage with his niece Phratagune, after her father Ar-
67
tanes has died (Herod 7:224.2), though there were many other marriages and
unions. The house of women in the palace of Darius I contained many more
68
women. This fact can be supported by its size.
His successors were not involved in such special circumstances upon their
elevation to the throne and therefore did not have to marry women from Darius’
house. Nonetheless, at least some of them had political marriages with women
69
from both inside and outside their realm.
After the death of Darius I, his son Xerxes I succeeded him to the throne
(486-465 BCE). He was the son of Atossa, who is mentioned in the Histories
70
and who is also the main character in Aeschylus’ Persae. He was immediately
recognized as ‘king of Babylon and the lands.’ However, Xerxes I was not the
first son of Darius I. His first son was Artobazanes, whose mother was a daugh-
ter of Gobryas. Accordingly, he was the one who should have succeeded his
father as the king. Nonetheless, since he was born before Darius I became king,
he did not have the right to the throne. Furthermore, Xerxes’ mother, Atossa,
had higher rank and position than Artobazanes’ mother among Darius’ royal
71
women. She gained an even higher position in the palace as the mother of the
72
king.
Another obstacle which could stop Xerxes from succeeding his father was
his cousins, who were the sons of Artystone and who also had the right to suc-
ceed their father, Darius I. Furthermore, as Sancisi-Weerdenburg rightly argued,
_______________
66
Brosius 1996:47, 63ff.
67
Brosius 1996:47, 61-62, claims that this marriage is evidence for the acceptance of
interfamilial marriage during the Achaemenid Dynasty. For a short review on interfamil-
ial marriage during that time, see Brosius 1996:68.
68
For a detailed description of Darius’ palace at Susa, see Olmstead 1966:169-197.
69
For information concerning political marriages in the ancient Near East see
Greengos 1969:505-532, and Artzi 1987:23-26. According to Brosius 1996:43-44, such
kinds of marriage were practiced during the reigns of the early kings of the Achaemenid
empire, both inside the empire (with nobles and rulers of satrapies), and outside the
empire (with non-Persian kings). According to her, even if no documents were found to
prove the historical existence of all these kinds of political acts, the fact of their descrip-
tion proves the importance of political marriage in the ancient Near East.
70
There, however, she is not mentioned by name. For further reading on Atossa, see
among many others, Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993:23-25.
71
On the reasons for Xerxes’ succession, see Olmstead 1966:214-215.
72
See Brosius 1996:50.
the fact that the king chose Xerxes I from among his brothers to be the heir of
the throne might prove that he did not previously have the ‘legal right’ to the
73
throne. During Xerxes I’s reign, the kingdom began to expand politically and
militarily. He was assassinated in his bed-chamber.
As for the women at the royal palace of Xerxes I, his queen and chief wife
74
was Amestris, daughter of the noble man Otanes and the sister of Darius I. She
75
is the only woman mentioned in the Greek sources as the wife of Xerxes I. It is
said that Amestris was in her thirties when Darius I died and when she was
76
married to the crown prince, Xerxes I.
Nonetheless, Xerxes I had several other women; some of them were his
wives, others, his concubines. One may assume that the size of his house of
royal women, or at least the impression that it was big, was very important for
him, since shortly after his accession to the throne, he built a huge house of
royal women in Persepolis.
There are stories about Xerxes’ love of women. At least one case caused
him great trouble: at one point, he was involved with two women, his brother
Masistes’ wife and her daughter Artaynte. Masistes’ wife gave him no affection
in return, and therefore, Xerxes planned for a marriage between his son, Darius
II, and her daughter, Artaynte, in the hopes of convincing her to have some
relation with him. But, Xerxes himself fell in love with the daughter, who con-
77
vinced him to give her the robe which Amestris has made. As a result of these
events, these two women, as well as Xerxes’ brother and his followers, were
78
killed on the wish of Amestris.
Xerxes I was the son of Darius I, yet not his first-born. As a result he, like
his father, had to strengthen his position as king both nationally and internation-
ally. Like his father, one of the means that he used for achieving his goals was
_______________
73
Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993:25. See also Brosius 1996:49.
74
For the opinion that Otanes was one of the nobles see http://www.livius.org/on-
oz/otanes. html p.1-2, http://www.livius.org/am-ao/amestris/amestris.htm, p.1. For the
opinion that he was not a nobleman, see Wright 1970:38. And see there also for the
different assumptions for the identity of the father of Amestris. For the opinion that this
Otanes was not a nobleman, see Wright 1970:38.
75
Brosius 1996:64. Wright 1970 tries to show how Vashti and Amestris could be the
same name by different changes in the Greek. He claims that there are many reasons for
Esther not to be identified with Amestris. Vashti, on the other hand, is another matter
(40-45).
76
http://www.livius.org/am-ao/amestris/amestris.htm: p.1.
77
According to Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993:29, this robe was not only a beautiful
adornment but also a symbol of the power and control of the kingdom for the one who
owned it.
78
For further reading on these events, see Olmstead 1966:266. For the origins of this
story, see Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993:27. For further details on the content of this story,
see Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993:27ff, and Brosius 1996:94.
Introduction 31
political agreements concluded by marriage contracts or other contracts which

involved women.
Many scholars who argue for a historical basis for the Book of Esther claim
that the king named Ahasuerus in the book is Xerxes I, or, at least, that his char-
acter is based on Xerxes I, and therefore Esther must have been based on the
character of a queen and chief wife during the time of his rule.
Artaxerxes I (465-424 BCE), like his father, was one of the three kings on
whom scholars assumed the character of Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther to be
based. Although Artaxerxes I was not Xerxes’ first-born son, he succeeded his
father, killing the first-born son of Xerxes, Darius, and defeating his enemies
and opponents. He ruled about forty years and died of natural causes. Artaxerx-
79
es I had 18 sons from different women. Among his royal women were
Damaspia, Andia, Alogune, and Cosmartidena. Damapsia is the only woman
mentioned in the Greek sources as the wife of Artaxerxes I. However, she is not
named in Persian sources. She probably was from a noble Persian family.
Damaspia’s son, Xerxes II, whom the Greek sources mention as the only legiti-
80
mate heir of Artaxerxes I, was to succeed him. However, he was assassinated
by one of his half-brothers, Sognianum (Secydianus) shortly after his accession
81
to the throne.
Andia and Alogune were concubines of Babylonian origin. Andia was the
mother of Paryses, who married Darius II. Alogune was mother of Sognianum,
the second son of Artaxerxes I, who succeeded his father after his death. Also
Cosmartidene was one of the Babylonian concubines of Artaxerxes I. She was
82
the mother of King Darius II. Artaxerxes I had 17 sons, 5 of whom are known
by name. The name of his queen and three of his secondary wives are also
83
known.
Three of the sons of Artaxerxes I competed to succeed him. Two of them
ruled very short periods during 424-3BCE. However, the third son, Darius II
Ochus (424/3-405) managed to rule almost 19 years after defeating his oppo-
84
nents.
Two facts concerning this succession are important to the present study:
1) The half-brother of Darius II Ochus, Sogdianus, who succeeded their fa-
ther before him, wished to kill him. This intention might imply Ochus’ right to
the succession, although he was a son of a woman who did not have a Persian
origin.
_______________
79
Stolper 1985:115. According to Prásek 1910:171, he had 17 sons.
80
Brosius 1996:64.
81
Stolper 1985:115.
82
For Andia and Alogune, see Olmstead 1966:355 and Brosius 1996:33.
83
Prasék 1910:171.
84
According to Stolper 1985:114, the main source containing details on the acces-
sion of Darius II is Ctesias.
85
2) Ochus was the son of one of the concubines of Artaxerxes I. Therefore,
one may conclude that under certain circumstances, sons of royal women who
did not have the position of a chief wife or Persian origin could be recognized as
legal heirs to their fathers’ throne in the Achaemenid Empire. Ochus managed
not only to gather supporters to his accession as the king but probably also
gained the support of the nobles and his other half-brothers to his succession,
otherwise he would not have managed to stay king for such a long period of
time.
At the time of his accession to the throne, Ochus was already married to his
half-sister Parysatis, daughter of Andia, one of his father’s concubines. Despite
86
her mother’s position and origin, Parysatis became his chief wife. Scholars use
this marriage in order to claim the non-existence of the custom of the Persian
kings not taking foreign women as their wives. Nevertheless, they ignore the
fact that Darius II has married Parysatis before it was declared that he would be
the next king and, therefore, at that time, the origin of his wife was of no im-
87
portance.
Artaxerxes II Arsaces-Memnon ruled five years (404-359). He succeeded
Darius II Ochus. On the day of his anointment, his mother conspired to assassi-
88
nate him, but she did not succeed in her plan. Artaxerxes II had many royal
women. He married, among others, his own two daughters, Atossa and
89
Amestris, after the murder of his wife. Among his concubines, Aspasia is
known by name. Artaxerxes II had many children. Three of them are thought to
90 91
be sons of Queen Stateira: Darius, Ariarathes (Ariaspes), and Ochus.
Artaxerxes II is the third king assumed to be the king in whom the character
92
of King Ahasuerus from the OT is based, though only by very few scholars.
According to the laws of inheritance, the first male born to the chief wife had
the right to inherit the throne. Therefore, Darius, who was the first-born of the
chief wife, should have succeeded his father. However, he did not want to wait
until his father’s death and tried through a coup d’état to seize power while his
father was away. The king found out about his son’s plan and ordered his death.
Due to the fact that his brother, Ariarathes, was assassinated as well, the third
_______________
85
On this matter, see Brosius 1966:33.
86
Brosius 1996:65.
87
For further discussion, see Brosius 1996:192. Also Artaynte, daughter of Masistes,
was one of Darius II wives. She also was his cousin. (Brosius 1996:68).
88
However, she was not punished for the plot.
89
Brosius 1996:66.
90
Dandamaev 1989:276, 291 and Brosius 1996:73.
91
Dandamaev 1989:306.
92
Olmstead 1966:452.
Introduction 33
93
son, Artaxerxes III, that is, Ochus, became king. Artaxerxes II had no fewer
94
than 115 sons by concubines in addition to his three sons from Queen Stateira.
Artaxerxes III Ochus (359-338) killed all his relatives shortly after attaining
95
the throne, though he himself was later poisoned to death by his physician on
96
the order of a eunuch named Bagoas. It is told that Artaxerxes III had 360
97
concubines, and 115 sons, among whom can be mentioned Atossa, the mother
98
of the successor to the throne, Arsaces.
Regarding royal women in the Achaemenid Empire, several general factors
should be considered: royal women were probably ranked according to the na-
99
ture of their relationship with the king. First in rank was the mother of the king,
followed by the king’s first wife (who was the mother to the king’s heir), fol-
lowed then by the king’s other women.
Brosius divides the royal women in the Achaemenid dynasty into three
groups according to their status in the palace: the first group is the king’s wives,
the second is the king’s concubines, and the third is the group of royal daugh-
100
ters. It should be pointed out that women who belonged to these different
groups had different titles. The king’s mother had a higher rank than that of the
other royal women.
Brosius argues for the notion that the royal concubines in the Achaemenid
dynasty had a high social status. In supporting her argument, she rightly com-
_______________
93
For further information and sources recording this event, see Olmstead 1966:424,
and n.19.
94
Prasék 1910:217.
95
See Prásek 1910:220.
96
Olmstead 1966:489, who claims also that by his murder the Persian Empire was
destroyed.
97
Olmstead 1966:424.
98
Olmstead 1966:489. His first son, Arsaces of Parysatis (338-336) succeeded him,
(Brosius 1996:66). After the murder of his father, Arses, son of Atossa, ruled for two
years (338-336 BC). He and all his children were murdered as a result of a conspiracy of
two eunuchs. The last king of the Achaemenid period was Darius III, who ruled six
years. He was son of Arsanes the brother of Artaxerxes II and Sisygambis. Darius III
succeeded to the throne because there was no one left of the royal family that was more
related than him to the royal lineage. In his time, the empire suffered both from inside
and from outside. Six years after Darius III’s accession to the throne, the Persians were
defeated by the Greeks. On Darius III and the fall of the Persian Empire, see Olmstead
1966:381, 490-495. See also Stolper 1985:67. Stateira, his sister, was his wife. See
Brosius 1996:68, 88. On the difference in information included in the sources concerning
this woman see Brosius 1996:68.
99
Thus Brosius 1996:13, 186. She also claims (1996:193) that in the Greek sources
only one wife is mentioned for each Persian King after Darius I. According to her, these
women were the mothers of the heirs. For further discussion, see Brosius 1996:24, 187.
100
Thus Brosius 1996:189ff.
pares two different terms. The first ‘irti,’ used in order to define the kings’
wives, and the second ‘dukshish,’ used mainly in order to define his concubines
and other royal women, as for instance the king’s daughters, though sometimes
101
‘dukshish’ was used also for the kings’ wives. She concludes that there is only
a slight difference between these two terms.
According to Brosius, having concubines was a common practice during the
102
Achaemenid period, one enjoyed by both kings and satraps. The problem with
the information found in the different sources about these concubines is that the
Persian sources provide very little information about these women and the in-
formation in the Greek sources is not completely correct because the Greeks
interpreted the evidence from the Persian Empire according to their own cus-
103
toms and values. In Persian sources, royal concubines are not discussed as
104
such. According to Brosius, one may assume that royal concubines were men-
105
tioned as ‘women of the king,’ while royal wives as ‘the king’s wives.’ Royal
concubines could exercise independent economic power. This fact suggests their
106
high status.
Furthermore, according to the customs gleaned from the different sources,
the main difference between women who became royal wives and those who
became royal concubines was their origin. Namely, women who came from
107
foreign countries were royal concubines. Nevertheless, there are at least two
cases in which a woman’s status as a royal concubine did not affect her son’s
claim to the throne. Darius II was the son of Cosmartidena, who was of Babylo-
nian origin. He could become heir to the throne since the only ‘legal’ son of
Artaxerxes I, Xerxes, had died. Before him, Sogdianus, son of a Babylonian
concubine, Alogune, took the throne. He was killed and succeeded by Darius
108
II.
Royal women are not mentioned much in sources about the Achaemenid pe-
riod. Furthermore, while the picture of royal women from the Greek sources is
to a large extent misleading, the Persian sources offer only bits and pieces. Roy-
109
al concubines were women of a foreign origin. They had an important role in
_______________
101
The term ‘irti’ appears only in three texts and one may assume the use of ‘duk-
shish’ even for kings’ wives. On these terms, see Brosius 1996:24-29, 187-190.
102
Brosius, 1996: 32, 190.
103
On this matter, see also Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993:27.
104
Brosius 1996:190.
105
Brosius 1996:191.
106
A fact that does not agree with the Greek ‘pallake.’ Thus Brosius 1996:81, 190-
191, 198.
107
Brosius 1996:32, 68, 198.
108
On this matter, see Brosius 1996:33.
109
Brosius 1996:6 names different studies made on the Greek evidence for Persian
royal women.
Introduction 35
the royal house, and held high rank in it. They could have economic independ-
ence and power. Along with other royal women, they were not limited to the
area of the palace and, under certain circumstances, their sons could be recog-
nized as the legal heirs of their fathers.
All Achaemenid kings had more than one woman. In fact, they all had sev-
eral women who lived in their palaces and held various positions. They brought
110
them into their palaces for many different personal and political reasons.
1.7 The different Versions of the Book of Esther
There are different versions of the Book of Esther than the one found in the OT.
These versions differ not only from the one found in the OT but also from each
other in length, content, and in different omissions and additions. While many of
these alterations are insignificant, some versions are based on fundamentally
111
different ways of thinking and thus show major differences, as, for instance,
Esther’s religiosity, an issue that the MT does not deal with whatsoever but the
112
Greek versions of Esther include in different ways and levels. Although there
are differences in the details of Esther’s religious practice in the different Greek
113
versions, they all emphasize that Esther was a faithful Jew.
As a faithful Jew and as a heroine, one might expect her to practice Jewish
laws and traditions. Nevertheless, the MT Hebrew version does not mention
even once Esther practicing Jewish law. Furthermore, God is never mentioned
114
in this version of the story. The Greek versions, on the other hand, are united
in their depiction of Esther as a believer acting according to Jewish laws. They
all mention God and the belief in him.
Due to the different versions’ diction and plot details, scholars have come to
the conclusion that the Greek versions, at least most of them, are not based on
_______________
110
On this aspect of Darius I’s multiple marriages, see Briant 1996.
111
For some of the scholarly works written on the different Greek versions of the
Book of Esther, see Tov 1982. For a survey of research, see Bickerman 1951:249-250,
Moore 1967:351, Frolov 2002:304, and Troyer 2002:172-187.
112
In the last few decades, research on the different Greek versions of the Book of Esther
has become a popular subject among scholars of Jewish history and of the Old Testa-
ment. For some of the scholarly works written on the different Greek versions of the
Book of Esther, see Tov 1982:1 (The ‘Lucianic’). For a survey of research, see Moore
1967:351 and Frolov 2002:304-307.
113
On the prayer of Esther in the different Greek versions, see Paton 1908:174. On
Esther’s relations with the king according to this prayer, see Paton 1908:174, Bickerman
1951:247, 261, and Tov 1982:15.
114
But see the different commentaries on 4:13-14. For the opinion that the book is
not a secular one, see Segal 1962:479.
the MT Book of Esther. Nevertheless, they differ in their opinion whether their
source was a Hebrew/Aramaic or a Greek one.
According to Tov, the Lucianic text (which some scholars define as text A)
differs from the MT both in additions and in omissions. He introduces three
different proposals for the origin of text A and concludes that it “reflects some
type of revision of the LXX, as was suggested by most scholars,” and that L is
based on the LXX and is a revision of the LXX. He further claims that “L had
115
independent access to a Hebrew (or Aramaic) text which differed from MT.”
116
According to Troyer, there are three main issues that suggest a Hebrew
origin for the different versions: (1) an old version of the Hebrew text which
differed from the MT book (as, for example, claimed by Clines), (2) a prototype
Hebrew text that developed into two different texts: The proto AT and the MT
(as claimed by Fox, among others), and (3) the only Hebrew version ever exist-
ed is the one of the MT (as Hanhart). Troyer also claims, as do other scholars,
117
that the AT originated from the LXX. However, according to Moore and Tov,
the A-text is a Greek translation of the Hebrew which was not the same as the
MT and not, as others claimed the A-text to be, the Lucianic version of the Sep-
118
tuagint. And as Troyer says: “The differences between the AT and both the
MT and LXX have resulted not from alterations of the Hebrew text, but from
119
alterations of the LXX.”
These versions should be mentioned here since they include the same story
with the same theme, characters, and frame for the plot. Furthermore, when the
differences between these versions have to do with Esther, her status, and the
nature of the relations she had with other people, they might be relevant for this
120
investigation of Esther.
Due to these differences in content as well as linguistic differences, scholars
have concluded that at least most of the Greek versions are not based on the MT
Book of Esther but rather used a different source. There is however no agree-
_______________
115
For Tov’s discussion on the origin of A text of the Book of Esther, see Tov
1982:1-11.
116
Troyer 2002:181.
117
See Troyer 2002:181ff., in which she offers various opinions on the dating of the
different versions. For a review on the research about this issue, see Troyer 2002:187-
272.
118
See Moore 1967:353ff and Tov 1982:25.
119
Troyer 2002:175.
120
According to Bickerman 1944:240: “The Greek Esther was composed by Jeru-
salemite. … Lysimachus’ version of Esther, made sometime before 78-77 BCE, presents
a remarkable specimen of Palestinian Greek.” He adds that Lysimachus felt free to
change the Hebrew text since at that time it was not sacred (1944:257).
Introduction 37
ment among scholars on the question whether this source was a He-
121
brew/Aramaic or a Greek one.
1.8 Queen Esther in Proof of History

After all is said and done, there is a little place to mention something that is of
much importance not only for Jewish life and thought but also for the OT Book
of Esther and its place in Jewish life that continues even today, namely, the
Jewish holiday of Purim.
This holiday has two main parts: the reading of the Book of Esther and
the festivities of the holiday. This custom of celebration, in addition to its
presence in the OT Book of Esther and its different versions, can be traced back
to the first half of the first century BCE, in the text of 2Macc 15:36.1. But this is
only evidence for a reading of the Megila and for the celebration; it lacks details
122
regarding the nature of the celebration. There is no evidence of other early
customs, such as those mentioned in the Talmud, including getting drunk,
putting on costumes and giving gifts to the poor, and the the Purim-spiel, a
staged play of the events in the Megila. Because of this wonderful celebration,
which may looks strange to those who look at it from the OT Book of Esther,
the Megila has kept its central place in Jewish life and therefore is known to
Jews all around the world (and probably also non-Jews). In the last decades,
these celebrations have become centered on children who often wish to be
dressed up as Esther or Mordecai or even Ahasuerus. No one, however, wishes
to be Haman. The main reasons that many people love this holiday are the
salvation of the Jewish community in diaspora from the risk of extinction, that a
beautiful clever woman made it happen, and, finally, because of the great fun of
it.
_______________
121
For different opinions concerning the origin of the story of Esther and the relation
between its different versions, see Bickerman 1944:240, Bickerman 1951:249-253,
Moore 1967:353-358, Tov 1982:3-11, 25, Clines 1984a, Greenstein 1987:226, Fox 1991,
Jobes 1996:1-38, Frolov 2002:323, and Troyer 2002:175, 181-187.
122
For the reference in 2Macc see Dorothy 1997:329.
2. “A Beautiful Orphan Queen,” or
“To Be or Not To Be”
2.1 Introduction
The Book of Esther was studied both as one of the books of the OT and as a
123
book that gained special attention in Judaism. The book received its special
place, despite the discussions concerning its place among the books of the OT,
due to its function in Jewish liturgy. Every year on the day before the Jewish
holiday of Purim, on a day called ‘Ta´anit Esther’ (Esther’s fast), according to
Judaism one has to fast and read the Megila, namely, the OT Book of Esther.
In Jewish thought, Esther has come to be a brave woman who became a
queen and a heroine.
But who was Esther? A Jewish orphan whose relative, Mordecai, took care
of her until one day the great king, Ahasuerus, made her his queen. But again,
what does this mean?
2.2 The Story

The great king Ahasuerus, who ruled over 120 countries, made a banquet. Its
splendors are described in great detail. During this banquet his wife, Queen
Vashti, refused his requEstherto appear before the king and his guests. The
furious king dimissed her.
After a while, the king missed Vashti and his servants had to look all over
the kingdom for someone to replace her. During their search, many beautiful
young women were gathered and brought into the capital city, Susa, and
thereafter into the palace. The gathering of the beautiful maidens into the palace
provides the backstory for the introduction of two important characters: Esther
and Mordecai. These two were affected directly by the gathering because Esther
was among the girls taken into the palace.
_______________
123
For some of the studies on Esther, see Moore 1983:169-186.
“A Beautiful Orphan Queen,” or “To Be or Not to Be” 39
The preparations made for each and every one of the young women before
spending a night with the king are thoroughly described. After a night with the
king, most of the women were taken to another part of the palace to become
royal women of different ranks. Esther found herself among the women who
were taken into the palace. She underwent the same preparations as all the other
girls, however, she did not have to wait like all the others for her turn to start
this process since Hegai, the keeper of the women who was responsible for this
process, became fond of her from the first time he saw her.
Because of that she could start with the process upon entering the house of
royal women. After her preparation period came to an end, she was brought to
the king’s chamber. She was favored by the king above all other women brought
to the palace during that time, and the king made her a queen.
During her time as queen of her people, the Jews were threatened with
destruction. As queen, she intervened in that matter even though it put her own
life in danger and she managed to save the Jews from the villain of the story, the
king’s minister Haman, and his wicked plan to kill all the Jews in the
124
kingdom.
As a result of her (and Mordecai’s) deeds, the day which should have been a
day of elimination of all the Jews in the kingdom became a day of joy and
salvation that continues to be commemorated and celebrated to this day.
2.3 Direct Characterizations/Descriptions of the Status of

Esther as Described in the OT Book of Esther
The next two parts of the study will consist of an examination of the narrator’s
direct and indirect descriptions of Esther, a description of her acts, and her
description through her relations with other characters in the book. This section
will start with the direct characterizations of Esther by analyzing her names and
nicknames; it will then continue with her appearance as described by the
narrator.
2.3.1 Her Name

The main female character in the Book of Esther is named by the narrator in two
different ways. Already in his first introduction of her (2:7), the narrator calls
her by both names: Hadassah and Esther. He further emphasizes that Hadassah
125
and Esther are two names for the same person. However, the number of times
_______________
124
Many scholars have compared or mentioned the similarities between the Book of
Esther, particularly its second chapter, and The Thousand and One Nights. Among them
are Paton 1908:180, Fuerst 1975:51, Moore 1975:74, and Clines 1984:286.
125
For the different meanings of these names, see Moore 1971:20.
that the different names are used varies greatly: while she is called Hadassah
126
only once, she is called Esther 55 times.
The name Hadassah appears only once in the OT, in the Book of Esther 2:7.
In the masculine form, Hadas is used to name a kind of plant, the myrtle. It is
used with this meaning six times in the OT, three in the singular and three in the
plural. In the book of Esther it appears only once, however, this time in the
feminine form. This is the first name by which the main character is referred.
Most scholars think that the name in the feminine form has the same meaning as
the masculine form, that is, the myrtle. Jensen, however, has discussed the
possibility of a different meaning, suggesting the word is synonymous with
127
“bride.” It is only after this initial naming that the narrator says she is also
called Esther.
Of the 55 times in which “Esther” is used for naming the main character,
seven of those are used in conjunction with “ha-malkah,” usually translated as
“the queen.” Scholars have discussed the issue of the twofold naming of the
main character and come up with several possible explanations: first, that
128
Hadassah was her Jewish name and Esther a foreign one; and second, that
Hadassah was her birth name and Esther was the name given to her after
129
entering the palace. Common to these two suggestions is the ‘secondary
nature’ of the name Esther, that is, this name is an addition while the original
130
name was Hadassah. Other scholars, however, have come to a third
conclusion: that Esther was the main character’s name while Hadassah was a
kind of a title. Finally, some suggest that the two names belong to two different
131
versions of the story.
In any case, there is no doubt that Hadassah and Esther are two names for
the same person. Esther was born as Hadassah, a Jewish girl in the big city of
Susa, but during her life she has changed and became Hadassah-Esther. After
she had been taken and brought into the palace, she is not called Hadassah
anymore and only Esther remains. Nevertheless, though she became a royal
woman, she never forgot her origins and she was there to save her people in
their time of need.
_______________
126
The name is missing from all the versions except the Vulgate.
127
Jensen 1892:209.
128
Thus, for example, Moore 1971:20.
129
Thus, for example, Anderson, 1950. For a discussion of the probable meanings
and origins (Persian or Babylonian) of this name in case it was a secondary one, see
Paton 1908:170. Brosius 1996:185, claims that in the Persian Empire it was very com-
mon for women to have two names: their original names and their official names.
130
In contrast to the early Jewish commentaries, in which the opposite opinion was
also found. For a short review, see Paton 1908:170. For a detailed discussion, see Wal-
fish 1993.
131
Thus, for example, Bardtke 1964:300 and Brockingston 1969:228.
2.3.2 Her Nickname and Other Direct Description
2.3.2.1 “Without father and mother”

In the first verse where she is mentioned in the story, the narrator reveals that
Esther is an orphan. This explains why she dwelt in Mordecai’s house.
Nevertheless, as is well known, the foreigner, the orphan and the widow were
(and still are today) three groups with a very low social and also, for that matter,
132
economic status.
Esther is defined as “without father and mother,” even if the writer does not
put her under the category of “orphan” )‫(י ָתֹום‬, which, as a legal distinction,
would have given her certain legislative protection. She had, at least for a short
while, neither the legal protection that comes with being a legal orphan nor
social ones because she did not have any guardian until Mordecai took her into
his house. By doing so, he provided her with shelter and security, at least
providing basic protection. However, there is another side to this matter. By
133
adopting her, Mordecai provided himself with legal rights over Esther, and
could do with her whatever he wanted. According to the OT, he also tried to
influence her and convince her to do what he thought she should do.
The term “orphan” appears both in the early and in the late biblical books. It
seems that it includes not only the fact that the child or young person has lost
one or both of his parents, but also a place in the legislation and a certain
(though very low) socio-economic status. This could be the reason the writer
avoided the term. He knew of the existence of such a term but did not include
Esther in it, perhaps because of her status in society, her heritage, or, more
likely, because Mordecai took her quite immediately after she was left with no
parents.
2.3.2.2 “Esther Bat Abihail”

Although she is described as an orphan, her heritage is nevertheless of great
importance. The name of Esther’s father has three variants: the one found in the
OT/MT book “Abihail,” the one in the Septuagint, “Ameinadab,” and, in the
134
OL, “Abiel.”
The very mention of her father’s name, however, is much more important
than which name is used or which name is the the original. Her heritage is
mentioned both by saying that Mordecai was her cousin (2:7) and by naming her
father. She is not like the other orphans with no past worth mentioning and
probably no promising future. She is one of the descendants of an important
_______________
132
For some of the rules and instructions for helping these three groups, see Numbers
12:47-49, 22:20-23, Deuteronomy 14:28-29, 17:9-14, 24:17-22, and also Jeremiah 7,
Isaiah 1:23, and Ruth 2.
133
On this, see the discussion on the relations between Esther and Mordecai.
134
On these different names, see Moore 1977:186.
family and therefore, even though she lost her parents, she still has a chance for
an auspicious future.
2.3.2.3 “The young girl”

‫ ַהנַע ֲָרה‬, translated as “the young girl,” defines not only her age as suiting the
requirements of the king’s messengers but also her socio-legal position: she had
to be under the custody of an adult. She could not, therefore, make any
important decisions concerning her life and future. Others made it for her. This
is one of the reasons for her being passive in many ways, both in the house of
Mordecai and after leaving it.
2.3.2.4 ‫תַֹּאר‬-‫ יְפַת‬and ‫טֹובַת מ ְַראֶה‬

The great majority of bible translations do not suggest a significant difference
between the two terms ‫תַֹּאר‬-‫ יְפַת‬and ‫( טֹובַת מ ְַראֶה‬2:7). The NRSV, for example,
translates them as “handsome and good looking,” and the New King James
Version as “fair and beautiful.” To these, one may add: “a beautiful figure” and
“was lovely to look at” (English Standard Version), “fair and beautiful” (King
James Version), and “she had a very pretty figure and face” of the New Century
135
Version (NCV). However, there is another, more accuate possibility for the
translation, one based on the difference between these two terms.
As a matter of fact, even though on its surface it looks like an emphasis of
the exact same quality, these two terms are not, as the translations just presented
suggest, synonymous. KB explains ‫תַֹּאר‬-‫ יְפַת‬as “good looking” (p. 1677) and ‫טֹובַת‬
‫ מ ְַראֶה‬as “pleasing, beautiful” and “attractive in appearance” (p. 371), though it
relates in Esther 2:7 only to the “beautiful” part. However, there is an important
difference between the terms as understood in this context. While ‫תַֹּאר‬-‫ יְפַת‬is a
fixation on the looks of the subject – in this case, Esther – the ‫ טֹובַת מ ְַראֶה‬includes
not only the fact that the subject is good looking but also another aspect: the
way other people look at her. Namely, she is, in their sight, in the eyes of those
who see her, good looking. This argument is supported further by Genesis 2:9,
where the ‫ מ ְַר ֶאה‬is used as following ‫“ נֶ ְח ָמד‬nice,” and gets the translation “lovely
to behold, to see.” Therefore, the fact that everyone liked her appearance is not
left only to destiny while Esther is passive, but, rather, she contributed to these
results. She is not as passive as one thinks she is. Not even at this stage of the
story.
_______________
135
Beal 1999:28 points to the sexuality of this description.
2.3.2.5 “ alkah”
Besides one place in which she is named Hadassah (2:7), the heroine is
136
mentioned both by the name Esther and the title ‫ ַמ ְלכָה‬Malkah. As Esther she is
mentioned 55 times (not including the title of the book) and as Malkah 17 times,
of which 14 are in combination with Esther. The first instance of this is in
Esther 2:22.
In the OT, only three women are called ‫ ַמ ְלכָה‬. Two of them, Vashti and
Esther, are in the Book of Esther. Besides these two, there is the woman from
Sheba. All together it appears 33 times in the singular form in the OT.
‫ ַמ ְלכָה‬appears in the OT also in its plural form, in order to define a group of
women. In this form it appears twice, both in the Song of Songs, (chapter 6:8,
and 9). All of the appearances both in the singular and in the plural of the
137
feminine form of the noun are in the so-called late books of the OT.
Nevertheless, although ‫ ַמ ְלכָה‬appears only in late OT books, it is of an early
138
Semitic origin. Because it does not appear in connection with all ‘queens,’
Jezebel, for example, is not referred to as ‫ ַמ ְלכָה‬, it seems that this term was not
often used in the OT. This term, at least in its singular form, appears only in
context of royal women who dwelt outside of Israel and Judah. Two of these
139
three women are not of Jewish origin.
According to Solvang, in the Bible as in other documents from the ancient
near east, there is no consistency when using administrative titles reffering to
royal women. This is the reason for the fact that the title ‫ ַמ ְלכָה‬does not appear in
the bible for describing a royal woman in the kingdom of Israel and Judah.
However, it would be wrong to conclude from this that such a status did not
140
exist in these kingdoms.
Besides this term, the OT uses another term for royal women 15 times:
gebirah ‫ִירה‬ ָ ‫ ְגב‬. This term is used both for women who were born in Israel and
those who were not. The two main differences between these terms are that
while malkah refers only to royal women, gebirah refers also to mistresses
outside the palace, as for example in Genesis 16:4-8. Second, while the woman
who holds the title malkah is not necessarily the first woman of the house, the
woman who holds the title of gebirah is, as in 2 Kings 10:13. From this, one
_______________
136
According to Moore 1977:186, ‘Hadassah’ is missing from all the Greek versions
based on the LXX.
137
However, see the personal name ‘malkah’ as in Genesis 11:29, and Joshua 17:3.
138
See KB p. 592.
139
Some scholars, such as Montgomery 1951:234 and Mulder 1998:551, assume that
in its plural form as it appears in the Song of Songs 6:8-9, it might refer to the royal
women of King Solomon. But this assumption is doubtfully correct.
140
See Slovang 2003:71ff.
may conclude that by calling Esther malkah, the narrator did not necessarily
141
intend to present her as the highest ranking woman in Ahasuerus’ palace. This
is hinted at in the Song of Songs 6:8-9, where several royal women are referred
to as ‘queens’ at the same time. In this text, then, the term does not exactly mean
“the first woman of the kingdom,” as it does in modern times.
Esther was to become a malkah instead of Vashti. Nowhere in the Book of
Esther is it written that Vashti was the first woman. In any case, it is most
probable that she was one of many royal women. Even if Esther is assumed to
be the king’s wife, an assumption that is not accepted by most scholars in
modern times but which nevertheless might fit the historical background of the
Achaemenid period in which the story is set, it cannot be assumed that she was
142
the chief wife.
The Greek versions translate Malkah as ‘basileía.’ This Greek term can
143
mean ‘queen’ but it can also mean ‘royal woman,’ ‘princess.’ Furthermore,
from the use of this term by the Greeks, it is impossible to know how they
understood the Hebrew ‫ ַמ ְלכָה‬. Therefore, it depends much upon the semantics of
the word and its context to determine whether Esther was a queen, a ruler, or
one of many royal wives, or perhaps even ‘only’ a royal woman at the palace of
144
Ahasuerus. Therefore, it is not possible to come to a conclusion at this stage of
the study concerning Esther’s rank in the palace of king Ahasuerus.
_______________
141
For a further discussion on this term, see Ben Barak 1991:23.
142
Wright 1970:38.
143
For this Greek term see Liddell 1996:309. On the meaning ‘royal woman’ of this
Greek term and its use: “What is clear now is that ‘Basileia’ was simply a Greek term
used to identify certain women as members of a royal court or ruling house. The transla-
tion ‘queen’ which would appear to identify one particular royal woman as holding a
very specific political status, cannot be justified. Therefore I suggest a translation of
‘Basileia’ as ‘royal woman’ rather than ‘queen.’ This boader translation better reflects the
flexible way in which the term was applied to ruling women, female members of the
royal household, and, in the case of the Persian court, to the king’s wife and the king’s
mother” (Brosius 1996:20).
144
Brunner 1983:711 describes the use of the title “queen,” which according to him
is to be understood also as “lady” among the Persian kings. According to him, this title
was used also for junior wives of the king of kings and for the wives of the kings of the
various Shahrs.
2.4 Indirect Characterizations for the Status of Esther as

Described in the OT Book of Esther
Indirect characterization of Esther can be defined according to the following
parameters: her actions, that is, how the various descriptions of her actions
indicate her personality; her way of thinking; and her way of coping with
different people and situations. On the other hand, her lack of action can also
illuminate the above elements. Descriptions of her relations with the other
characters are an important tool for discovering more details and aspects about
her character and, thus, will also be discussed. Another way to view the
character is by her words and the different issues she faces during her daily life
in the palace.
2.4.1 Her Actions

One should examine the descriptions of her actions in order to learn what status
she had according to the OT. Furthermore, by comparing these descriptions with
the so-called historical background of the period, one might find out whether or
not such actions could be done by a royal woman.
Until the middle of the story, the actions described in connection with
Esther are acts imposed on her rather than actions initiated by her. She is
depicted as a passive character. All the events during her life until this point
have happened without her active participation and, furthermore, without her
explicit consent.
Though she appears first in 2:7 after a detailed note on Mordecai’s lineage
(v. 5-6), the first implication of Esther’s deeds is not found until 2:20, where it
is noted that Esther has behaved according to Mordecai’s instructions. Three
acts are described in this verse, all of which have a direct influence on Esther’s
life but in none of which she has actively participated: her parents have died,
145
Mordecai took care of her, and, finally, ‘adopted her.’
The second unit of acts describe her being taken into the palace; during this
first period of her stay in the palace, she is described as passive while the
146
eunuch Hegai takes care of all her needs.
The third unit begins when she is to be taken into the king’s private
chamber (2:15-16); she obeyed others even then. It is understood that, though
she could have asked for things before she came into the king’s chambers, it was
Hegai who decided for her exactly how she would present herself.
_______________
145
The Hebrew words for the adoption are ‫לְ ָקחָ ּה ָמ ְרדֳּ כַ י ל ֹו לְ בַ ת‬, ‘Mordecai took her as
his daughter.’ These words obviously are important to the understanding of the relation-
ship between Esther and Mordecai. See discussion on pp. 52-55.
146
But see Moore’s interpretation to ‫( וַ ִּת ָשא חֶ ֶסד‬2:9) as an active form (Moore
1971:21). See also Clines 1984b:288.
Only in chapter four are Esther’s actions described as if they were the result
of her own initiative. These actions, however, may be seen as a result of her
insecurity. She sends clothes to Mordecai not for helping him but rather in order
to cover those of his deeds that were in defiance of the customs of the land. She
did this without even knowing the reason for Mordeci’s behavior. Only later on,
when Mordecai refused her, did she send one of the eunuchs in order to find out
the cause for Mordecai’s behavior.
The next description of her actions is also in connection with these same
events. She sends the same eunuch a second time to Mordecai in order to notify
him about her refusal to plead to the king on behalf of the Jewish community
and the reason for her refusal. One can summarize her acts at this stage as
mostly sending others to communicate with Mordecai in her name.
4:16 is a transitional point in Esther’s behavior. Esther changes from a
passive character or a character that acts according to the instructions of others
into one who takes the initiative herself. In this verse, both kinds of actions are
described in parallel. On the one hand, she is the one who instructs others what
to do; on the other hand, her actions are the outcome of Mordecai’s instructions.
And, finally, at this point her actions have an influence only on her and her
maids. However, her intiative and her taking the leadership of her distressed
people will have outcomes crucial to the faith of the Jews of the diaspora in this
huge kingdom. From now on, her actions are going to affect these Jews.
Chapter five begins with Esther acting of her own volition: after preparing
herself by fasting, she then puts on proper clothes and garments: ‫וַתִ ְלבַׁש ֶאסְתֵּ ר‬
‫ ַמלְכּות‬. Malkhut usually means “royalty” in the OT. It appears 82 times in the OT
in Hebrew and some 11 times more in Aramaic. It also appears once in its plural
form. Usually it appears with a noun that the malkhut defines, as in Psalms
145:13.
Malkhut with ‫“ לְבּוׁש‬clothing” is to be found in Esther 6:8 and 8:15.
147
However, it is also found with ‫“ כֶתֶר‬crown” in Esther 1:11, 2:17, and 6:8. It
appears alone in verse 5:1. One should re-consider the meaning of malkhut
when it describes her manners and behavior.
Esther adopts the mask of her role as the chosen royal woman. This is the
show of her life. If she will perform well, she will gain much more than anyone
else. She dared to approach the king without being summoned, endangering her
life for the sake of the cause.
However, the text describes her stopping at the courtyard in front of the
king’s house. She dared to come forward to the inner courtyard, but there she
stood (5:1). It was her good luck that the king was sitting with his face towards
the entrance of the building and therefore could see her standing there, and she
_______________
147
‫ כֶ ֶתר‬appears in the OT only in these three verses of the Book of Esther. It occurs
also in 4QFestival Prayers (4Q509). On this word, see Salvesen 1999:35-46.
was even more lucky (or perhaps well prepared) because the king liked what he
148
saw (5:2).
The description of her actions at this stage of the story go back and forth
between her taking the initiative for acting and dictating the course of the events
and her being acted upon and told what to do. An example of this is found in the
verses that follow the text in which she is described approaching the inner
courtyard of the house. After taking matters into her own hands and preparing
herself for the meeting with the king, she suddenly finds herself in a place where
she cannot be the master of her actions. She stands in the inner courtyard
knowing the next step is not hers to make. However, the king took the initiative
and decided for her to continue and step into the throne room:
‫ׁש ְַרבִיט ַהזָהָב ֲאׁשֶר ְבי ָדֹו וַתִ ק ְַרב ֶאסְתֵּ ר וַתִ גַע בְר ֹּאׁש‬-‫וַּיֹוׁשֶט ַה ֶמלְֶך ְל ֶאסְתֵּ ר ֶאת‬
.‫ַהש ְַרבִיט‬
The king held out to Esther the golden scepter that was in his
hand. Then Esther approached and touched the top of the scep-
ter (5:2).
Esther’s oscillations between passivity and activity continue until the end of the
second banquet. Nevertheless, at some point it is hard to determine whether the
passivity is because of her insecurity or because of the careful planning of the
events to come. For instance, one can ask whether her “hesitation” during her
meeting with the king and, later, at the first and second banquets is because of
Esther’s passivity or because of her great cleverness in planning the events
down to the smallest detail.
Also at the second banquet, the king and Haman are the ones who “come to
drink” with Esther. Nothing that she does or says is described until the king
approaches her with his repeating question concerning her wish (7:1-4). Only
after the king repeats his question and again expresses his will to help her does
she tell him about the danger in which she and her people find themselves.
The coming events are also not a direct result of Esther’s initiative. The
king, who was made very upset by Esther’s words, went out to the garden and
while he was outside Haman approached Esther. Probably because he was
overcome by fear, he fell on the couch where Esther was sitting. Significantly,
Esther did not act when the king departed, but, rather, sat down and waited for
his verdict. Haman was sentenced to death.
From the beginning of chapter 8 and the description of the giving of
Haman’s house to Esther by the king, a chain of events instigated by Esther is
described. The first act described was to give Mordecai power and authority
over the “house of Haman.” The chapter continues with verse 3 in which one act
of Esther leads to another:
_______________
148
Another character in this story is described in the inner courtyard of the king’s
house. However, this character, Haman, is found there because of his duties serving the
king as a great vizier who is very close to the king (6:5).
‫לֹו ְל ַה ֲעבִיר‬-‫וַתֹוסֶף ֶאסְתֵּ ר וַתְ דַ בֵּר ִל ְפנֵּי ַה ֶמלְֶך וַתִ פ ֹּל ִל ְפנֵּי ַרגְלָיו; וַתֵּ ְב ְך ַו ִתתְ ַחנֶן‬
.‫ ַהּי ְהּודִ ים‬-‫ׁשבְתֹו ֲאׁשֶר ָחׁשַב עַל‬ ַ ‫ ָרעַת ָהמָן ָה ֲאגָגִי ְו ֵּאת ַמ ֲח‬-‫ֶאת‬
Then Esther spoke again to the king and fell at his feet, and
wept and pled with him to avert the evil design of Haman the
Agagite and the plot that he had planned against the Jews (8:3)
No fewer than five deeds are mentioned in the chain of actions by which Esther
convinces the king to save the Jews. Upon the king’s holding out of the scepter,
Esther felt encouraged to continue with her cause, and therefore she did not only
stand in front of the king (v.4) but tried to get as much as she could out of the
opportunity. She explained to him how important it was to her to save the Jews:
she, Esther, is a Jew and, therefore, the Jews are her people, the remnants of her
homeland, and she would not be able to stand aside and see their destruction. In
response, the king gives Mordecai and Esther permission to write whatever they
choose to the Jews all around the kingdom and to seal their letters with the
king’s ring, thus making the letter legal and irreversible. In the rest of the
chapter, Esther is not mentioned; instead, the focus is on the good faith of the
Jews and the glory of Mordecai.
Esther, however, is mentioned again in 9:12-13. There, the king tells her the
news about the number of people killed in Susa and asks her what more should
be done to please her. Esther answered the king that she would like to permit the
Jews of Susa one more day in order to continue their deeds and, furthermore,
that the sons of Haman be hanged. The king immediately agreed.
The last time in which Esther is mentioned 9:29-32, when she and Mordecai
send messages to all the Jews in the kingdom instructing them to celebrate these
events from that time on and that the order of Esther be obeyed and documented
in a book. This order is still obeyed today by the celebration of the Jewish
holiday of Purim.
2.4.2 Her relations with Other Characters

Esther’s relationships with other characters are another important element in
understanding her character. All but one group (her seven maids) are male:
149
Mordecai, the eunuchs, Haman, and the king. In this part of the study their
relations with Esther will be discussed.
There are two more women described in this book, Vashti and Zeresh. Even
though Esther does not have any direct relationship with them, their existence
and actions influence her greatly and therefore a discussion them and their
influence on her will take place directly after the current discussion.
_______________
149
In this study, her relationship with the eunuchs will not be studied since this sub-
ject does not help in the understanding of her status, rank, and role in the palace. For
previous studies about the role of the eunuchs in the Book of Esther, see, for example,
Frolov 2002:304-325.
2.4.2.1 Her relations with Mordecai

The first relationship in which Esther is involved after becoming an orphan is
150
with Mordecai. As a matter of fact, as mentioned above, she is first introduced
151
to the reader by this relationship. The nature of this relationship is
controversial among scholars. The main reason for this confusion is the first
comment on this relationship at 2:7. According to the Hebrew version, Mordecai
took care of Esther, ‫ ַויְהִי א ֹּמֵּן אֶ ת‬and took her as his own daughter, ‫ְל ָקחָּה מ ְָרדֳּ כַי לֹו‬
152
‫ ְלבַת‬.
This idea appears again and is emphasized in verse 20 of the same chapter.
There, it is written that Esther followed the instructions that Mordecai gave her
as she used to do when she grew up with him ‫בְָא ְמנָה ִאתו‬. The ‫ ַויְהִי א ֹּמֵּן ֶאת‬probably
means that he acted as her father. ‫אמן‬, therefore, is the one who raises her (and
153
see for that matter also Exodus 11:12, and Proverbs 8:30).
The LXX presents a different version of the events; accordingly, the
relationship between Mordecai and Esther is also defined differently. According
to this version, Mordecai did not adopt Esther as his daughter but rather took her
154
as his wife. This is also the relationship described in Megila 13a.
In the Jewish scholarship of the Middle Ages, the question about the nature
of the relationship between Esther and Mordecai was important. Medieval
interpretations concentrated mostly on the word ‫‘ בַת‬daughter’ (2:7), claiming
that it is a corruption of ‫בית‬. Furthermore, the Hebrew ‫בית‬, usually translated as
155
‘house’ might also mean ‘wife.’
Darr is of the opinion that it is unlikely that Mordecai married Esther since
156
she was his cousin. Nevertheless, even if Mordecai did not take Esther as his
wife, the suggestion that the reason for him not to take her as his wife because
she was his cousin is unacceptable. It is well known that Jews, like other people
_______________
150
Besides, of course, her parents, who died when she was very young. Mordecai
himself is introduced with many details: his name, heritage, origin, and his deeds are
reiterated throughout the story. For some comments on these elements, see Paton
1908:166, Bickerman 1967:209, Moore 1971:19, Pfitserer 1991:173, and Berlin 2001:81.
151
As already mentioned by Beal 1999:27.
152
Literally, ‘adopted her.’ It is not explained how he does this, and therefore it is not
certain whether it had a legal significance or not. On adoption in the OT, see among
others Wahlt 1999:78.
153
For the meaning of ‫ לקח‬in the OT and in Esther 2:7, see Davidovich 2004:84ff.
154
And see also Lysimachus’ version of this text in which Mordecai brought up Es-
ther as his future wife. In A the text is omitted.
155
On this meaning of the word in Rabbinic literature, see Pfitsere Darr 1991:173,
186, and Walfish 1993:165. See also Paton 1908:171, Bickerman 1951:254, Moore
1971:15, 21, and Moore 1977:186.
156
Pfitsere Darr 1991:186.
in the ancient Near East, married their relatives. Furthermore, it was a very
common way in which people kept their wealth among their own kin. Therefore,
the objection to such a possibility has to be based on the text itself and examined
as such.
Beal claims the verse is intentionally misleading, According to her, by
describing the beauty of Esther and her orphanhood, the text misleads the reader
to think that Mordecai took Esther as his wife but, at the last minute, or shall I
157
say, the last word of the verse, the action changes into ‘adoption.’
Nevertheless, the reason for such intent is not to be found in the text.
Paton, followed by Moore, is of the opinion that the act described in 2:7 is
the one that suits the context, namely that Mordecai could not have married
158
Esther since they declare that only virgins were gathered. This explanation is
incorrect for two reasons: it is nowehere written in the text that only virgins
were gathered, and though it is probable, it might also be that if the woman was
extremely beautiful she was taken whether she was a virgin or not. Furthermore,
as noted in a previous study, ‫ בְתּולָה‬does not necessarily mean ‘virgin’ but rather
159
‘a woman of marriageable age.’
One may assume the duality of the information in this verse is a result of
two different sources of the version in the OT. In such a case, the meaning of
‫הֲדַ סָה‬-‫ ַויְהִי א ֹּ ֵּמן ֶאת‬and ‫ ְל ָקחָּה מ ְָרדֳּ כַי לֹו ְלבַת‬would be considered parallel.
Nevertheless, the end of the verse can be understood as a completion of its
beginning, that is, that Mordecai not only took care of Esther, he adopted her as
well.
The third possibility for interpreting this verse is that Mordecai took care of
Esther since the time of her childhood, and when she grew up he took her as his
160
wife. This interpretation is based on the understanding of ‫‘ בת‬daughter’ as in
the meaning of ‘house,’ ‫בית‬.
The fact that Esther was taken with the other beautiful girls does not revoke
or support one interpretation or the other. It was common to take unmarried
women on such occasions, but there were no laws and no customs against taking
a married woman to the palace. There are, of course, Jewish laws saying that
one is prohibited from desiring something that belongs to another man, among
them this man’s women. This is the last of the ten commandments: “You shall
not covet your neighbour’s wife” (Exodus 20:1-18 [17]) and it is found with
some changes in Deuteronomy 5:1-22 (21).
_______________
157
Beal 1999:27. On the adoption of Esther see Wahlt 1999:78-79.
158
Paton 1908:171, Moore 1971:21, and 1977:186.
159
Clines 1984:287 rightly notes that adoption is unknown in Hebrew law and that
the nearest parallel to it in the OT is set in a foreign locale (Exod 2:10). Jews of the
diaspora may well have taken over the custom, which is well attested in Babylonian legal
documents. On the meaning of ‫ ְבתּולָה‬in the OT, see Wenham 1972:326-348.
160
OL and Vulg. Read “niece” instead of cousin.
There were also rules for the kings of Israel and Judah not to take many
women (Deuteronomy 17:14-20), but one cannot expect a foreign king to
behave according to Jewish laws, even more so when the kings of Israel and
Judah did not follow these rules. In foreign ancient kingdoms such as Egypt,
Persia, and others, it was very common to have many women and several times
these women have belonged to other men. Xerxes, for example, longed for his
brother’s wife and at the end had to give his wife permission to order her death
161
and sometime later had also to kill his own brother. One should examine all
the episodes in which Esther and Mordecai are mentioned together in order to
see if they might support one of the interpretations.
In 2:10, another piece of information about the relationship between
Mordecai and Esther is revealed. It is written that Esther told no one at the court
about her origins, as Mordecai had instructed her. Therefore, it is clear that even
after her departure from Mordecai she was still obeying him and he still retained
his influence over her even after she was no longer under his direct control.
From 2:11, it is understood that Mordecai, in the first period of Esther’s
residence in the palace, came to the area next to the palace in order to find out
how things were going for her. The reason for this, however, is not mentioned.
Probably he was either concerned about her well-being or was afraid to lose
control over her after she was no longer in his custody.
At 2:15, some facts concerning their relationship are repeated from 2:7 as
part of Esther’s identification: “Esther daughter of Abihail the uncle of
Mordecai, who took her as his own daughter.” It is possible that this information
162
is a repetition from 2:7. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore the literary
importance of this repetition, both for distinguishing Esther from the other girls,
163
and for the ensuing narrative.
2:20 belongs to the second period of Esther’s residence in the palace.
Therefore, this verse is of great importance, both in the repetition, “Esther did
not reveal …as Mordecai has ordered her,” and in the addition: “as she has done
164
in the times when she was being raised by him.” Since now Esther is a grown
woman with an elevated position in the palace, it is most unusual that she would
165
still obey Mordecai as she had done in her childhood. As a woman, she is still
under his control.
The story of revealing the conspiracy of the two eunuchs in 2:21-23 could
not have been possible in the narrative if Mordecai had not been sitting at the
_______________
161
This issue was already discussed more thoroughly in the introduction.
162
Thus Moore 1971:16, who mentions also that in the LXX this phrase is omitted.
163
For the importance of the repetition as emphasizing Esther, see Paton 1908:182.
For its importance to the plot, see Clines 1984b:290.
164
According to Paton 1908:192, the Hiphil form of the verb expresses the continua-
tion of Esther’s concealment of her origin.
165
Scholars have pointed out the importance of this act to the plot. See, for example,
Moore 1971:30.
gate waiting for news about Esther. This might be proof of the direct and
indirect importance of the relationship between Esther and Mordecai to the
story. In this episode, one finds the old pattern in their relationship, namely,
166
Mordecai instructs Esther to do something and she obeys. However, at the
same time, a new trend in their relationship emerges. She is the ‘queen’ and, as
such, has access to the highest corridors of power, something that Mordecai has
thus far lacked.
In 4:4, the deep feelings of Esther for Mordecai are emphasized in the verb
‫וַתִ תְ ַח ְלחַל‬. This form of the root ‫ חיל‬stresses the great fear of the person referred to
by the verb. She immediately sends her servants with clothes for Mordecai to
put on but he refuses her request. Of course there is another possibility to
explain her great emotions: she did not fear Mordecai but rather her own
position and status in the palace and in the house of women. People might have
known that they were connected even though she “did not reveal” it. After all,
167
they were from Susa and not from some distant place. He is still the individual
independent agent while she is developing in their relationship from obedient
child to independent woman. Mordecai, however, remains the one in charge and
is, furthermore, the one who determines their roles within the relationship. From
this verse to the end of chapter four, the relationship between Esther and
168
Mordecai is a dialogue mediated by a third party, Hathach, one of the eunuchs.
A development in the relationship between Esther and Mordecai also occurs
during this dialogue. There is a process in which Esther becomes more and more
dominant and by the end of this dialogue, she is the one who orders Mordecai’s
next actions and he is the one who obeys.
From this stage on, their relationship is never again as it was before. Esther
is the strong partner in this relationship and after a while they become equally
active in their relationship and in their deeds for the Jewish communities all
over the kingdom. In chapters 5-7, there is no information concerning this
relationship: no meetings, no conversations, no thoughts.
From the beginning of chapter eight, it is emphasized that Mordecai
benefited personally from his relations with Esther. 8:2 is a good example of the
change in roles between Esther and Mordecai. She has the power to act and she
exercises it for his benefit. After this, the names of Mordecai and Esther are
mentioned side by side three more times (8:7, 9:29, 31). In all these instances,
169
Esther is called ‘queen’ while Mordecai is called ‘the Jew.’ From this, one
may understand that though in their deeds for their people they acted together,
in their private relations, whatever the nature of these relations was, they were
_______________
166
On this matter in the LXX versus OT Esther book, see Evans 2011.
167
For a discussion of the archaeology of Susa and its bearing on the Book of Esther,
see Moore 1975:71ff.
168
For a general overview on discourse in the OT, see Bodine 1995.
169
Nonetheless, there is no obvious trace in this text of the negative meaning the
words “the Jew” received later on in history.
separated from each other. She was the queen and he was the famous Jew.
Nothing more is said about their relations after the beginning of chapter eight.
It is written in 8:1: “And Mordecai came before the king, for Esther had told
what he was to her.” Two important issues in the analysis of the relationship
between Esther and Mordecai are found in these words. First, Esther revealed
her lineage against Mordecai’s orders and without consulting him beforehand.
Therefore, one may assume that she was no longer dependent on him either
physically (as she was no longer in his house) or mentally. She acted on her
own, independently from him. She is no longer characterized through him and
through their relationship. Furthermore, in this instance, he is the one who is
being identified through her and being acted upon as a result of their
relationship (8:1-2).
According to 8:1, Mordecai was summoned to the king as a result of
Esther’s revealing that she was connected to him. One can interpret these words
in two different ways: so far, it was written that Esther revealed her heritage to
no one in the palace. Therefore, it might have been so that no one knew about
her being a Jew. When the time was right, after the danger of Haman was about
to come to pass, she revealed her identity to the king. Because the king
remembered the favor that Mordecai has done to him by saving him from the
conspiracy of the two eunuchs (6:1-3), he summoned him in order to remunerate
him. This suggestion, however, is contradicted by the events of chapter 6, in
which Mordecai was already rewarded for his deeds.
A second interpretation might be that Esther revealed to the king that when
she was taken with the other girls into the palace she was already Mordecai’s
wife. This interpretation, though it does not fit directly with the text of 2:7,
parallels the different versions of the Book of Esther and the early Jewish
interpretations of the verse (as, for example, Megila 13). Accordingly, Esther
was taken by Mordecai not as his daughter but as his wife. In such a case,
furthermore, this would better suit what was written in chapter six. Mordecai
was getting his reward by sitting on the horse led by Haman, but then he was
summoned to the king because of another matter: the nature of his relationship
with Esther.
This summoning of the husband of a beautiful woman who was taken by the
servants of the king into his palace is not an unknown motif in the OT. One may
find it in the stories of the patriarchs: twice in connection with Abraham and
Sarah (Genesis 12 and 20) and once in connection with Isaac and Rebekah
(Genesis 26).
In all these stories, the man who gives incorrect information about his
relationship with a certain woman had to leave his dwelling place because of a
disaster. Abram left Canaan and came to Egypt because of the famine (Genesis
12:10); he came to Gerar because of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
(Genesis 19-20:1); and Isaac went to Gerar because of yet another famine
(Genesis 26:1). Similarly, Persia was not Mordecai’s place of origin since his
ancestors had left their homeland in Judah along with the rest of the exiles
(Esther 2:5-6).
Additionally, all the women involved in these scenes were beautiful. Sarah
is described as a “woman beautiful in appearance“ (Genesis 12:11), Rebekah as
a “girl very fair to look upon“ (Genesis 24:16), and Esther as “fair and beautiful
girl” (Esther 2:7). Their beauty was the main reason they were taken to the king.
In both stories about Abram (Genesis 12:15 and Genesis 20:2) and in the
story of Esther (Esther 2:8), the women were taken to the king by his
170
messengers. All the men also did not tell the truth for the same reason, that is,
they were afraid for their lives: Abram (Genesis 12:12, and 20:11), Isaac
(Genesis 26:7), and Mordecai (Esther 3:4). This issue is not directly parallel
between these stories of the patriarchs and the story of Esther. Though Mordecai
was afraid for his life, the reason for this fear is different than in the other
stories. Mordecai could lose his life not because of the nature of his relationship
with Esther but because of the private and political deeds that had nothing to do
with her.
Moreover, all the men convinced the women in their custody to cooperate
with them, as, for example, Abram at Genesis 12:13 and 20:13, Isaac at Genesis
26:6, and Mordecai at Esther 2:10. In all these cases, the king behaved out of
ignorance of the truth rather than any intention to violate the man’s right to his
woman, as written in Genesis 12:18, 20:5, and 26:9-11, and Esther 2:20.
Further, the husband of the woman was summoned to the king immediately after
the king found out about this man’s role as this woman’s husband. Abram
(Genesis 12:18, and 20:9), Isaac (Genesis 26:9), and Mordecai (8:1).
In all these episodes, too, the men received many ‘gifts.’ In the story of
Abram, he received gifts both when his wife was taken into the king’s palace,
“And he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male and female slaves, female
donkeys, and camels” (Genesis 12:16), and when the king has realized that
Abram was not the brother of Sarah, “Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and male
and female slaves, and gave them to Abraham, and restored his wife Sarah to
him. ... To Sarah he said, ‘Look, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of
silver’” (20:14-17). In the story of Isaac, “Abimelech warned all the people,
saying, ‘Whoever touches this man or his wife shall be put to death.’ Isaac
sowed seed in that land, and in the same year reaped a hundredfold. The Lord
blessed him, and the man became rich; he prospered more and more until he
became very wealthy. He had possessions of flocks and herds, and a great
household” (26:11-14), and, in the story of Esther “the king took off his signet
171
ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai” (8:2).
_______________
170
In the story about Isaac she was not taken at all, and all who lived in that place
were deceived by Isaac.
171
Tov 1982:23 points that while in the Hebrew version it is written that Esther gave
Haman’s house to Mordecai, according to L, the king himself gave him the house (7:15).
From the above, one may learn that there are many similar features in these
stories. The signficant difference between the events described in the stories of
the patriarchs and the one described in the Book of Esther is that, in the former,
the king gave back the woman to her husband and both left the territory over
which the king ruled. However, according to the Book of Esther, Mordecai
received ‘gifts’ but did not gain back Esther. And, after this incident, Esther
stayed in the palace while Mordecai continued to live outside the palace. This
might suggest the different kind of relationship that Esther had with Mordecai
compared to the others, but it might also indicate different customs, or maybe
simply the different personalities of different kings: the times had changed and
so too had the customs; what seemed obvious in one period was not so obvious
in a different one. Therefore, while Sara and Rebekah were returned to their
husbands, Esther had to stay in the palace.
Both these interpretations seem reasonable, though not without faults. It
cannot be the only proof for the nature of the relationship between Esther and
Mordecai.
2.4.2.2. The Scenes with Haman

Paradoxically, the character with the greatest influence over Esther in this story
may be Haman. Haman was deceived by Esther and paid with his life for this
mistake (7:10). How could a simple orphan girl succeed in deceiving a great
vizier without awaking his suspicion? Of course Esther did not have the power
to realize such a result by herself, but she apparently had enough influence with
the king, who held the power of life and death over his subjects.
According to the OT, Esther had nothing to do with Haman until she invited
him to a banquet arranged for him and the king. Haman could communicate
with the king relatively freely but probably did not have access to the dweling
area of the royal women. Furthermore, it is said that he had his own house and
family outside the palace, which means that he could come and go from the area
of the palace relatively undisturbed. Esther knew about his deeds and plans from
other people with whom she had connections: her maids, eunuchs, and even
Mordecai, who sent her messages through them.
The first time Esther and Haman are mentioned in connection with each
other is in the conversation between Esther and the king when she first came to
him unsummoned (5:4ff). However, this was not the first time that Esther was
influenced by Haman. Though the text does not mention previous meetings
between Esther and Haman, her life was greatly influenced by him and she
knew about his existence not only from a distance but also from her closest
relative, Mordecai.
The last part of chapter three is the narrative of the conflict between Haman
and Mordecai and its results. Because of Haman’s high position in the court, he
could convince the king that one should do something about the ethnic group to
which Mordecai belonged, since not to act could have a negative effect on the
kingdom. In the beginning of chapter four, it is written that Mordecai knew
about this plan. Therefore, it is obvious that Mordecai also had quite a high
172
political position in the kingdom. As a result of these events, Mordecai started
to mourn because he rightly suspected that the end will not be bright if things
continue on the same course. The high position of Mordecai is emphasized once
more by describing how the news reached Jews all over the land and that many
mourned as well. In any event, the news about Mordecai’s mourning next to the
gate hit Esther very hard. She immediately tried to make Mordecai stop, but she
was unsuccesful. Therefore, Esther sent her eunuch in order to hear the exact
reason for Mordecai’s behavior. At this point, she heard for the first time
Haman’s name in connection with her and her people.
‫ׁשת ַה ֶכסֶף ֲאׁשֶר ָאמַר ָהמָן ִלׁשְקֹול‬ ַ ‫ ֲאׁשֶר ק ָָרהּו ְו ֵּאת פ ָָר‬-‫לֹו מ ְָרדֳּ כַי ֵּאת כָל‬-‫ַוּיַגֶד‬
‫נִתַ ן בְׁשּוׁשָן‬-‫הַדָ ת ֲאׁשֶר‬-‫ׁשגֶן כְתָב‬ ֶ ְ‫פַת‬-‫ ְו ֶאת‬.‫ ִגנְזֵּי ַה ֶמלְֶך ַבּי ְהּודִ ים ְל ַאבְדָ ם‬-‫עַל‬
‫ ַה ֶמלְֶך‬-‫ ֶאסְתֵּ ר ּו ְל ַהגִיד לָּה ּו ְלצַּוֹות ָעלֶי ָה לָבֹוא ֶאל‬-‫ׁשמִידָ ם נָתַ ן לֹו ְלה ְַראֹות ֶאת‬ ְ ‫ְל ַה‬
.‫ ַוּי ָבֹוא הֲתָ ְך ַוּיַגֵּד ְל ֶאסְתֵּ ר ֵּאת דִ ב ְֵּרי מ ְָרדֳּ כָי‬.‫ ַעמָּה‬-‫לֹו ּו ְל ַבקֵּׁש ִמ ְל ָפנָיו עַל‬-‫ְלהִתְ ַחנֶן‬
And Mordecai told him all that had happened to him and the
affair of the money that Haman had promised to pay into the
king’s treasuries for the destruction of the Jews. He gave him a
copy of the written decree issued in Susa for their destruction
and, showing it to Esther, explained it to her and charged her to
go to the king to beg to him and entreat him for her people.
Hathach went and told Esther what Mordecai had said.
(Esther 4:7-9)
Mordecai’s speech to the eunuch Esther sent can be divided into three parts. In
the first part, Mordecai tells the eunuch about the events and the conflict that
have occurred between him and Haman. There is no doubt that Mordecai
describes these events as he sees them from his own perspective and not
necessarily exactly as they occurred.
The second part of Mordecai’s words occupy the second half of verse
seven: it first narrates Haman’s suggestion to donate to the treasury of the land a
big sum of his money and then the reason for Haman’s generosity: to pay for the
destruction of the Jews, or at least to bribe the king to let him do it. Haman was
_______________
172
For this matter, see Darr 1991:173: “Twice in three verses, we are told that Mor-
decai ‘sits at the king’s gate’ (2:19-21). The expression…was likely a technical phrase
indicating his status as a minor official in the royal court.” According to Bickerman
1967:276, the mention of Jehoahim’s Diaspora was meant to emphasize that Mordecai
was one of those with high status that have been exiled with the king. Greenstein
1987:230 claims Mordecai was the court Jew. Wright 1970:45 suggests that Esther had
influential people behind her and therefore she was chosen. For similar arguments, see
also Moore 1975:74, Gordis 1974:6, and Yamauchi 1980:107.
aware of the fact that such an act will require a great deal of money from the
state treasury and because he did not wish this to be a cause of the king’s
rejection of his plans, he offered a sum of money to be used as a payment for the
king’s generosity to him for approving the destruction of the Jews.
The third part of Mordecai’s reaction is to be found in verse eight. It
narrates the handing over of the decree against the Jews to the eunuch in order
that he give it to Esther and explain to her what she should do. After this, there
was no doubt in Esther’s mind that Haman was a wicked man who tried to
destroy her people, which would also cause her to lose her position in the king’s
palace and even her life. The picture of the conflict and its possible results that
she received was not accurate; rather, it was as Mordecai saw the things or,
more probably, as Mordecai wanted her to see them.
No doubt, her first impression of Haman from Mordecai’s story influenced
her attitude toward him both as the representative of the Jews at the king’s
quarters and personally; she could, therefore, mislead him as she did with no
regrets.
When Esther came unsummoned to the king, it is written (5:4) that her
answer to the king about her wish was that the king, if he so pleased, would
come with Haman to a banquet that she would arrange. It is also written that the
king sent for Haman, an indication that he was not in the throne room on a
regular basis but was summoned when needed. At this point in the story, there is
no doubt that it is not only Esther who is influenced by Haman’s acts and
wishes; Haman, too, is influenced by Esther’s acts:
-‫ׁשתֶ ה ֲאׁשֶר‬ ְ ‫ ַה ִמ‬-‫ ַה ֶמלְֶך טֹוב י ָבֹוא ַה ֶמלְֶך ְו ָהמָן הַּיֹום אֶל‬-‫עַל‬-‫ אִם‬,‫וַת ֹּאמֶר ֶאסְתֵּ ר‬
‫דְ בַר ֶאסְתֵּ ר; ַוּי ָב ֹּא ַה ֶמלְֶך‬-‫ ָהמָן ַלעֲשֹות ֶאת‬-‫ מַ הֲרּו ֶאת‬,‫ וַּי ֹּאמֶר ַה ֶמלְֶך‬.‫ָעשִיתִ י לֹו‬
.‫שתָ ה ֶאסְתֵּ ר‬
ְ ‫ ָע‬-‫ׁשתֶ ה ֲאׁשֶר‬
ְ ‫ ַה ִמ‬-‫ְו ָהמָן ֶאל‬
Then Esther said, “If it pleases the king, let the king and Ham-
an come today to the banquet that I have prepared for the
king.” Then the king said, “Bring Haman quickly, in order to
do as Esther said.” So the king and Haman came to the banquet
that Esther had made. (5:4-5)
This text emphasizes that the king is above all the other people in his kingdom
and in his palace. This fact makes him approach the ones who are close to him.
Even if Haman was the king’s advisor, a position of high rank within the
kindgom, to the king he was a subordinate therefore he addressed him by his
name and not by any other title. He further ordered his servants to make him
hurry. Similarly, the king here refers to Esther only by her name and nothing
else, although according to the context she already was a queen in his palace.
The king accepted her wish, though at this point in the narrative there was no
further development.
Haman was suddenly invited to a banquet by a queen. It flattered him
greatly, so much so that much that he did not pay attention to the small details.
According to the text he was not only invited, but the king had ordered his
servants to hasten the coming of Haman. The king was influenced by Esther and
wished to please her and therefore hastened Haman’s arrival. The power
dynamics had changed but Haman was blind to see. This hastening in bringing
someone resembles two other occasions when a person is being hurried to come:
the first is when it is something very urgent and of great importance, as in the
book of Job chapter 1, when the messengers are coming with urgency, and in
Genesis 41:13, when Pharaoh sends for Joseph in order to explain his dreams;
and the second is when someone is being hurried in order to be saved from some
desaster as in Genesis 19:22.
Haman and the king came to Esther’s banquet; there the king asked her
once more for her wish, but she again used the same answer and on the next day
Haman and the king came to her again. According to Haman (5:11-12), these
invitations were a great honor for him, especially since no one else except the
king and himself were invited.
The second banquet is not described directly after the first one even though
only a very short time had passed between these two events, probably less than
173
24 hours. Many events of great importance to the characters happened during
the intervening time, however.
These events caused a complete change in Haman’s humor that can be seen
in his different reactions upon his return home after the first and second
banquets. In the first description:
‫ ֲאׁשֶר גִדְ לֹו ַה ֶמלְֶך ְו ֵּאת ֲאׁשֶר‬-‫כְבֹוד ָעׁשְרֹו וְר ֹּב ָבנָיו ְו ֵּאת כָל‬-‫ַוי ְ ַספֵּר ָלהֶם ָהמָן ֶאת‬
.‫ ַהש ִָרים ְו ַעבְדֵּ י ַה ֶמלְֶך‬-‫נִשְאֹו עַל‬
Haman recounted to them the splendor of his riches, the num-
ber of his sons, all the promotions with which the king had
honored him, and how he had advanced him above the officials
and the ministers of the king (5:11) (NRSV)
Haman was overwhelmed and very proud of himself for getting that kind of
attention and honor both from the king and from Esther, who specifically invited
him to a private banquet. The change in Haman’s humor is not late to come, as
emphasized in verses 12-13 of chapter six:
.‫בֵּיתֹו ָאבֵּל ַוחֲפּוי ר ֹּאׁש‬-‫ְו ָהמָן נִדְ חַף אֶל‬
.‫ ֲאׁשֶר ק ָָרהּו‬-‫א ֹּ ֲהבָיו ֵּאת כָל‬-‫ַוי ְ ַספֵּר ָהמָן ְלז ֶֶרׁש ִאׁשְתֹו ּו ְלכָל‬
Haman was pushed aside and went back to his house in mourn-
ing and disgrace. Haman told his wife Zeresh and all his
friends everything that had happened to him.
_______________
173
On this period of time, one might learn both from Esther’s invitation and the plot,
which focus on the hours following the first banquet, and the next day.
This was yet another change in his position in the political and social life of the
kingdom. But this time it was obvious for all and also for him that this change
was not for his own good.
The translation given here is different from the one in NRSV and other
174
translations. This is due to the various interpretations attributed to two words
in this text used to define Haman’s situation and deeds: ‫ נִדְ חַף‬and ‫חֲפּוי ראש‬. These
words emphasize the change in Haman’s situation from an active figure to a
passive one to whom other people and circumstance dictate his fate.
The passive participle Niphal of the root DḤF ‫ דחפ‬is to be found four times
and only in the late books of the OT: three times in the Book of Esther (3:15,
6:12, and 8:14) and once in 2 Chronicles 26:20.
‫חפוי‬, the Qal participle from the root ḤFH ‫חפה‬, is found only once in the OT
in direct connection with ‫( ראש‬head). Coming alone its meaning has to do with
“cover,” and therefore scholars have given this combination the translation of
“with his head covered” (NRSV). In Modern Hebrew this combination can have
this meaning. However, another meaning is “with his head down.” In the
context of its use here in Esther, one may add “in shame,” “disgraced.” This
meaning is suggested in my translation of the verse.
There are two other texts in the OT in which the covering of the head
expresses certain feelings, 2 Samuel 15:30 and Jeremiah 14:3ff. In these
175
passages, however, the feelings expressed are of sorrow. In any case, these
two terms emphasize the helplessness of Haman.
The change is further emphasized both by using the same place into which
Haman went – his house – and the secondary characters such as his wife and
friends who were gathered there both times when Haman returnd from the
palace. It is also emphasized by using ‫ ֲאׁשֶר‬-‫ ְו ֵּאת כָל‬, as in the meaning of
“everything.”
Finally (6:14), Haman was taken to the second banquet. The second banquet
was less formal; the king and Haman, therefore, were both more relaxed. This
change in mood can be traced in the words of the narrator. While In 5:5 it is
written ‫שתָ ה ֶאסְתֵּ ר‬ ְ ‫ ָע‬-‫ׁשתֶ ה ֲאׁשֶר‬
ְ ‫ ַה ִמ‬-‫“ ַוּי ָב ֹּא ַה ֶמלְֶך ְו ָהמָן ֶאל‬So the king and Haman came to
the banquet that Esther had prepared,” in 7:1 it is written ‫ַוּי ָב ֹּא ַה ֶמלְֶך ְו ָהמָן ִלׁשְתֹות‬
‫ ֶאסְתֵּ ר ַה ַמ ְלכָה‬-‫“ עִם‬So the king and Haman went to feast (to drink) with Queen
Esther.” Though this suggests a less formal atmosphere (the king and Haman
came to drink), a careful reading of the text proves otherwise. From the three
characters it is only Haman who is mentioned without any title, while Ahasuerus
is named “the king” and Esther is named “Queen Esther.” The narrator’s choice
_______________
174
The NRSV translation is as follows: “Then Mordecai returned to the king’s gate,
but Haman hurried to his house, mourning and with his head covered. 13When Haman
told his wife Zeresh and all his friends everything that had happened to him, his advisors
and his wife Zeresh said to him, ‘If Mordecai, before whom your downfall has begun, is
of the Jewish people, you will not prevail against him, but will surely fall before him.’”
175
According to Bardtke 1963:359, the covering is of a person to be executed.
to include or omit the characters’ titles depicts Haman as the one with the lowest
status among these three.
The use of the same root – ShTH ‫ שתה‬in these two verses in order to define
the reason for which the king and Haman came to Esther serves two purposes:
the first is open and the second is hidden, a pairing which, as in many other
examples in the text, uses parallel syntax to emphasizes the parallel context
between two verses. But while at first glance it looks as if it is the same act
made by the same people twice, the two words with the same root, ‫ משתה‬and
‫שתה‬, have subtly yet significantly different meanings. While the first means
mostly a banquet or feast, the second means drinking.
Scholars differ concerning the reason for Esther not coming forward to the
king with her wish when she had her first chance (her first unsummoned
appearance in the throne room). Some scholars attribute Esther’s reluctance in
asking the king to save her people when she first had the chance to her fear and
176
even her stupidity. Others suggest the opposite: that the postponement was due
177
to her cleverness and careful planning. Whatever the reason for this delay
might be, it worked out to Esther’s benefit. During the second banquet, she
began her plea with a quest for her life and the life of her people.
As previously mentioned, royal women in the ancient Near East in general
and in the Achaemenid dynasty in particularly were engaged in helping their
178
relatives and people through palace intrigue or direct pleas to the king. These
women, however, though they were not necessarily the chief wives or other
leading women in the palace, nevertheless had to belong to the house of royal
women in order to make such a request. Esther blamed Haman for the
conspiracy against the Jews and Haman at this point realized that she had
managed to deceive him (7:6).
The king went out into the garden and while he was there Haman tried to
make Esther forgive him because he understood that the king took her side (v.7).
In doing so. he fell on the couch on which Esther was sitting. Due to Haman’s
bad luck the king came into the room while Haman was falling on the couch and
the king thought Haman intended to seduce or even rape Esther. This turns out
to be Haman’s last act as a free man, although also this act was done by him
unwillingly. The writer uses the verb ‫ נפל‬meaning “falling” and not “bowing” or
“leaning” in order to describe Haman’s actions. Esther was only sitting there
enjoying her good fortune and did not say a word in order to explain the
innocence of the scene that was revealed to King Ahasuerus upon entering the
room. And Haman was hanged.
Until the king saw Haman ‘lying’ on the same couch with Esther, it was not
certain whether he would change the decree. Instead of assuring Esther, he went
_______________
176
As Fuchs 1982:153.
177
As Staton 1974:84-92 and White 1989:161-177.
178
For such an event in the Old Testament, see 1 Kings 1 and 2, where Bathsheba
convinces David to choose Solomon as his successor.
out in order to think. So the possibility that Haman would have been spared by
the king still existed until the king came back and saw what he saw. Of course,
this incident and its results do not support the supposition that Esther was a
chief wife. It only supports previous conclusions about the prohibition of
another man taking royal women. The results of such a deed in this book are
similar to the ones in other texts. The OT also indicates to the fact that when a
woman of the king was taken by another man the king did not wish to have
anything to do with her, as for instance in the case of ten of David’s royal
women in 2 Samuel 20:3.
The deceit was so perfect that, until the last minute, Haman felt secure in his
position; he was, therefore, not prepared for such a change in the situation and
could not have had even the slightest chance of controlling the events leading up
to his death.
Throughout the story, it is clear that the same events, or at least parallel
events, altered the relative and absolute positions of Esther and Haman. The
gathering of the girls left Haman’s position unchanged even as it allowed Esther
a once in a life time opportunity to enter the royal court. Therafter, Esther’s
status continues to increase even as Haman’s decreases in each of the ensuing
episodes, including the invitations to the different banquets and the sleepless
night of the king and, finally, Haman’s fall onto Esther’s couch. This results,
ultimately, in her confirmation as the chief woman and the prosperity of her
people and the death of Haman and his family. The “house” of Haman changing
hands from Haman through Esther to Mordecai symbolizes the accrual of
transferred power that Esther has recieved not only in the palace but also in the
political life of the kingdom and the high status she had among the Jews in this
diaspora.
2.4.2.3 Esther and the Eunuch

Eunuchs are mentioned 45 times in the OT both in the plural and in the singular
form. Of these 12 times in the Book of Esther.
The first time when eunuchs are mentioned in the text is in chapter one
verse 10. There Ahasuerus sends his seven closest eunuchs (whom the text
mentions by name) to bring Vashti for the king to show her beauty to his guests.
These eunuchs are mentioned also coming back empty handed to tell the king
about Vashti’s refusal.
In 2:3, yet another eunuch is mentioned and, as with the previous ones, he
too is mentioned both by name and status. This time it is Hegai who is described
as the eunuch of the king and the guardian of the women. Though this episode
also precedes Esther’s arrival on the scene, it is a necessary and pivotal step
leading towards her entrance into the palace and the plot of the story. One can
trace a change in Esther’s character and position in the various places in the text
in which there is direct contact between her and the eunuchs.
The first time that a eunuch is mentioned in connection with Esther is when
she enters the palace in chapter two. At this point, there is not yet a direct
connection between her and a eunuch. However, there is no doubt that at least
one of them had a great influence on her life in the palace at this stage of the
story and by this also on her future and well-being.
The first eunuch mentioned in connection with Esther is Hegai. This is not
the first time he is mentioned in the story. However, this is the first time in
which they have contact with each other. After Esther was “gathered” with the
other girls she was taken into the custody of Hegai the keeper of the women.
From the first description of their relations there is no doubt that he is superior
to her but also that he liked her and therefore became her benefactor. He also
enabled her to start the process of preparations before meeting the king as soon
as possible and gave her some other benefits inside the house of women (2:8-9).
The second eunuch mentioned in connection with Esther is Shaashgez. He
is first mentioned in a general remark according to which the women who spent
the night with the king did not return to the custody of Hegai but entered a place
for which Shaashgez was the responsible. He is defined as the keeper of the
179
pilagshim to distinguish him from Hegai, the keeper of the nashim (women).
After the mention of Shaashgez, Hegai is mentioned once more at the most
crucial point in the process of Esther becoming a queen. The time has come for
Esther to go into the king’s chamber and it is emphasized that Esther is satisfied
with only those things that Hegai has decided for her. Since it is written
previously that Hegai liked her from the very beginning of her stay, it is
probable that he prepared her the best he could, and it worked: everyone who
saw her liked her and, when she came into the king’s chamber, he liked her too.
The third context in which eunuchs are mentioned in connection with Esther
is when Mordecai started his morning next to the king’s gate. The ones who
notified Esther of the news were her maids and eunuchs. In this text all of them
together serve as a group of faceless messengers. They are used as a means for
carrying the news about Mordecai’s acts to Esther. It is also described that
Esther sends clothing to Mordecai but he refuses to cooperate with her (4:5-17).
When the situation becomes more unbearable for Esther, she sends a certain
emissary. This is the third eunuch mentioned in connection with Esther by his
name and title: Hatach, one of the king’s eunuchs given into her service by the
king. It seems as if Esther counts on Hatach’s judgment and intelligence because
she asks him to find out what happened. His mission is not only to bring
something or to deliver a message but to communicate with Mordecai and to
understand the reasons he behaves as he does. He also then had to explain the
matter to Esther. She was not born and raised in the palace and therefore her
behavior might have been somehow peculiar giving the eunuch responsibilities
that he should not have. Hatach does as Esther orders him. And thereafter he
_______________
179
On the meaning of royal pilagshim in the OT, see Davidovich 2007:185-195.
serves as a messenger and mediator between Esther and Mordecai, allowing

them to communicate with a greater level of discretion.
As they communicate, Esther changes from the one who gets orders to the
one who gives them, and not only to her servants, but to Mordecai too; later on
she imposes her will also on others such as Haman and the king. Her
development during the course of their conversation is emphasized by the
division of the contact that she had with Mordecai into different parts, each of
which starts with Esther’s orders to Hatach.
Each of the eunuchs represents an increase in her status in the palace and in
the house of royal women: Hegai marks her coming into the palace and the
change in her position from one of the crowd to someone who is loved by all
and gets special attention until the meeting with the king. Shaashgez marks her
continued rise after meeting with the king and throughout the period of her life
in the palace. Hatach represents the period of her elevation in the palace and in
the house of women, and her importance for the existence of the Jewish
community in the kingdom of Ahasuerus.
2.4.2.4 Esther and Ahasuerus

The first time in which the king and Esther meet was when she was brought into
his private rooms. It was after a long period of preparation of between one and
four years and a final “touch” of preparations on her side (though nothing
special from his). Furthermore, she was led into his rooms while he was sitting
there examining the ‘new merchandise.’ It is written thereafter that the king
liked what he saw (2:17). Furthermore, after spending the night with her, the
king decided to make Esther a queen “instead of Vashti” (2:17). She probably
had to be very special in order to make the king so interested in her.
The king ordered a banquet in Esther’s honor. At this stage, he had to say
something and not only sit and stare at her. However, she was the one who still
had to please all the guests, chief among them the king, with her looks.
However, after the king got what he wanted, like a spoiled child after
getting a much desired toy, he suddenly lost all interest in Esther, and, from that
occasion on, he did not summon for her for quite a long time. For her part,
Esther had to live daily life in the palace and could not meet the king even for a
short conversation until the king wished for it.
She became queen instead of Vashti; she reached a high political position
and also a place among the royal women in the kingdom of Ahasuerus; and he
got a queen as a substitute for Vashti. She probably was as pretty as Vashti was
180
but, he hoped, more obedient. They did not, however, have any relationship as
man and wife. She feared for her life and therefore did not dare approach him.
Nevertheless, when the danger for her life and the life of her people became
_______________
180
According to Bickerman 1951:259, the banquet in which Vashti refused to appear
is, according to Lysimachus, her wedding party.
very real, she decided to approach the king. Yet even on this occasion she did
not approach him as her husband but, rather, as her king. And, as with their
initial meeting, the king was sitting on his chair with his face towards the door
and she was the one who had to put on fine clothes and prepare by fasting for
181
three days before coming to meet the king. Upon her coming to the throne
room, she did not dare come into the room, but instead stood outside until the
king signalled that she may approach. He did not even get up from his chair but
only raised his hand. There was no sign of affection or closeness between them.
Only during the dialogue between them in the throne room were there signs
of the affection the king once felt for Esther, probably because he suddenly saw
again how beautiful she was. From that point on, it is mostly the king who does
things for Esther so that she will appreciate him rather than the other way
around. Later on, he even gave up his seal, his royal ring, for her to use, and
changed the political order in his kingdom; she had finally managed to sweep
him off his feet.
Verse 17 in the second chapter opens with the description of the feelings of
the king for Esther. It is written that the king loved Esther more than all the
other women in his realm. However, the meaning of “love” is not easy to define,
neither in real life nor in literary texts. What is the meaning of love in this
verse? In the OT, love has different meanings which vary from person to person
182
and in different contexts. There is the love of a father for his child, as can be
found, for example, in the story of Isaac in Genesis 25:28; there is also, of
course, spousal love, as in Rebekah’s love for Jacob or the love of Elkana for his
wife Hanna, as described in 1 Samuel 1. Another type, the love of the flesh, can
be found in Hosea 3:1. In the OT, therefore, the word love encompasses a
variety of types of emotions: everything from the shallowest to the deepest,
from the most enduring to the most transient of feelings. Thus, though each
description of emotions and definition of them as love is different and unique, at
least by looking carefully at the text, the kind of feelings the king had for Esther
at that stage of their relationship can still be identified.
,‫ ַהנָׁשִים‬-‫ ֶאסְתֵּ ר ִמכָל‬-‫ַוּי ֶ ֱאהַב ַה ֶמלְֶך ֶאת‬
‫ ַהבְתּולֹות‬-‫חֵּן ָו ֶחסֶד ְל ָפנָיו ִמכָל‬-‫וַתִ שָא‬
The king loved Esther more than all the women;
Of all the girls of marriageable age, she won his favor and de-
votion.
_______________
181
According to the Greek versions, Esther, who in these versions demonstrates real
Jewish believer, also prayed during these days. On this matter, see Bickerman 1951:247
and 261.
182
See also the discussion by Berlin 2001.
The king loved Esther more than all other women. But for how long and in
what manner? After they had spent one night together, the writer notes the
king’s love for Esther. There is no doubt that at that point in time he preferred
her above all other women, even the ones who had just come to the palace. Of
183
course the translation of ‫ בְתּולֹות‬proves insufficient; here again a young woman
of marriageable age seems more accurate because even if a wmoan was a virgin
upon her coming to the palace, she was probably not one after leaving the king’s
bedchamber. The writer uses also the words “favor” and “devotion” in order to
emphasize the king’s satisfaction with what he had received and his preference
for Esther. These two words appear separately earlier in this chapter. “Favor”
appears in verse 15 when mentioning that she was liked by everyone who saw
her, while “devotion” in verse 9 attests to Hegai’s fondness for her.
Like everyone else in the palace, the king (after spending the night with her)
found her delightful and charming. His feelings, however, were the result of one
night and not an enduring relationship. She must have been very attractive if at
least two of the men in the palace liked what they saw.
However, she must have also been charming because otherwise these mens’
fondness for her would have stopped quite immediately and, at least in the case
of Hegai, this did not happen.
As said above, 2:17 is a declaration of the feelings of the king to Esther.
However, an important detail is not to be ignored. The king loved Esther and
preferred her above all the other women, both the ones that he had in his palace
for a long time and the new arrivals. He favored and adored her. But this only
describes the king’s feelings for Esther on that particular night when he shared
his bed with her. He was so pleased that night with her love, or perhaps, I should
say, her appearance, that he came to the hasty decision to make her queen
instead of Vashti. This decision and its results were about to cost him a great
deal. In his moment of passion, he made a decision that influenced not only the
hierarchy of the women in his palace but also the political situation in his
kingdom and the lives of many others, none of whom were involved in the
events described. She played her cards well from the moment she arrived in the
palace until the salvation of the Jews and the glorification of Mordecai.
The verse continues with the following description: ‫ ַמלְכּות בְר ֹּאׁשָּה‬-‫ַוּיָשֶם כֶתֶ ר‬
‫ׁשתִ י‬
ְ ‫“ ַוּי ַ ְמלִי ֶכ ָה תַ חַת ַו‬he set a royal crown on her head and made her queen instead
of Vashti.” Translations such as NRSV have it as “the royal crown” although
the definite article is missing from the Hebrew. This change makes a great
difference both for the understanding of the text and for determining Esther’s
status, position, and importance in the royal palace and in the political life of the
kingdom: “The queen,” with the definite article, suggests that she is the highest
ranking woman in the kingdom; “a queen,” with the indefinite article, suggests
that she is merely one of many of equal status.
_______________
183
As already mentioned on p. 53
The first time that Esther appeared unsummoned before the king was not the
last one. After the king punished Haman, he not only gave Esther Haman’s
property, he also gave Mordecai the position and power that Haman until then
had held. Esther did not stop at that point but, relying on her good fortune, she
went once more to the king unsummoned. Even the second time, the king used
his position and the laws of the kingdom to not only listen to her petition but
also to help her with what she needed, thus allowing the Jews to defend
themselves when the time came. And indeed, on the 13 th of Adar, they did so,
and in that process 75,000 of their enemies throughout the Empire were killed,
184
among them 500 from Susa including the sons of Haman.
The author depicts the subtly shifting roles and power dynamics among the
three central players: the king, Haman, and Esther, particularly when the last of
these is summoned by the king. It is first written that the women who have spent
a night with the king could not meet him again unless they were specifically
summoned by name (2:14).
The issue of summoning by name is mentioned once more in Esther’s words
of explanation to Mordecai as the reason she cannot go to the king and talk with
him (4:11). Here it is also mentioned that no one had the right to approach the
king without being summoned, not his slaves, maids, eunuchs, advisors, women
and so forth, without exception. However, this issue of summoning reached a
turning point when Esther, breaking the rules, came to the king without being
summoned. By risking her life, she changed the rules of the game. From now
on, it is she who names the ones who are to be summoned. It is they who wish
for her company and approval and not the other way around. The king allowed
this change in roles by telling Esther that she can have all that she desires. At
that time he did not realize how exactly his words described the events to come.
Esther invites (summons) the king to her banquet; she also summons
Haman, whom she had never perviously approached and about whom she had
never spoken by name. It is Esther who names her two guests. This event occurs
once more during the time of the first banquet when the king, by repeating his
question about Esther’s wish, legitimizes her new status as the one who
summons by name. Esther does not miss her second opportunity to use her new
power and summons again both the king and Haman by name.
The results of Esther’s exercise of her newfound position and power, that is,
the death of Haman and the salvation of the Jews, are well known to the reader.
However, in the final instance, even though appearing after being summoned by
name, the subject received a death penalty. For Haman being summoned twice
by a queen to a private banquet was the cheese in the mousetrap, and he fell for
it. Esther names someone twice more. The first time is when she names the one
_______________
184
To this could be added the explanation concerning the definition of the enemies of
the Jews in the Book of Esther, as was written by Bush 1996, 296: “The enemies of the
Jews do not constitute either the Persian government or the majority of the polyglot
Persian population. They consist only of those who “hoped to triumph over them,”
sought to do them harm,” “hated them” (9:1-5).”
who wishes to kill all her race, including herself – Haman (7:3-7); the second is
when she names Mordecai for the king to summon him as her benefactor (8:1).
As previously demonstrated, the relationship between Esther and Ahasuerus
develops and evolves from a situation in which Esther is subservient to the king
to one in which she is no longer “Esther” but rather “Queen Esther,” wife of
“King Ahasuerus.” However, never during this development is the king
described without his title. Even though it was his decision to make her queen in
his palace, the writer’s selection of which titles to use or omit suggests that
185
theirs was a marriage with political ramifications in addition to personal ones.
2.4.3 The Description of the Other Women in the Text

As said above, there are other women mentioned in this story. These women
serve in one way or the other as secondary characters. There are many such
characters in the Book of Esther, however, two of them, Vashti and Zeresh, are
exceptional because of the writer naming them while the others stay
anonymous.
The female characters mentioned in the Book of Esther are (1) a group of
young women of marriageable age who were brought into the palace after they
were gathered from the different areas of the kingdom, (2) the group of young
women gathered from the city of Susa and its surroundings, (3) the group of
women living in one part of the house of women waiting and preparing for their
meeting with the king (the group of royal women), (4) the group of maids that
were given to the different royal women for serving them, and, finally, (5) the
group of maids Esther had after becoming a queen. These groups naturally
differed from one another with respect to their place of living, their status in the
palace, and their functions within the court structure. Furthermore, none of these
groups were homogenous concerning its members and the different hierarchies
within these groups, so that each woman had her own place in the group.
Among these groups there is only one group of women the number of
members of which is known from the text. This is the group of seven maids who
were given to Esther to serve her during her time of preparation before coming
to the king for the first time.
Besides the women who are described as members of different groups, there
are two women described as individuals: Vashti and Zeresh. They will shortly
be discussed according to their status in the kingdom, starting with the woman
who had the lowest status. The aim of this discussion is to better understand
Esther’s status in the palace and in the kingdom and her relationship with the
king in comparison with these two other characters.
_______________
185
As opposed to Paton 1908:184, who claims that there can be no doubt that the au-
thor wished to represent Esther as a wife and a queen to Ahasuerus.
2.4.3.1 Vashti
Vashti is mentioned throughout the first chapter of the Book of Esther and in the
first verse of the second chapter. Thereafter she disappears. However, her
actions have implications for the rest of the narrative. She is a very important
secondary character not only due to the fact that her deeds, words, and destiny
influenced Esther’s private, social, and political life, but also since she was a
royal woman and it is written (2:4) that the king looked for someone to replace
her. Because he later gave her position in the palace to Esther, there is no doubt
that her status in the palace had a direct influence on the status of Esther, at least
186
in the first period of her residence there (2:17).
Her refusal to come at the king’s summons is the inciting event of the
narrative. If not for Vashti, Esther would never have had the chance to enter the
royal palace. Even if Mordecai had a very high status in society and therefore he
sat at the palace gate and could eventually order the Jews all over the kingdom
to do one thing or another, Esther herself was only an orphan child who he took
into his house beause she was his cousin. The comparison between Vashti and
Esther also can be drawn according to their relationship to the king and their
communication with him.
And finally, it is told that Vashti had made a banquet for the women. A
banquet had also been made in Esther’s honor after the king chose her, and
finally Esther made two banquets and invited the king and Haman. Esther’s rise
starts with the refusal of Vashti to an invitation to come to the king’s banquet. It
continues with the banquet arranged by the king to mark the change in her
position in his palace, and comes to its peak at the second banquet she organized
and the results of her invitation to Haman and the king.
2.4.3.2 Zeresh
Zeresh is mentioned exclusively in connection with Haman: she is described
only in relation to him. Zeresh is first mentioned in chapter five. Until then, the
reader does not even know if Haman has a family or friends or, for that matter,
anything about Haman’s private life. All in all, she is mentioned in three verses,
two in chapter five and one in chapter six:
‫ ַויְ ַספֵּר‬.‫ׁשתֹו‬
ְ ‫ז ֶֶרׁש ִא‬-‫א ֹּ ֲהבָיו ְו ֶאת‬-‫ׁשלַח ַוּיָבֵּא ֶאת‬ְ ִ ‫בֵּיתֹו; ַוּי‬-‫ַוּי ִתְ ַאפַק ָהמָן ַוּי ָבֹוא ֶאל‬
‫ ֲאׁשֶר גִדְ לֹו ַה ֶמלְֶך ְו ֵּאת ֲאׁשֶר נִשְאֹו‬-‫כְבֹוד ָעׁשְרֹו וְר ֹּב ָבנָיו; ְו ֵּאת כָל‬-‫ָלהֶם ָהמָן ֶאת‬
‫ ֵּהבִיָאה ֶאסְתֵּ ר ַה ַמ ְלכָה עִם ַה ֶמלְֶך‬-‫ וַּי ֹּאמֶר ָה ָמן ַאף ֹלא‬.‫ ַהש ִָרים ְו ַעבְדֵּ י ַה ֶמלְֶך‬-‫עַל‬
-‫לָּה עִם‬-‫ ְל ָמחָר ֲאנִי קָרּוא‬-‫אֹותִ י; ְוגַם‬-‫שתָ ה כִי אִם‬ ָ ‫ ָע‬-‫ׁשתֶ ה ֲאׁשֶר‬ ְ ‫ ַה ִמ‬-‫אֶל‬
‫מ ְָרדֳּ כַי ַהּי ְהּודִ י יֹוׁשֵּב‬-‫עֵּת ֲאׁשֶר ֲאנִי ר ֹּאֶה אֶת‬-‫זֶה אֵּינֶנּו ׁש ֹּוֶה לִי ְבכָל‬-‫ ְוכָל‬.‫ַה ֶמלְֶך‬
‫עֵּץ גָב ֹּ ַּה ֲח ִמשִים ַאמָה‬-‫ יַעֲשּו‬,‫א ֹּ ֲהבָיו‬-‫ וַת ֹּאמֶר לֹו ז ֶֶרׁש ִאׁשְתֹו ְוכָל‬.‫ׁשעַר ַה ֶמלְֶך‬ ַ ‫ְב‬
;‫ש ֵּמ ַח‬
ָ ‫ׁשתֶ ה‬ ְ ‫ ַה ִמ‬-‫ ַה ֶמלְֶך אֶל‬-‫עִם‬-‫מ ְָרדֳּ כַי ָעלָיו ּוב ֹּא‬-‫ּובַב ֹּקֶר אֱמ ֹּר ַל ֶמלְֶך ְוי ִתְ לּו ֶאת‬
.‫ַוּי ִיטַב הַדָ בָר ִל ְפנֵּי ָהמָן ַוּיַעַש ָהעֵּץ‬
_______________
186
On the division of the time of Esther in the palace into two periods, see pp. 75-85.
5:10
Nevertheless, Haman restrained himself and went to his
house. Then he sent and called for his friends and his wife
Zeresh, 11and Haman recounted to them the splendor of his
riches, the number of his sons, all the promotions with which
the king had honored him, and how he had advanced him
above the officials and the ministers of the king. 12Haman add-
ed, ‘Even Queen Esther let no one but myself come with the
king to the banquet that she prepared. Tomorrow also I am in-
vited by her, together with the king. 13Yet all this does me no
good so long as I see the Jew Mordecai sitting at the king’s
gate.’ 14Then his wife Zeresh and all his friends said to him,
‘Let a gallows 50 cubits high be made, and in the morning tell
the king to have Mordecai hanged on it; then go with the king
to the banquet in good spirits.’ This advice pleased Haman, and
he had the gallows made.
And also in the following text:

‫ ַוי ְ ַספֵּר ָה ָמן‬.‫בֵּיתֹו ָאבֵּל ַוחֲפּוי ר ֹּאׁש‬-‫ׁשעַר ַה ֶמלְֶך; ְו ָהמָן נִ ְדחַף אֶל‬ַ -‫ַוּי ָׁשָב מ ְָרדֳּ כַי אֶל‬
,‫ ֲאׁשֶר ק ָָרהּו; וַּי ֹּא ְמרּו לֹו ֲח ָכ ָמיו ְוז ֶֶרׁש ִאׁשְ תֹו‬-‫א ֹּ ֲהבָיו ֵּאת כָל‬-‫ְלז ֶֶרׁש ִאׁשְתֹו ּו ְלכָל‬
‫נָפֹול תִ פֹול‬-‫תּוכַל לֹו כִי‬-‫אִם ִמז ֶַרע ַהּי ְהּודִ ים מ ְָרדֳּ כַי ֲאׁשֶר ַהחִלֹותָ ִלנְפ ֹּל ְל ָפנָיו ֹלא‬
-‫ ָהמָן אֶל‬-‫ עֹודָ ם מְדַ ב ְִרים עִמֹו ְוס ִָריסֵּי ַה ֶמלְֶך ִהגִיעּו; ַוּי ַ ְבהִלּו ְל ָהבִיא ֶאת‬.‫ְל ָפנָיו‬
.‫שתָ ה ֶאסְתֵּ ר‬ ְ ‫ ָע‬-‫ׁשתֶ ה ֲאׁשֶר‬
ְ ‫ַה ִמ‬
6:12
Then Mordecai returned to the king’s gate, but Haman hur-
ried to his house, mourning and with his head covered. 13When
Haman told his wife Zeresh and all his friends everything that
had happened to him, his advisors and his wife Zeresh said to
him, ‘If Mordecai, before whom your downfall has begun, is of
the Jewish people, you will not prevail against him, but will
surely fall before him.’ Haman’s Downfall and Mordecai’s
Advancement 14While they were still talking with him, the
king’s eunuchs arrived and hurried Haman off to the banquet
that Esther had prepared.
Zeresh is mentioned as one of those closest to Haman. 5:10 describes how

Haman came to his house and summoned his loved ones and his wife Zeresh.
First the friends are mentioned and then Zeresh. Haman’s speech starts with
detailing his glory, his wealth, and his good fortune. It is only after his long
description of success that he very shortly but clearly mentioned his discontent
with Mordecai’s behavior, saying: “Yet all this does me no good so long as I see
the Jew Mordecai sitting at the king’s gate” (5:13). Although in the description
of the ones who were summoned by Haman, Zeresh is mentioned last, in the
description of the response to Haman’s words she is mentioned first. The
advice, though initially pleasing to Haman, cost him great humiliation and,
eventually, his life: “And while after honoring Mordecai by force he went back
to his place next to the king’s gate, Haman hurried into his house” (6:12).
Before his next speech, he summoned neither his friends nor his wife; rather,
they were already there. This time Zeresh is mentioned before the friends as a
part of his audience. In this instance, the friends are not mentioned anymore;
instead his advisors are the ones who answer, followed by Zeresh. This time the
response was not to Haman’s advantage but fitted to the reality that followed
thereafter.
Haman was hanged and his house was taken away from him – literally with
its being granted to Mordecai and metaphorically when his ten sons were
hanged. This was the end of Haman and his line, but to where did Zeresh
disappear? Was she not a part of Haman’s house? Was she so insignificant and,
therefore, forgettable? The writer of the book may have thought Zeresh also
belonged to the house of Haman along with his sons and assets. However,
Zeresh disappeared from the text even earlier than Haman. Zeresh had a role in
the plot and this role was only to be a secondary character in the house of
Haman. When her role was finished and she was no longer needed in the story,
she disappeared. In that case, what was her role? An analysis of the verses in
which she is mentioned might reveal this.
Zeresh is first mentioned in the opening of 5:10-11, where she is mentioned
both by her name and, as Haman’s wife, by her relationship to a central
187
secondary character. Haman returned to his house after being invited by the
queen and the king to a banquet. On his way home he saw Mordecai. However,
Haman did not let this incident get him down and, upon coming home, called all
his friends and his wife to tell them about his good fortune. They, with Zeresh’s
suggestion in mind, advised him to solve the problem with Mordecai by
building a gallows before the banquet in order to hang Mordecai in the morning.
In such a case, he would be able to be happy and relaxed during the banquet.
Haman thought the advice good and ordered the building of the gallows. This
plan, however, did not work out as Haman had hoped.
The second time Zeresh is mentioned is when Haman returned to his house
after the banquet; he returned humiliated after leading the horse on which
Mordecai sat. The text does not mention that Haman called for all his friends
and his wife. However, they were there for him to tell them about his troubles.
This time, too, Zeresh is mentioned before the friends: in the description of the
answer, the friends are mentioned first and only then Zeresh, not as in the first
time. The second time, too, they did not have any advice to give Haman but
rather warned him that if Mordecai was a Jew, Haman did not have a chance
_______________
187
The name “Zeresh” appears nowhere else in the OT besides the Book of Esther. It
is probably not a Hebrew word, perhaps Persian. In modern Persian the name is
“Zereshk,” but this word was used in neither Old nor Middle Persian.
188
against him. While they were speaking, the emissaries of the king came to take
Haman to the second banquet.
Zeresh has two main roles in the text. She stands at the head of a group of
so-called advisors for Haman. She also facilitates his quick downfall. She is,
moreover, responsible for the way he died. All these issues had a direct effect on
Esther, both after her advice to Haman as his closest confidante and with her
words to him in their second meeting.
Haman came to the second banquet when his self-confidence was crushed
after he had been humiliated by Mordecai on the orders of the king, and
thereafter both his friends and his wife told him that he did not have a chance to
defeat Mordecai. While he was discussing his troubles, the king’s men came to
take him to the banquet. There was nowhere for him to hide, to relax and to
gather some strength for the next battle in his life. This inadvertantly made
Esther’s task that much easier. Therefore, one may say that Zeresh had helped
Esther to defeat Haman by subverting his self-confidence and giving him the
feeling that even in his own house no one could help him: not even his wife, his
chief supporter, thinks he has a chance to overcome his problems this time.
2.5 The Description of Her Life in the Palace as One of

the Royal Women
It is possible to divide this description into two parts: the time before her night
with the king, including that night (the first period), and from the ‘morning
189
after’ and onward (the second period).
2.5.1 The First Period

This period is not static because Esther had to go through several different
stages, each with its own rules, customs, and potential pitfalls. In all these
stages, she had to appear before different people and win them over; she thus
moved from one stage to another.
In the description of this period there are also some explanations for rules
and customs concerning royal women in the palace. This description (2:8-16)
includes a chronological framework. It begins with Esther’s arrival at the ‘house
of women’ and ends with Esther’s night with the king.
_______________
188
Paton’s explanation (1908:166) of the meaning of the word in this context
should be noted. He rightly claims that in this text Jew does not refer to someone who is
from the tribe of Judah, as it was used until the times of the diaspora, and also in this text
it probably has its late meaning since it is written that Mordecai was from Benjamin.
189
For different divisions of the text, see Brockingston 1969:229, Murphy 1981:159,
Clines 1984b:284, and Beal 1999:33.
According to these verses, the girls were first gathered at Susa and then
were taken into the palace. From the time of their arrival in the palace they were
under the supervision and care of the eunuch Hegai, who held the position of the
‘women’s guard.’ Because he was fond of Esther, he let her begin the long
190
process of preparations immediately. This process included various treatments
191
and special food.
Esther also received for her exclusive use seven maids to provide for her.
Though it is possible that all the other women received the same number of
192
servants, Esther received seven girls who were ‫ראֻיֹות‬,ְ ‘the ones who were most
worthy’ to the task. This passive participle is found in the OT only here. In
Modern Hebrew it has the same meaning. In any case, these seven were special
193
ones. The root R’H ‫ ראה‬appears many times in the OT. It also has many
meanings, one of which is “to choose,” “to select.” It appears only a few times
with this meaning, at, for example, Genesis 22:8, 41:33, Deuteronomy 12:13, 1
Samuel 16 1-17, 2 Kings 10:3, and, finally, 1 Chronicles 17:17. This is also its
meaning in Esther when referring to the girls who have been chosen especially
for Esther by Hegai. And due to the context in which it is told that she was
Hegai’s favorite, it is most probable that these girls were the best ones for that
194
mission.
Further information about the way things were done in the ‘house of the
women’ is that women favored by the eunuch who was responsible for the
process, in this case, Esther, received better living quarters. Thus, because of
Hegai’s affection for Esther, she and her maids would have had a better
_______________
190
Brockingston 1969:229 suggests that the Hebrew word contained ‘ideas of loyalty
and affection as well as favor. The narrator used this verb in order to express Hegai’s
haste. Paton 1908:177 mentions the use of this verb only in late Biblical Hebrew. A
discussion occurred among scholars on the specific intention of the narrator. Since it is
written that the process was to take place during one year, scholars claimed that the
meaning could not mean that Hegai had made the process shorter for Esther, but rather
the beginning of the process could be decided by Hegai (that is, who among the women
would be the first to start). This study interprets the verb in the same way. As an example
for this discussion see Paton 1908:177. See also Clines 1984b:288.
191
Since according to the text Esther’s special food was not different than the food
other girls who participated in this process received, and since it is written (2:10) that
Esther did not tell anyone that she was a Jew, there is no reason to assume that she had
‘kosher food.’
192
Thus Paton 1908:175.
193
As already been suggested by, among others, Paton 1908:175, and Moore
1971:22.
194
See Paton 1908:178 and Moore 1971:22 for the use of the definite article in this
place.
195
residence during their preparations (2:9). This issue continues after a short
break, in verse 12. There, the description of the meetings with the king after a
long process of preparation begins.
Verse 14 includes information on two very important matters for the current
investigation:
‫ׁשגַז ס ְִריס‬ְ ‫ׁש ַע‬
ַ ‫י ַד‬-‫ׁשנִי אֶל‬ ֵּ ‫בֵּית ַהנָׁשִים‬-‫ׁשבָה אֶל‬ ָ ‫ָבע ֶֶרב הִיא בָָאה ּובַב ֹּקֶר הִיא‬
‫ ָחפֵּץ בָּה ַה ֶמלְֶך ְונִקְ ְרָאה‬-‫ ַה ֶמלְֶך כִי ִאם‬-‫תָ בֹוא עֹוד אֶל‬-‫ ֹלא‬:‫ַה ֶמלְֶך ׁש ֹּמֵּר ַהפִי ַלגְׁשִים‬
.‫ְבׁשֵּם‬
In the evening she came; and in the morning she turned back to
the second house in the custody of Shaashgaz, the king’s eu-
nuch, who was in charge of the secondary royal women. She
did not go in to the king again, unless the king delighted in her
and she was summoned by name.
According to this verse, the girl who was summoned by the king was not
released after the visit but, rather, was taken from the king’s apartment to a
place reserved for women. It is not clear, though, what the characteristics of this
196
place were. There are two main reasons for this lack of clarity in the text: the
exact meaning of the verb ‫ׁשבָה‬ ָ and the lack of grammatical uniformity.
The usual meaning of the Hebrew ‫ׁשבָה‬ ָ is ‘came back.’ Taking into
consideration this meaning of the verb, one may understand the text as if the
girls, after spending the night with the king, came back (returned) to the same
place from which they left. In such a case ‫ׁשנִי‬
ֵּ would mean ‘once more.’
Nevertheless, ‫ׁשבָה‬
ָ Qal feminine from ‫ שוב‬can also have a different meaning:
“As long as there is no contrary factor the assumption is that such persons or
197
people will turn back and reach the original point from which they departed.”
Thus, the meaning of the verb can be changed according to its context, and
therefore might be understood as “went back,” “left,” “went out from,” meaning
she “returned from the king’s apartment” but not necessarily to the exact place
which she left the night before.
Such an interpretation of this form of ‫ שוב‬might also be suitable for other
texts in the Bible, such as Jeremiah 32:40: “I will make an everlasting covenant
with them, never to draw back from doing good to them; and I will put the fear
of me in their hearts, so that they may not turn from me.” (NRSV) and 2 Samuel
2:26: “Then Abner called to Joab, ‘Is the sword to keep devouring forever? Do
you not know that the end will be bitter? How long will it be before you order
_______________
195
Paton’s claim 1908:175 that Hegai gave her a place outside of the ‘quarters of the
prospective concubines,’ should be dismissed.
196
Moore 1975:74 claims the second place is the result of the interpolation of differ-
ent accounts.
197
KB p.1429. The emphasis of these words does not exist in the original text.
your people to turn from the pursuit of their kinsmen?’” (NRSV). In both texts
the verb is followed by ‫מֵַּאח ֲֵּרי‬, and in both it has the meaning of “turn back” or
“return.” Another text in which the verb might have the same meaning but in
which it appears with ‫ מן‬is Ezekiel 33:9: “But if you warn the wicked to turn
from their ways, and they do not turn from their ways, the wicked shall die in
their iniquity, but you will have saved your life” (NRSV), and there it can also
be translated as “turn away from.” This is also the case in 1 Kings 13:33.
There is at least one reason to believe that in verse 14 there are factors in
support of the assumption that these girls did not reach the exact place from
which they departed, specifically, the authors statement: ‫ׁשנִי‬ ֵּ ‫בֵּית ַהנָׁשִים‬-‫אֶל‬.
Assuming that the girls returned to the same place from which they left, the
meaning of these words should have been ‘to the house of the women once
more.’ But the Hebrew word used to define ‘once more’ or ‘again’ is ‫שנית‬. If so,
the assumption that an error in the Hebrew text has occurred or an assumption
198
for another reason for grammatical disunity is required.
Since the text gives no reason for such an assumption, one should
understand the Hebrew text as it is. In such a case ‫ׁשנִי‬ ֵּ ‫בֵּית ַהנָׁשִים‬-‫ אֶל‬is a directive
phrase in which ‫ שני‬serves as an attribute adjective and therefore agrees with it
in gender and number. For this reason, the ‘house’ described in this text was a
second place to which the women went and not the first one. They went out
from one place and came into the other, making a stop in the chambers of the
king.
There is still one difficulty to be discussed. Even if one accepts this
analysis, the lack of the definite article before the attributive adjective should be
noted. Since ‫ בֵּית ַהנָׁשִים‬is a definite form, its attribute should also be defined.
This lack of the definite article has led scholars to assume the meaning of this
phrase to be ‘to the house again’ or to assume an error in the text.
Nevertheless, there are other cases in Biblical Hebrew in which the
attributive lacks the definite article while its substantive has it. Such is the case
199
in Genesis 19:33, 1 Samuel 2:23, and 1 Kings 10:8. In Mishnaic Hebrew, this
200
phenomena also exists, though by no means as widely. One may assume such
a case also in this text. If so, it might be that the text in 2:14 is not corrupt and
there is no lack of grammatical unity. The women went out from one place and
came into another.
_______________
198
Many scholars have discussed the lack of grammatical uniformity in this phrase.
Two suggestions have been made for its interpretation: the women returned to the same
place from which they left or went to a different place. For the different suggestions and
for reviews on previous research, see, for example, Paton 1908:179, Moore 1971:23, and
Clines 1984b:289.
199
For further discussion of such cases in the OT, see König 1897:334 and G-K,
§126.
200
For cases in which the substantive has the article but not the attributive, see Segal
1958:183.
The assumption, then, that the text meant to identify a second place is not
only reasonable but also agrees with the context and with the linguistic features
of the phrase. One should, therefore, try to study the connection between these
two places in which royal women have dwelt: “In the evening she comes and in
the morning she turns back” (2:14). She spends the night with the king and
becomes his woman, and in the morning she turns back from the king’s
201
apartment.
A special place is described in which the royal women resided: ‫בֵּית ַהנָׁשִים‬
.‫ׁשנִי‬
ֵּ From this verse, one may learn that some women had a separate area in the
house of royal women. This can be gleaned from the word “second” which
202
means another ward in the network of rooms of the royal house. Nevertheless,
there is further evidence in the text regarding the existence of two separate
wards in the house of women: when Esther was taken into the house of royal
women but before she was brought to the king, she was in the women’s house
under the supervision of Hegai, the women’s guard (2:8-9), whereas women
who already had been seen by the king were transferred to another ward
supervised by Shaashgez (2:14). Two different people were responsible for two
different places.
In order to know whether there was another place for the women who have
been with the king, or if the ‘house of the women’ was divided into two separate
parts and, if so, according to which system it was divided one has to examine
not only the Biblical text but also the Persian sources. This does not imply that
the information in the biblical text reflects the reality of the Persian court, rather,
it suggests that the author’s great knowledge about the Persian Empire be taken
into account.
Scholars have discussed the archaeological findings of the palaces of the
203
Achaemenid kings, especially those of Darius I and Xerxes I. In their
discussion, they mention both the huge size of the palaces and their structure.
According to this evidence, the house of the women constituted in one wing of
the palace. This area might have had two different major sections. In one of
them dwelt the royal wives, and in the other royal women, among them, royal
204
concubines. The archaeological findings show that the palace of a Persian king
_______________
201
Scholars have already mentioned the change in position of the women after
spending a night with the king. They use, though, different terminology for the descrip-
tion of the new position of these women: ‘concubine.’ See Paton 1908:180 and Beal
1999:33.
202
See Moore 1971:23.
203
As, for example, Moore 1971:180.
204
For the description of the building, see Olmstead 1966:170 (for the house of royal
women of Darius I), and p. 285 (for the house of royal women of Xerxes I). According
to Brunner 1983:712-713, “The ‘women’s quarters’ of the palace was presided over by
the king’s senior wife, who bore the title ‘Queen of Queens.’” According to Dieulafoy,
cited by Paton 1908:165: ‘the house of the women,’ or harem, lay in the N.W. corner of
the palace-enclosure. On the oriental harem, see Weidner 1956:257-93.
had a special place for royal women. This place could have had more than one
section. According to these archaeological findings, this place could have had a
main part in which the wives of the king lived and a section in which other
groups of women have dwelt. In such a case the meaning of ‫ שני‬is second,
literally, “the second ‘house’ of royal women” or “a second section in the house
of royal women.”
Hegai was responsible for a place inside the house of royal women called
‘the house of women.’ Shaashgez was responsible for ‘the second house of
women,’ or for the second part of the house of women.
According to the Book of Esther, moreover, royal women were drawn from
among the empire’s inhabitants. They were taken due to their young age and
beauty by the messengers of the king. Becoming a royal woman was a serious
matter regardless of what status this royal woman had within the palace. It took
a lot of effort and a long period of time until a woman could spend the night
with the king. This night transformed a woman into a royal woman. Thereafter,
she dwelt no more in the place in which she dwelt during the preparatory period.
The next phrase reveals an additional stage in the lives of the royal women
205
in the palace, which, of course, applies to Esther as well.
.‫ ָחפֵּץ בָּה ַה ֶמלְֶך ְונִק ְְרָאה ְבׁשֵּם‬-‫ ַה ֶמלְֶך ִכי ִאם‬-‫תָ בֹוא עֹוד אֶל‬-‫ ֹלא‬It is written that the girl
brought into the women’s place had no right to appear before the king once
more unless she was summoned ‘by name.’ As Berlin has pointed out, the
meaning of ‫ ְבׁשֵּם‬is not to be understood as the girl’s actual name but, rather, the
206
girl specifically. It was not to be expected that the king remember the names of
all the royal women who dwelt in his palace, but probably those women who
207
were chosen by him time and time again were no longer anonymous to him.
The description of this procedure (2:12-14) is followed by the description of
the participation of Esther in it. When the time has come for Esther to be taken
to the king, she did exactly as Hegai told her and asked for nothing extra (v.15).
The last part of this verse is a note saying that she was liked by all. One may
assume that “all who saw her” (2:15) refers both to the other girls and to the
servants in the ‘house of the women’ (e.g. the eunuchs and maids).
In verse 16, it is written that Esther was taken to the king’s chamber. There
are no details describing the way in which she was taken there nor on the way
she looked nor details of the meeting. On the other hand, the narrator relates
precisely the date on which the event occurred: “In the tenth month, which is the
205
For a comprehensive study on pilagshim as royal women in the OT, see Da-
vidovich 2007.
206
Berlin 2001.
207
A comparison can be made to David’s pilagshim who were left in a kind of wid-
owhood after the rebellion of Absalom. It is reasonable to assume that the great majority
of women in the house of royal women were never summoned to the king and therefore
did not have any contact with a man but were provided with food and shelter.
month of Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign.” From this date, whether
208
correct or not, it can be determined that four years have passed from the
209
gathering of the girls until Esther was summoned, which means that at least
1460 girls were summoned as a result of the gathering described in chapter
210
two.
2.5.2 The Second Period

The second period of Esther’s life in the palace starts with her appointment to
Queen (2:17), and ends at the end of the story. Nevertheless, in chapter three she
is not even mentioned once.
From 2:17, one may learn that it was due to the will of the king which rank
211
a woman gained in his palace. Furthermore, this could be decided not as a
212
result of a wise decision but rather according to the king’s desires. According
to this verse, Esther, who was a very simple girl, an orphan and, more
213
significantly, a Jew, became a queen. In this moment, Esther’s status in the
palace and in the women’s house should have changed. Therefore, one must
examine her status after becoming a ‘queen.’
214
The text emphasizes the great passion of the king for Esther. He loved her
not only more than he loved the other women in the palace but also more than
_______________
208
On the importance of the exact day and month, see Moore 1971, 24. See also Pa-
ton 1908:1982 about the names of the months.
209
Whether correct or not: “In the tenth month, which is Tebeth.” The LXX has a
different version, ‘in the twelfth month, which is Adar.’ On the etymology of ‘tebeth’
and its meaning, see Moore 1971:24 and Berlin 2001.
210
Thus Paton 1908:172. According to Tov 1982:20, in L the ceremony of assembling the
maidens is missing, as well as details of grooming the maidens for their meeting with the
king.
211
According to Moor 1971:16 the “virgins” are all the new wives of Ahasuerus.
Clines rightly states (1984:290) that there is a distinction between the women who were
already members of the harem and the virgins, or, rather, girls, who had been assembled
to provide a queen for Ahasuerus.
212
Berlin 2001 has analyzed the nature of the feelings the king had for Esther, ac-
cording to the different possibilities of interpretation of the verb ‫‘ אהב‬love.’ The nature of
these feelings, however, is irrelevant to the final result, since it is clear from 2:17 that the
king’s feelings or desires were the reason for his choice of Esther.
213
On the meaning of the Hebrew ‫ כתר‬and its etymology, see Salvesen 1999:35-46.
And see also Bickerman 1951:251. There is no doubt that Esther became a queen (as
Murphy 1981:181, Clines 1984:284, and many others) but the meaning of the word is
unclear and with it the status that she had in the palace.
214
Berlin 2001 claims that these emotions were the reason for the king welcoming
Esther (chapter 5) even though she came to him unsummoned. On her deep feelings of
fear upon coming to the king’s chamber as described in Lysimachus, see Bickerman
1951:257.
215
he loved the ‘girls of marriageable age’ that are to be presented to him.
Another detail which is worth mentioning has to do with Esther’s character, that
is, “she won his favor” or “gained his support.” One should note, that, following
Moore, the use of the Hebrew ‫“ נשא‬to carry”/“to gain” and not ‫“ מצא‬to find,”
which is used otherwise quite often in this context. The verb used here suggests
216
a more proactive move on Esther’s part.
Nevertheless, the usual phrase for expressing ‘marriage’ or more accurately,
the taking of a woman as someone’s “wife”/“woman” ‫לֹו ְל ִאשָה‬-‫ ָל ַקח‬, is missing in
this verse and, for that matter, is not found in any other context referring to the
relationship between Esther and Ahasuerus. On this point, it is important to note
that Esther was taken into the palace by the king’s messengers and not by the
king himself. She resided in the palace for a period of between one and four
years without even meeting the king and then, one night, when her turn came,
she had her opportunity to charm the king. Apparently she succeeded “more
than,” suggesting that though the other girls charmed the king as well, none did
217
as much as she. As a result of her success, the king “made her queen instead of
218
Vashti.” There is no implication that he made her his first wife. The banquet in
honor of Esther, described in verse 18, can be understood in the context of the
OT in connection with verse 17 as banquet for celebrating her appointment to
queen. The LXX uses different words in order to describe this banquet.
Therefore, it is understood that already at that time the description in 2:17 was
problematic. According to that account, the banquet was to celebrate Esther’s
marriage to the king. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the Hebrew text to
support this interpretation.
Verse 19 describes different events from her life in the palace: ‫ּו ְב ִה ָקבֵּץ בְתּולֹות‬
‫ׁשנִית‬
ֵּ . According to this verse, after Esther became a queen, girls were
219
summoned again. The significance of this phrase is due to its place in the OT
220
Book of Esther, namely, after Esther has become a queen. This phrase raises
the question as to why the girls were gathered again. Since the king already
crowned Esther as a queen in Vashti’s place, there was no need to search for
221 222
more candidates. Many scholars have dealt with this problem. Most of them
_______________
215
As already mentioned by Clines 1984b:290.
216
And see Moore 1971:21.
217
As already was mentioned by other scholars, such as Moore 1971:18.
218
In contrast to Paton 1908:184. According to Moore 1971:16, 24, all women who
have passed through this procedure and were with the king, were his wives.
219
The LXX and all other Greek versions omit this phrase.
220
According to Brockingston 1969:230, the problem with this phrase is that the se-
cond gathering is mentioned nowhere else in the book.
221
As, for example, Clines 1984b:291. For the assumption that this clause is used for
giving the time of the events, see Paton 1908:188.
regarded parts or all of it as a corruption in the OT text. Neither of these

explanations is convincing. Clines’ declaration that ‘a gathering of maidens a
second time is inexplicable,’ is perfectly understood if one understands the
gathering of the girls to be a one-time event that serves only the purpose of
223
finding a substitute for Vashti.
Nevertheless, there might be a possibility that gathering girls to serve
different positions within the royal house was a common act performed when
needed, or at certain times. Therefore, the gathering of the girls that ended with
Esther’s coming into the palace was not a one-time occasion in this manner but
was, rather, special, since they were looking for a ‘queen.’ In such a case, the
fact that Esther was chosen among the gathered girls to be a ‘queen’ does not
224
exclude the possibility of other gatherings.
One should add to the above the textual evidence in the last part of 4:11: “I
myself have not been called to come in to the king for thirty days” (NRSV),
from which one might learn that the king after choosing Esther as ‘queen’ was
225
not so keen on her anymore. Therefore, he might have wished to get some new
girls. This assumption becomes more plausible if one keeps in mind that several
years have passed since the previous gathering. Another possibility is that the
king has done what was expected from him by his ministers and subjects and
afterwards lost his interest in the matter and returned to the ordinary gatherings
of girls. Such “collections” were not a rare habit in the different palaces such as,
for example, the huge number of royal women that were under the possession of
King Solomon as described in 1 Kings 11:1-5.
There are two main parts to verse 2:20. The first part is a general statement:
Esther, even after being chosen as a queen, did not reveal her religion and
descent. The second part includes an explanation of the reason for this secrecy:
226
Mordecai’s orders to her. The first section of the first part is of relevance to
the present discussion. Esther did not reveal facts about her that might have
been influenced her status and rank in the palace: “Esther had not revealed her
kindred or her people” (NRSV). Her origin from among the Jews puts her in a
minority group of non-Persians. In such a case, there could be serious
consequences should the others in the palace learn of her origins. That her
222
For a thorough review of the different solutions, see Paton 1908:186. For further
reviews and assumptions, see Moore 1971:30, Fuerst 1975:56, and Clines 1984b:291.
223
Clines 1984b:291. The whole phrase is omitted from the LXX, for which, see
Brockingstone 1969:230.
224
Since there is not enough evidence in the text, as Moore 1971:29, has already
pointed out. This assumption can be at least as good as the others.
225
See, however, the suggestion that this text refers to the same event described in
verse 14, as Fuerest 1975:56, and is used only as time definition as “in those days,” and
Moore 1971:30. See also Clines 1984:291. For a thorough discussion on this point and
different solutions to it, see Paton 1908:186-189.
226
On this issue and the relationship between Esther and Mordecai, see pp. 52-58.
religion could be kept secret implies that, at this point, she was not one of the
powerful women in the palace and certainly not the chief wife, whose
background was probably well known and, if not, would have been examined
before her elevation to such an important position.
The next details given about Esther’s life in the palace are found in chapter
227
four. These details are an integral part of the events connected to Mordecai. A
few details can be further examined in this context: she had direct contact with
at least one of the eunuchs, Hatach. Nothing is mentioned in the text concerning
the approach of this eunuch to Esther. He did not have to set an appointment
with her, nor did there have to be someone else in the room while he was talking
to Esther. Furthermore, no special place is mentioned for their meetings. She
was one of the royal women and he one of the eunuchs. No special manners
were required for him speaking to her.
One more detail is revealed in this chapter: as written in 2:9, Esther had
seven maids assigned by Hegai the eunuch, to serve her. As already discussed
earlier in this study, maids were probably assigned to all the girls who
228
participated in the one year process. According to 4:16, Esther had maids for
her help even after the one year process ended. Whether these maids were the
same maids assigned to her previously or were assigned to her after she became
a queen is not clear from the text. Nevertheless, the nature of their work was not
limited to serving her, but also, in some way, to share in her life and destiny: she
did not fast alone, for example; her maids actively participate even in this
unusual act. The fact that she had such maids could suggest her high status in
the house of royal women.
Another turning point can be found in Esther’s life in the palace after the
two banquets organized by her for the king and Haman. From chapter eight
onward, it seems that her position became more important and her role more
meaningful. She also had more material wealth that she had ever had before.
This fact cannot be used as a proof for her being a chief wife, since it is well
known that royal women in different empires in the Ancient Near East, as for
229
example, the Persian Empire, could be very powerful economically.
Nevertheless, it was a personal achievement for Esther in her role as a royal
woman. It might have been the reason for Esther’s further pleading before the
king. Furthermore, by giving her Haman’s house, the king expressed his
satisfaction with her.
8:8 describes a further stage in Esther’s rise in the palace. The king gave
Esther (and Mordecai) the permission to write things in his name. He further
gave them his ring in order to use it as the king’s signature as they pleased.
They, both together and individually, gained authority they did not have before.
_______________
227
For detailed analysis of Esther’s approaching the king, see pp. 101-115.
228
For this discussion, see pp. 85-89.
229
On the strong and independent economic situation that royal women had in the
Persian Empire, see Brosius 1996:123-183.
This authority was not common to royal women. One might, therefore, see here
another stage in the change in Esther’s rank from one among the many royal
women who dwelt in the house of the women to among the most powerful royal
women in the palace of Ahasuerus, if not the most powerful. This verse further
emphasizes that the king gave them legal power. Things which were usually
decided only by the king could, from now on, be decided by Esther and
230
Mordecai.
The conversation between Esther and the king in chapter 9 also suggests the
231
change in Esther’s position. She is not described as approaching him, nor are
the royal customs for speaking to the king described. He informs her about the
developments that occurred as a result of her deeds. Nevertheless, the narrator
mentions their positions. Ahasuerus is mentioned as the king while Esther is
mentioned both by her name and rank as the queen. Her last request is for ‘her
people,’ the Jews of Susa, to be able to continue with their deeds for one more
day, and for the sons of Haman to be hanged. Though the contents of this
request are most strange, the request itself is quite normal for royal women
since, even after they joined the palace, they still had responsibilities towards
232
their families and kin.
2.6 “In the Evening She Came”

This part of the work will deal only with the two main issues that are found in
Esther 2:3, 4, 8, 9, and 12-14: the process of becoming a royal woman in the
233
palace of Ahasuerus and some of the regulations concerning this process.
2.6.1 The Process

According to this passage, there were seven stages in the process of becoming a
royal woman.
1. The transport: The first stage consisted of taking young women from all
over the kingdom (v.3). These women were simply taken by the king’s men,
_______________
230
One should note, however, that it is Mordecai who eventually wrote in the name
of the king and not Esther (8:10). It is also he who informed the Jews of the plot (9:20).
But see 9:29.
231
For a discussion on whether 9:20-10:3 are original parts of the book and for a re-
view of previous scholarship on this matter, see Moore 1983:176.
232
Other examples of this function of royal women can be found in the acts of
Rizpah daughter of Aiah and in Adoniyah’s request to Bathsheba.
233
The idea and form of this discussion is based on a previous study, Davidovich
2007:96.
sometimes probably even with great force, with no regard for their will or that
of their families. They were kidnapped not knowing what would happen to
them. There may have been announcers who spread the news among the villages
about the gathering, but nothing more. None of these young women could
choose their fate and none could resist. They were taken with no promises
simply because they were pretty and of the right age.
2. The gathering: The second stage is also described in verse 3. It includes
the gathering of these women in the capital city. In this case, the city is Susa
(v.3). The young women were gathered in a certain place within the city. From
the text, it is understood that there were many women and all were left with a
guard. This scene is described using words with neither positive nor negative
connotations; the description of these events is done in neutral terms.
3. The third stage: these women were taken into a special place. Many of
these girls would have never left their village before this event, and would never
return again. In v.3, the second and third stages are described as two parts of the
same stage, but according to v.8, this process was carried out in two different
stages. First, the young women were gathered in the capital city and only then
taken into a place called ‘the house of the women,’ where they were put into the
custody of a man called Hegai. From v.8: “Esther also was taken into the king’s
palace, and put in custody of Hegai.” This place was in the area of the king’s
palace. Only then their “little trip” ended and they started to realize the great
change that happened in their life.
4. The treatment: The fourth stage consisted of beautifying the young
women, ‫( ְונָתֹון תַ מ ְֻרקֵּיהֶן‬v.3). However, nothing is said about their own well-being.
They were beautified not for their own sake but only to satisfy the king. From
v.9, it appears that the same person who was in charge of the (first) ‘house of
the women,’ Hegai, was also in charge of this process, and it was up to him who
would receive better treatment and have a better chance of success: “And he
quickly provided her with her cosmetic treatments…and advanced her and her
maids to the best place in the house of women.” According to v. 12, this stage
continued for twelve months and included two parts, each of which lasted six
months. However, some girls had to wait quite a long time before they recieved
permission to start with this one year treatment. From this stage on, the process
is individualized for each of the women. If until then they were treated as a
group, thereafter each had her own place.
5. The last sorting: The fifth stage. In this stage, described in verses 12-13
the young women were summoned to the king in turn. They were allowed to
take with them all that they desired. Probably they could ask for jewels, clothes
and such things to beautify them. This is the first time that they could ask for
something since the day they were kidnapped from their homes. What they
asked for could eventually influence the rest of their lives in the palace.
6. The crucial night: In the sixth stage, one of the girls spent the night with
the king (v.14a). This was her big night. She had at most a few hours to make
the king fond of her. She was probably a virgin since, because of their age, most
of the women brought to the palace were. Nevertheless, this was the royal way
of losing their virginity: a one night stand, an event that most of the girls did not
actively pursue.
7. The golden cage: In the last stage, after a night with the king, the young
woman entered a new place ‫ׁשנִי‬ ֵּ ‫“ בֵּית ַהנָׁשִים‬the second house of women,” and a
new period in her life began (v.14a). From now on she was a royal woman
supervised by Shaashgez, one of the king’s eunuchs (v.14b). She could never
return to her family or build a family of her own unless she got pregnant on this
one night. Most of these women did not meet the king in private ever again.
2.6.2 The Regulations

1. Age definition: The candidate should be a young woman. Only young
women, however, not girls, were gathered (vv.2-3). The phrase ‫ נְעָרֹות בְתּולֹות‬is
234
understood by some scholars as ‘young virgins.’ Wenham’s conclusion that
235
the meaning of ‫ בְתּולָה‬is ‘a young woman of marriageable age,’ and, thus, the
meaning of ‫ נְעָרֹות בְתּולֹות‬in vv.2-3 as young women, seems correct. In that case,
they would preferably also be virgins, but not necessarily so.
236
2. Rules of attraction: She should be beautiful,‫טֹובַת ַמ ְר ֶאה‬. This is a very
general description, left to the interpretation and preferences of the messengers
of the king. The results must have been a variety of different looks, colors and
shapes.
3. Housing: This rule has two parts. The different parts regard different
periods and stages in the lives of the young women in the palace. In the first
period of her life in the palace, while she was being prepared for her night with
the king, the young woman dwelt in a certain place from which they did not
leave until they were brought to the king. This place was called ‫בֵּית ַהנָׁשִים‬, “the
women’s house” and was located in one area of the king’s palace. As noted in a
237
previous study, this place is not to be considered a ‘harem.’ The young women
lived there only as long as they were on the waiting list for pleasuring the king.
After they had spent the night with him, however, they were immediately
transferred to another place.
The second period of their residence in the king’s palace started after the
night in which their task was to please the king. Upon leaving the private room
_______________
234
As, for example, Moore 1971:17.
235
Wenham 1972:326-348, and see also Niessen 1980:133-150, and Watts 2004.
236
Clines 1984b:285 claims there are deliberately parallel terms in the text and 1
Kings 1:2-4. See discussion on this combination of words on p. 46.
237
According to Solvang 2003:52, “It must be noted that ‘harem’ is a term intro-
duced by scholars into the translation and discussion of the ancient texts; no technical
equivalent exists in the ancient languages and the term has been used to translate a range
of phrases.” See the discussion by Durand and Margueron 1980:253-263 of the Sumerian
and Akkadian terms commonly translated ‘harem.’
of the king, the young woman had to dwell in a place called ‫ׁשנִי‬ ֵּ ‫“ בֵּית ַהנָׁשִים‬the
second house of women.” These two places might have been either two different
sections of the same place, that is, the royal house of women, or two different
238
locations separated from each other. In any case, the place they left before
meeting the king is not the place they went after their visit.
4. The preparation process: This process was obligatory for all the women
who were gathered and brought into the palace. It was a condition of their
meeting with the king. A candidate who did not complete this process was
denied the opportunity to charm the king. The stages of the process were
decided before it started and all the women had to follow each and every stage:
‫כְדָ ת ַהנָׁשִים‬. This was a one year program. During this year, the candidate had to
pass two stages. The first was a stage of purifying. In this stage, the young
woman was purified with oil of myrrh. This stage continued for six months. The
second stage of the preparation process was intended to make the young women
smell good. During this stage, she received treatment with perfumes and
cosmetics, since if she had not been treated in this way perhaps her scent would
not have pleased the king.
5. The right to be adorned: This is the only time since the young woman
was forced to leave her home that she had the right to ask for something, which
was, ironically, just before the king was about to ask something of her. Upon
completing the preparatory process, when it was her turn to please the king, she
could ask for whatever she wished. According to the text, it was also meant to
give the young woman one last chance to perfect her appearance and to make
her feel beautiful and desirable, something which might affect her behavior with
the king.
6. One night with the king: The successful candidate won the privilege of
meeting the king. However, it is not certain that she could do this immediately
upon completing the preparation process. There were many women who
managed to successfully finish this process and, therefore, some time could pass
before the young woman could spend the night (or at least a part of it) with the
king. In v.14 “in the evening she came,” for example, nothing suggests that
every candidate was actually led into the king’s house. For some of the women,
this was their moment of greatest joy, while for others it was the most awful
they could imagine. It is interesting to note that, according to the text, the young
candidate came to the king in the evening and left in the morning. This provides
ample proof of the purpose of her visit. At that point, the young women, after
long months and, for some of them, even years of preparations and rules,
reached their final objective. And after the last stage – the night with the king –
they were taken to a place they had not seen before and the nature of which was
not clear to them. The young women could not move freely in the area of the
palace but rather were taken from the ‘house of the women’ into the king’s
house and then into the wing where they had to stay. With the coming of the
_______________
238
And see previous discussion on pp. 78-79 on ‫ׁשנִי‬
ֵּ ‫בֵּית ַהנָׁשִים‬.
dawn, they finally understood that their hopes of becoming a special one
evaporated with the night, along with their innocence.
7. The last march: After being in the king’s private room, the youn woman
was finally taken to the place where, unless something unusual should happen,
she would dwell as long as she lived, ‫ׁשנִי‬
ֵּ ‫בֵּית ַהנָׁשִים‬. She is not allowed to come
into the king’s quarters again unless he summons her (v. 14).
2.7 Conclusions
According to the OT, Esther was a Jewish orphan of honorable lineage taken
into custody by her cousin Mordecai who, through a series of unexpected turns,
became queen. This chapter has defined her actual position and status during
these different stages in her life through analysis of her description, her actions,
and the actions of those around her.
First, her name was examined: she is given two names in the story, Hadas-
sah and Esther. The former is used by the narrator only once and the latter no
fewer than 55 times. Scholars have offered four suggestions regarding this dis-
crepancy in her names: 1) that Hadassah was her Jewish name and Esther her
foreign name; 2) that Hadassah was her name before entering the palace, her
birth name, and Esther a name given her and; 3) that Esther was the name of the
character and Hadassah was a title; 4) that the story in the OT is the result of a
fusion of two different stories, a possibility that would explain the two variants
of names. None of these suggestions, however, can be definitively proven.
The story tells us that she was beautiful even though most Bible translations
do not recognize the significant difference in the two terms used, ‫תַֹּאר‬-‫“ יְפַת‬yefat
to’ar” and ‫“טֹובַת מ ְַראֶה‬ṭobat mar’e” (2:7). The former presents her as objectively
beautiful, while the latter emphasizes the role of the perceiver.
Continuing with her social status, she begins the story with neither the legal
protection that comes with being a legal orphan, that is, if the word )‫(י ָתֹום‬, had
been used, nor social ones, because she ahd no guardian until Mordecai took her
into his house. Her initial social-economic position was thus quite insecure. She
is not, however, of unknown origin, since we learn from the text of her father’s
name, even if in three different variants, and, no less important, we learn that
Mordecai is her cousin.
Socially, circumstances do improve with her relationship to Mordecai. The
nature of this relationship is not entirely clear. Two possible conclusions can be
drawn: one, that their relationship was that of a father and (adopted) daughter;
and two, that they were married, that is, husband and wife. First we meet the
term ‫ ַהנַע ֲָרה‬, translated as “the young girl.” This characterization defines not only
her age as suiting the requirements of the king’s messengers but also her legal
and socio-economic position: she had to be under the custody of an adult. Her
age did not allow her to make important decisions on her own.
But what was her relation to Mordecai really? Scholars disagree. The main
reason for this confusion is, first, the comment on this relationship at 2:7.
According to the Hebrew version Mordecai took care of Esther, ‫ ַויְהִי א ֹּמֵּן ֶאת‬and
took her as his own daughter,‫ ְל ָקחָּה מ ְָרדֳּ כַי לֹו ְלבַת‬. Also, in verse 20, the text
should probably be translated as, “that he acted as his father.” However,
medieval interpretations focus on the word ‫‘ בַת‬daughter’ (2:7), claiming that it
is a corruption of ‫בית‬. Thus, they conclude, that since the Hebrew ‫ בית‬usually
translates as ‘house,’ that it might also mean ‘wife.’ This is also suggested by
the LXX and the Megilla 13a, which present them as husband and wife.
The possibility of a marriage between Mordecai and Esther is not hampered
by the fact that they were cousins. Such unions between cousins was common at
the time and in the region. It is, furthermore, not impossible for King Ahasuerus
to take an already married woman into his palace, even though it would be
against Jewish law (by which he would not have been bound, of course).
Mordecai continues to influence Esther even after she is no longer a child, using
moral and ethical arguments rahter than legal claims as her guardian. He
certainly also relies on the personal affection between them, which is reiterated
throughout the text. Certainly, she is the one that opens the door to his power at
the palace. However, towards the end of the story, their roles seem to have
changed: she is the more powerful and gives him the commands, a reversal of
their previous position in which she was the commanded one. She furthermore
is mentioned as ha-malkah, while his position appears lower; he is referred to
only as Mordecai “the Jew.”
Could she have been married to Mordecai? If so, she probably did not
inform the King. By way of comparison to other OT stories, it is clear that
husbands were sometimes forced to give incorrect information on the nature of
the actual relationship of marriage due to impending disaster. After a while, the
truth is revealed and the wife is returned to the husband with the good grace of
the ruler. In Mordecai’s case, he does not receive her back, but continues to live
outside the palace while she is inside, which at least suggests that, if they were
married, they were not living together.
The word “ha-malkah” appears in seven of the occasions where the name
Esther is used. This is a very special title and certainly not as uncomplicated as
it might appear at first. In the OT, only three women are called ‫ ַמ ְלכָה‬. Two of
them, Vashti and Esther, are in the Book of Esther. Besides these two, there is
the woman from Sheba. This term, at least in its singular form, appears thus
only in context of royal women who dwelt outside of Israel and Judah. Two of
these three women are not of Jewish origin. In comparison to the other term for
describing the chief royal woman, gebirah ‫ִירה‬ ָ ‫ ְגב‬, malkah does not define the
woman who carries it as chief. From this, one may conclude that by calling
Esther malkah, the narrator did not necessarily intend to present her as the
highest ranking woman in Ahasuerus’ palace. Was she then the wife of this ruler
of Persia? Most scholars do not believe so. We will return to this issue later on.
Regardless, whether she actually was the first wife is unlikely.
The Greek versions translate Malkah as ‘basileía.’ This Greek term can
mean ‘queen’ but it can also mean ‘royal woman’ or ‘princess.’ In Hebrew, we
find that the Hebrew term malkah can refer to a royal woman, royal wife, or a
queen. However, it is not possible from the semantics and context of the OT to
define her status in the palace of Ahasuerus.
In searching for a definition of her status, we have furthermore examined
how she and other characters behaved. Thus, we noticed a change from chapter
four, where Esther suddenly becomes active. Whereas before she passively
followed the commands of others, she begins in this chapter to take her own
initiative. In chapter five, her status seems to have altered altogether as she even
dares to break the rule of only waiting for the King to summon her. Instead, she
approaches the king in order to appeal to him on behalf of her people. Her
sudden power is further manifested with the successful convincing of the king to
give her the royal ring, enabling her to issue a series of commands in his name,
including issuing royal decrees granting the Jews of Susa the right to defend
themselves, confiscating the property of Haman, and the executing him and his
sons.
Haman is a character who is consistently deceived and outwitted by Esther.
As such, his destiny further emphasizes the growing power and status of Esther.
At the beginning, he has the king’s ear and rightly believes that it is in his power
to send Mordecai to his death. Instead, due to Esther, he completely loses.
The position of Esther is possibly further indicated by the way the eunuchs
behave towards her. She is treated better than the rest of the royal women. This
is obvious both before and after her night with the king. It is not entirely clear,
however, if this is due to any formal position or simply due to the personal
relationships she developed.
The king himself also reveals something of her status. In the beginning, he
appreaciates her so much that he removes the title from Vashti and gives it to
Esther instead. However, after getting what he wanted, it seems that he has no
further interest in contacting Esther. Instead, she has to stay in the second house
for those women who have already spent a night with the king. This appears to
have been a kind of golden cage, a prison for life where the women would stay
and never raise a family of their own or have relationships. But Esther broke
free from this house: only by breaking the rule of awaiting the King’s call can
she reach him again; only by making her own decision to approach him does she
truly awaken the king’s passion and reach ultimate power.
3. Your Majesty
The status of Esther can be learned from comparison to other royal women in
the OT. In this part of the study, Esther’s status in the royal house of King
Ahasuerus will be elucidated through a comparative analysis with other royal
women in the OT. From this analysis, a clearer portrait of her will appear.
3.1 The Gathering of the Girls

The theme of a search for a beautiful young girl for the king from all over the
kingdom is not unknown in the OT. Such a search is mentioned in the first
chapter of the book of Kings. What follows is a comparison between the data
given in the Book of Esther and that given in the story of Abishag ( 1 Kings 1-
4), starting with dividing the biblical texts according to the different stages of
their plot development:
1 Kings 1:1-4 Esther 2:
The reason for King David was old After these things,
the search and advanced in years; when the anger of King
and although they Ahasuerus had abated,
covered him with he remembered Vashti
clothes, he could not and what she had done
get warm. and what had been de-
creed against her.
2 2
The aim of the So his servants said to Then the king’s serv-
him, ‘Let a young girl ants who attended him
239
of marriageable age said ‘Let beautiful
_______________
239
This is the only change made in this text from the translation in the NRSV.
Your Majesty 89
search be sought for my lord young girls of mar-

the king, riageable age be sought
out for the king.
4
The obligations and let her wait on the And let the girl who
of the woman king, and be his at- pleases the king be
tendant; let her lie in queen instead of Vash-
your bosom, ti.’
4
The main task So that my lord the And let the girl who
king may be warm.’ pleases the king be queen
instead of Vashti.’
3 8
Entering the pal- So they searched for a So when the king’s order
ace beautiful girl through- and his edict were pro-
out all the territory of claimed, and when many
Israel, and found young women were gath-
Abishag the Shunam- ered in the citadel of Susa
mite, and brought her in the custody of Hegai,
to the king. Esther also was taken into
the king’s palace and put in
the custody of Hegai, who
was in charge of the wom-
en.
4 9 240
The description The girl was very The girl pleased him
of the woman beautiful. and won his favor, and
he quickly provided her
with her cosmetic
treatments and her por-
tion of food… and ad-
vanced her and her
maids to the best place
in the house of the
women. 10Esther did
not reveal her people or
kindred, for Mordecai
_______________
240
Hegai.
had charged her not to

tell… 15 When the turn
came for Esther daugh-
ter of Abihail the uncle
of Mordecai, … to go
in to the king, she
asked for nothing ex-
cept what Hegai the
king’s eunuch, who had
charge of the women,
advised. Esther was
admired by all who saw
her.
17
The nature of She became the king’s the king loved Esther
the relations be- attendant and served more than all the women;
tween the king him, but the king did of all the girls of marriage-
and the woman not know her sexually. able age she won his favor
and approval, so that he set
a royal crown on her head
and made her queen in-
241
stead of Vashti.
There is no doubt that there are similarities between these two stories as a
whole: a king was in some personal distress; his advisors thought a new woman
would cure the king’s problem and therefore advised the king to order a search;
messengers looked all over the kingdom for the right girl; the girl was brought
into the palace and completed the task for which she was meant. In both stories,
her presence in the palace brought the king some relief.
The first part in both stories serves as an introduction. It deals with the
reason for the search: the king’s distress. While the kind of distress is different
in each story (in the story about Abishag, King David is described as old and
cold, while in the story of Esther, the king has suffered from regret and maybe
242
even longing). The reason for the distress is thought to be, at least by the
king’s advisors, approximately the same: a lack of a woman. It is interesting to
_______________
241
In Esther 2:2, 8, and 17 there are some changes from the translation of the NRSV.
Otherwise, the main text of this translation was taken from the NRSV.
242
Scholars are not united concerning the meaning of the words ‘remembered Vash-
ti.’ Some claim that the meaning might be, ‘remembered her with affection, missed her’
or even regretted the events, as, for example, Paton 1908:165, Moore 1971:17, and
Clines 1984b:284. Others claim is simply be ‘recalling that he had no queen,’ as suggest-
ed, for example, by Brockingston 1969:227.
Your Majesty 91
note that both kings had other women in their house but, nonetheless, the kings’
advisors thought these women insufficient for the task.
It looks as if in both stories the problem described is a personal issue of the
king as a man rather than as a ruler. The problem in this stage of both stories is
not described as a political issue that might have some influence on the
kingdom. Yet as previously discussed, David’s impotence could point to his
243
inability to rule. Also, in the case of Ahasuerus, the text emphasizes the lack of
244
a queen and not just any woman who will satisfy the king. This term might
have political importance because it might be a public role and not only a
private issue for the king.
The second part in both stories includes a short description of the aim of the
search. According to the story of Abishag, the aim of the search is to look for a
young girl of marriageable age. In Esther, the aim of the search is to look for
young beautiful girls of marriageable age. Furthemore, in the story of Esther the
final word is given by the king: he is the one who chooses from among the
different women brought to him. By contrast, in the story of Abishag, the final
selection is made by others. Furthermore, unlike in the story of Abishag, in
Esther’s story, already at an early stage in the story, the aim is to find ‘beautiful
girls.’ The beauty is as important an aspect as of the girls’ other qualities, and
maybe even more (2:2). That might suggest the different tasks originally
required of the candidates in the different stories.
The third and fourth parts in both stories deal with the duties of the chosen
girl. Her duties are literally to ease the king’s distress. Therefore, in the story of
Abishag, the duties of the girl are to help the king, be his attendant, and also to
lie in his bosom (in order to make him warm). The duties in the story of Esther
are for the girl to be a queen instead of Vashti. While the last task mentioned for
Abishag was to lie with the king (in order to make him warm), it is emphasized
in the text of Esther that the girl had to please the king in order to become queen
instead of Vashti. Apperently, the girls had to have different skills.
While sexuality is implicit in the story of Abishag, in Esther it is far more
prominent. In both stories, the entrance of a new woman into the palace was
only a suggestion made by the king’s advisors; in both stories, too, this
suggestion was not refused by the king. Nevertheless, in the story of Abishag,
the king did not give his consent to the suggestion and it seems that he was not
interested in it, but, rather, could not refuse it. In the story of Esther, on the other
hand, the king not only gave his consent to the search but also actively
participated in the process.
The fifth part in both stories includes a description of the girl entering the
palace. In the story of Esther, this description is more detailed, though in both of
_______________
243
See Davidovich 2007:151-154.
244
In the Greek version, however, it is written that the king has forgotten Vashti, but
Moore 1971:17 seems more apt in suggesting that this is due to a misunderstanding of
the Hebrew text.
the stories the description occupies only one verse. Two pieces of information
are similar in both stories: the description of the action of the bringing of the girl
into the palace and the naming of the girl who will occupy the position.
There are, however, a few details found only in one of the stories. While
Abishag is mentioned both by name and origin, Esther is mentioned only by
name at this stage of the story. As opposed to the second part, in this part, the
beauty of the girl brought to the king is mentioned only in the story of Abishag.
The search described for King David was for a young girl of marriageable age
even if, in practice, they were looking for a beautiful girl. This characteristic of
the girl to be brought to the king was not a part of the description; it was not,
therefore, the primary goal of the search. Nevertheless, in practice, they were
looking for a beautiful girl, maybe in hopes of stimulating the king. In the story
of Esther, the text does not mention the looks of the girl in the fifth part because
this was a matter already agreed upon as one of the girl’s most important
qualities.
According to the text, when they found Abishag, they took her immediately
to the king. The situation described in the Book of Esther was quite different,
since the girls were first gathered in the capital city and then brought into the
palace and the custody of Hegai. Esther was only one of many others gathered.
Because many girls were gathered, the process was much more complicated.
They had first to be gathered and then to be taken care of. Therefore, the
meeting with the king had to be delayed. The main difference between these two
stories is that in the Book of Esther the king himself was the one who chose the
girl for the task. The messengers made only the first selection. This selection
was followed by a long process of beautification which had to be completed
before the girl could meet the king. In the story of Abishag, there was no place
for such a process since the choice was not the king’s to make but was, rather,
made for the king by others.
Though the next part in both stories (part 6) is the description of the chosen
girl, there are significant stylistic differences between the two stories. In the
story of Abishag, this part is very short and includes only the two details that the
woman was young and very beautiful. One might find in this description a
literary means for emphasizing the king’s impotence mentioned at the end of the
same verse (v.4). In the story of Esther, on the other hand, this part is very long
and includes many details, some of which include information that does not
belong directly to the description of the woman. These details belong to the
description of the process each girl had to pass prior to her appearance before
245
the king. Further details are of a different nature. While Abishag’s name is not
mentioned at all in this part of the story, Esther is mentioned several times by
name, as is her heritage and the names of her father and guardian. Furthermore,
the beauty of both girls is mentioned, but in the case of Esther, this beauty has
greater a significance than for Abishag. Abishag’s beauty, moreover, is
_______________
245
On this process, see pp. 85-93.
Your Majesty 93
mentioned only once. In the description of Esther, her beauty is emphasized by

the reaction of people towards her: she was admired by all who saw her. Other
details are given regarding her character: she did not reveal her origin because
Mordecai has ordered her not to do so. She asked for nothing more than the
things that Hegai recommended before she went into the king’s apartment. Her
obedience is emphasized by these two facts. Though the reason for this
obedience is not clear from the text, it might have been due to her fear of the
new situation; it might also, however, reflect her self-confidence and sense of
security.
The last part of the story about the search includes a description of the
nature of the relationship between the king and the girl brought to him. It seems
as if the results of the search were successful in both stories but, looking at the
details, one cannot ignore the fact that the narrator adds some words suggesting
that, though the search was successful, the results were not entirely satisfactory.
There was at least one aspect in which the union between the king and the girl
recently brought into his palace failed.
While Abishag became the helper of the king and served him, the narrator
adds that “the king did not know her” (sexually). Furthermore, nowhere in the
text is it previously written that one of her tasks was to have sex with the king.
This addition, therefore, seems to be out of order. Nevertheless, the narrator
emphasizes this fact. Therefore, one might assume that having sex with the king
could have been one of the tasks meant for her by the king’s advisors. As
previously discussed, the sexual capacity of the king might have been important
as a symbol of his ability to rule. Though David was old and sick, the narrator
describes the sexual incapacity of the king as a hint for the events that
246
followed. The declared tasks attributed to her are also mentioned in the
description, though if there were hidden intentions, they were unfulfilled.
The importance of sexuality is very clear in the story of Esther. She, in
contrast to Abishag, was chosen by the king himself after spending the night
with her. And because of his satisfaction during this night, he made her queen
instead of Vashti. Nevertheless, nothing is written about her tasks as such.
In the story of Abishag, the king is described as an old man who mostly
needs someone to take care of him, while in the story of Esther the king is
described as a man looking mostly for someone to pass the time with him.
David does not miss the presence of a young woman; it is not his wish to have a
new woman in his palace. Ahasuerus, on the other hand, misses the presence of
a new woman in his palace and he is the one who first expresses this lack in his
life. Unlike the story of Abishag, the advisors in the story of Esther do not
initiate the whole act. It is the king who comes forward with his discontent and
the advisors suggest the search in response to it. In Abishag’s story, the
_______________
246
According to the Greek versions, the banquet made in Esther’s honor was a wed-
ding celebration; and see Moore 1971:25.
initiative comes from the advisors and the king himself is so passive that he
does not even express his approval or disapproval of this suggestion.
To summarize, searching for a young girl is not the only matter which one
can compare in these stories. Rather, though the circumstances that lead to these
searches seem very different, they have several major aspects in common: the
incompetence and impotence of the kings at the time when their advisors
suggest the search (King David could not perform according to his obligations
as a man nor as a king while Ahasuerus, though not as old and definitely not as
cold, could not function simply because he had a hangover after a big feast in
which he participated the previous night). One might add that, while in 1 Kings
the search was after one girl and only she was summoned, in the Book of Esther,
the search was after one girl but several were summoned into the capital from
among whom the king could choose. The choice of Abishag was completely
made by the king’s advisors and messengers while, in the case of Esther, the
first choice was by the king’s advisors and messengers but the king himself
made the final decision. This difference between these two events can be further
emphasized by the fact that, according to 1 Kings 1:4, King David never had
sexual relations with Abishag while, according to Esther chapter 2, King
Ahasuerus had such activities not only with Esther but also with some of the
other girls who were summoned.
A previous study concluded that Abishag was not given the title of a royal
pilegesh because she was never an integral part of King David’s house of royal
247
women. The situation in the Book of Esther is different since Esther dwelt in
the ‘women’s house;’ she was counted among the royal women of King
Ahasuerus and ranked accordingly. The scene describing Esther going into the
king’s chambers and her conversation with Mordecai before she acted leaves no
doubt concerning her fear and lack of self-confidence in this matter.
Furthermore, comparing other scenes in the OT in which women came into
the king’s chamber in order to ask for something or to speak with the king about
some matter, one finds great differences.
_______________
247
See Davidovich 2007:151-157.
Your Majesty 95
3.2 Approaching the King

In several stories in the OT, there is an episode involving a woman approaching
a king (in such scenes as those between Jezebel and Ahab, Bathsheba and
Solomon, and Esther and Ahasuerus). Some of these episodes describe the
approach of a woman after being summoned by the king, as in 1 Samuel 25, the
248
story of Abigail. Other episodes include a situation in which the woman is the
one who approaches the king without being summoned. These episodes may be
divided according to the place of events, that is, whether inside or outside the
throne room.
3.2.1 Approaching the King Outside His Throne Room

This part of the study will focus on two women and their approaches to their
kings outside the throne room. Both women were of high social and economic
status. The first woman is Abigail and the second is Jezebel. However, what
follows will not be an analysis of their character in the OT but, rather, of the
approach per se. These approaches will be interpreted according to their order of
appearances in the OT.
3.2.1.1. Abigail Approaching David

Abigail approaching the king is described in 1 Samuel 25. The chapter begins
with a description of a man, later identified as Nabal, who was very rich and had
a clever and beautiful wife named Abigail. Though Nabal was rich and
successful, he was also very cruel. And perhaps even too sure of himself,
because when David sent some of his men to ask for some help, Nabal refused
him in a most rude way, claiming that he knew neither the people nor the one
who sent them, even though the text emphasizes that David’s men had protected
Nabal’s shepherds several times before.
_______________
248
Gunn 1976:222 finds parallel elements in the conversation between David and
Abigail and the one between David and the Tekoit woman, 2 Samuel 14. There is, how-
ever, a major difference: while the dialogue in 1 Samuel 25 occurred due to David’s
approach to Abigail, in 2 Samuel 14 it is the woman who approaches the king without
having been first summoned.
By refusing David’s request, he insulted him by demonstrating both his

ingratitude for the help he had earlier received and also by showing his
contempt for the king’s power and position. And, moreover, taking into
consideration the possibility that David’s request was not so naïve and that
actually he was asking for what we would today call “protection money,” his
refusal undermined David’s position among his other potential protectees. As
importantly, he denied David the extra financial resources.
This refusal would have cost him dearly had he not had a wife who was as
clever as she was beautiful. While David was preparing his men for an attack on
Nabal, one of the latter’s men went to Abigail and told her the story. She must
have realized that nothing good would come from the situation unless she
intervened and, with the encouragement of the man who told her the story,
decided to act before it will be too late. She sent her young men before her and
rode her donkey without telling her husband. On her way, David and his men
came towards her. She began her approach the moment she saw them.
Abigail left nothing to chance and when she saw David and his men coming
towards her she immediately leapt down from her donkey and bowed with her
face to the ground next to David’s feet:
‫ ָפנֶי ָה‬-‫דָ וִד וַתְ ַמהֵּר וַתֵּ ֶרד ֵּמעַל ַהחֲמֹור; וַתִ פ ֹּל ְל ַאפֵּי דָ וִד עַל‬-‫וַתֵּ ֶרא ֲאבִיגַי ִל ֶאת‬
‫נָא אֲ ָמתְ ָך‬-‫ ֲאנִי אֲד ֹּנִי ֶהעָוֹּן; ּותְ דַ בֶר‬-‫ ַרגְלָיו וַת ֹּאמֶר בִי‬-‫ וַתִ פ ֹּל עַל‬.‫ָארץ‬ ֶ ‫ׁשתַ חּו‬ ְ ִ‫וַת‬
.‫ׁשמַע ֵּאת דִ ב ְֵּרי ֲא ָמתֶ ָך‬
ְ ‫בְָאזְנֶיָך ּו‬
When Abigail saw David, she hurried and alighted from the
donkey, and fell before David on her face, bowing to the
ground. 24She fell at his feet and said, “Upon me alone, my
lord, be the guilt; please let your servant speak in your ears,
and hear the words of your servant.” (1 Samuel 25:23-24)
(NRSV)
The verse includes several verbs; all describe actions made by Abigail: saw,
alighted, fell, bowed, and said. Besides all these vebs, the adverb “quickly”
emphasizes the speed with which she acted. The multiplicity of verbs that come
one after the other is also used to emphasize the urgency of her misson and her
mental alacrity.
These verbs are immediately followed by Abigail’s words. There are three
parts to the opening line of her speech: the first: “upon me alone be the guilt,”
the second: “please let your servant speak in your ears,” and the third: “and hear
the words of your servant.” Abigail takes the blame on herself. In this way, she
causes David to pay attention to her and what she has to say. Otherwise, David,
who at that point felt himself misled by Nabal and wished to get revenge, would
not pay much attention to a woman falling at his feet. Abigail’s approach,
therefore, was a matter of life and death.
Although at first glance there seem to be many differences between
Abigail’s approach to David and Esther’s approach to Ahasuerus, there are also
many parallels. The first and most important one is that both women approached
Your Majesty 97
the king without being summoned. Even though Esther came to the king’s
throne room while Abigail met him on the road, they both approached him as a
subject approaches her ruler.
Both show their humility before the king and acknowledge their inferior
status. While Esther came all the way but then stood at the entrance to the room
without daring to approach any further, Abigail threw herself at the feet of
David. Having the same thought, however, they acted differently: since they
wished to make the king act in a certain way, they had to gain his attention
without angering him. One should note, however, that Esther also falls at the
king’s feet, though much later in the narrative (Esther 8:3).
For both women, timing was critical. There was no time to waste since the
lives of many people were at stake. However, while Abigail came immediately
to the point, using persausive rhetoric to convince the king that the right way is
to have mercy on the people, Esther uses a different approach, approaching the
king in three stages: the meeting in the throne room, the first banquet, and the
second banquet. This change in approach is due not only to the different
personalities of these women but also due to the different contexts of their
meetings.
Both women approach the king in an honorable way and speak to him in the
third person. Abigail says, “My Lord” (1 Samuel 25:24), and “take seriously”
using the verb in third person singular (1 Samuel 25:25); Esther in her first
approach, says: “The King” (Esther 5:4), and “will come” in the third form
singular (Esther 5:8).
A great difference is that while Abigail tells the king what he should or
should not do at that moment, Esther uses the situation to make the king do as
she wished at a later point. Both women explain the problem and the danger as
they see it in a pragmatic way in order for the king to do as they wish, though
both do this only in the “second part” of their communication with the king,
right after they flatter him and convince him they wish for his prosperity.
In her speech, Abigail uses very harsh words in order to describe her
husband (1 Samuel 25:25); Esther uses similarly harsh words to define the
wickedness of Haman (Esther 7:5). They both use the demonstrative pronoun
“this” ‫ ַהזֶה‬, ‫זֶה‬, when speaking about the men who caused the problems.
Both speeches involve the exchange of money and valuables and in both
cases they change hands in connection with the king’s decision to spare the lives
of the people whose life was threatened. In 1 Samuel , it is Abigail who handed
the money over to David; in Esther, it is the king who hands it over to Esther
and Mordecai.
This tripartite structure is found both in Esther’s and Abigail’s approaches.
In Esther, these parts follow one another (even though other events, such as the
king’s sleepless night, intervene). In these parts are three requests; one request
leads to the next. During the approach in the throne room, Esther asks the king
to participate with Haman in a private dinner organized by Esther. In the first
banquet, she asks the king to come to yet another banquet. And, finally, in the
second banquet she asks the king to spare her life and the lives of her people.
Abigail’s speech also has three requests, the first in verse 24: “Please let your
servant speak…and hear the words of your servant;” the second in verse 28:
“Please forgive the trespass of your servant;” and the third in verse 31:
“Remember your servant.”
From the many similarities in the two womens’ approaches, one can
conclude that Esther was at least as clever as Abigail; that she did not ask the
king to save the Jews upon approaching him in the throne room was not because
she was afraid for her life or did not know how to ask him such a great request.
Rather, it was because she was a very clever young woman who brought the
king to the exact place where she wanted him so she could get him in a good
mood, thus making him more willing to co-operate with her.
Both women used the limited means they had at their disposal to change the
situation from certain death for the people for whom they were responsible to
prosperity. While Abigail, however, sacrificed Nabal in the process, Esther
managed to make Mordecai much more successful than he was before she
approached the king.
3.2.1.2. Jezebel Approaching Ahab

One of the episodes in which there is a description of such an initiative made by
a woman outside the throne room but inside the royal palace is in the story of
249
Jezebel. Actually, among the stories about King Ahab there are texts in which
the king is described talking with Queen Jezebel. The first time that Jezebel is
mentioned in the OT is 1 Kings 16:31, in connection with the description of
Ahab becoming king of Israel and not acting to God’s satisfaction. There it is
written that she was a daughter of the king of the Sidonians. It is clear that she
originated from a royal family and that her marriage was a political one.
Nonetheless, in the same context it is written that Ahab had done wrong in the
eyes of God and it is understood that at least some of his wrong deeds were the
direct consequence of his union with Jezebel, that is, she could influence him on
250
matters of faith as well as policy.
In 1 Kings 19, Ahab comes home after his meeting with Eliahu, who had
just killed Baal’s prophets. In the two first verses of the chapter, there is a
conversation between Ahab and Jezebel. Ahab describes the events to Jezebel
without any royal formality. Both characters are called by their names with no
titles involved. Furthermore, he tells her about these things as a husband tells his
wife. She is available for him immediatly when he comes in and he does not
have to send someone to call for her. As a reaction, Jezebel is the one who sends
messengers to Eliahu, threatening that his fate will be the same as that of the
_______________
249
On Jezebel see for example Pippin 1994:196-207 and Smith 1998:142-162.
250
This is further emphasized in 1 Kings 18:4, where it is written that Jezebel was re-
sponsible for the killing of the prophets of God. In 1 Kings 18:19, it is further empha-
sized that Jezebel protected the prophets of Ashera and was their benefiter.
Your Majesty 99
prophets he killed. Eliahu feared for his life and fled; it is obvious, therefore,
that Jezebel had it in her power to act upon her words and that her threats
carried real weight.
Another event that led to a description of communication between Ahab and
Jezebel is found in 1 Kings 21 after Nabot’s refusal of Ahab’s request that he
“come back to his house.” As an ordinary man, he came back to his house and
lay on his bed, depressed and refusing to eat. His wife came into his room in
order to find out what upset her husband so much. In reply to her question
concerning his bad mood, he told her about the incident with Nabot and she
comforted him, telling him that he should continue to focus on his duties as a
king and that in the meantime she would solve this problem. She wrote letters in
Ahab’s name, even using his seal, ordering the leaders of the city to make a libel
trial and to accuse Nabot of cursing God and the king and to sentence him to
death. After they have done as she ordered and Nabot was murdered, Jezebel
told Ahab that it was time for him to go and take the vineyard for himself
because Nabot was not among the living anymore. And so he did.
Since Esther had her own place inside the ‘house of the women,’ one may
understand that usually she did not share the king’s bed. Therefore, such an
event as described concerning Jezebel and Ahab is not likely to have happened
in the marital context described in the Book of Esther. The only possible
scenario would be if the king, in order to raise his spirits, would have invited
Esther to spend the night with him and told her then.
This episode could not be possible in the world constructed in the Book of
Esther for two main reasons: the customs that the king followed and the king’s
character. It is described in 6:1-2 that in times of worry the king did not order
any woman to amuse him but rather he preferred to be by himself walking
around in his palace.
These kinds of intimate relationships and interactions between the king and
his queen as described in the episode with Jezebel and Ahab are lacking in the
relationship between Esther and the king in the Book of Esther. Therefore, one
should continue comparing the episodes in the throne room (or those in the rest
of the palace in which there was a good reason for the king not to use his throne
room for meeting people).
3.2.2 Approaching the King: Esther Versus Bathsheba

This part of the study will contain an analysis of approaches to the king in his
throne room. These kinds of approaches are described in the OT Book of Esther.
The obvious differences between this kind of approach and the previous ones
discussed is that the ones to be discussesd here occur in the king’s throne room
or palace and depend on the status of the woman who approaches (one of the
royal women or not).
In the following, the episodes in the Book of Esther will be compared to
two episodes, both connected to Bathsheba: an episode outside the throne room
when the king could not be present in this room due to his sickness and old age
(1 Kings 1) and an episode in which Bathsheba is involved as the woman who
approaches the king without being summoned (1 Kings 2:18-24). This time the
king is not David but, rather, his successor Solomon, to whom Bathsheba is a
mother. Therefore, in this episode, Bathsheba’s stature changes from a king’s
251
wife and a queen to a queen mother. Since both Esther and Bathsheba are
described as approaching a king twice without being summoned, these four
252
different episodes must be considered more carefully.
The reason for the woman’s initiative
First approach, Esther

4:7
And Mordecai told him all that had happened to him, and the affair
of the money that Haman had promised to pay into the king’s treasuries
for the destruction of the Jews… 13‘Do not think that in the king’s
palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. … Who
knows? Perhaps you have come to malkhut for just such a time as this.’
First approach, Bathsheba (1 Kings)

1:11
Then Nathan said to Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother saying: ‘Have
you not heard that Adonijah son of Haggith has become king and our
lord David does not know it? 12Now therefore come; let me give you
advice, so that you may save your own life and the life of your son
Solomon. 13Go in at once to King David, and say to him …
Second approach, Esther

8:3
To avert the evil design of Haman the Agagite and the plot that he
had devised against the Jews.
Second approach, Bathsheba (1 Kings)

2:17
‘Please ask King Solomon, he will not refuse you, to give me
Abishag the Shunammite as my woman.’
_______________
251
For the study on the queen-mother in the Old Testament, see Ben Barak 1987:33-
40, and 1991:23-34. See also Spanier 1994:186-195.For the position of the queen-mother
among the Hittites see Bin-Nun 1975. See also Bird 1974:41-88.
252
In what follows, the italics mark those instances where the same verse appears in
both episodes.
Your Majesty 101
The description of the woman’s act
First Approach, Esther

5:1
On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner
courtyard of the king’s palace, facing the king’s room.
First Approach, Bathsheba

1:15
So Bathsheba went to the king in his room. The king was very old;
Abishag the Shunammite was attending the king. 16Bathsheba bowed
and did obeisance to the king.

8:3
Then Esther spoke again to the king; she fell at his feet, weeping and
pleading with him to avert the evil design of Haman the Agagite and
the plot that he had devised against the Jews.
Second approach, Bathsheba

1:19
So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of
Adonijah.
The first reaction of the king

5:1
The king was sitting on his royal throne inside the palace facing the
entrance to the palace. 2 As soon as the king saw Queen Esther standing
in the courtyard, she won his favor and he held out to her the golden
scepter that was in his hand. Then Esther approached and touched the
top of the scepter.

1:16
and the king said

8:4
The king held out the golden scepter to Esther,5 and Esther rose and
stood before the king.

The king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his
throne, and had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on
his right.
The Conversation

5:3
The king said to her, ‘What is it, Queen Esther? What is your
request? It shall be given you, even to the half of my kingdom.’ 4Then
Esther said, ‘If it pleases the king, let the king and Haman come today
to a banquet that I have prepared for the king.’

1:16
Bathsheba bowed and did obeisance to the king and the king said
‘What do you wish?’ 17She said to him, ‘My lord, you swore to your
servant by the LORD your God, saying: Your son Solomon shall
succeed me as king, and he shall sit on my throne. 18But now suddenly
Adonijah has become king, though you, my lord the king, do not know
it… 20But you, my lord the king—the eyes of all Israel are on you to
tell them who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him.
21
Otherwise it will come to pass, when my lord the king sleeps with his
ancestors, that my son Solomon and I will be counted offenders.’
22
While she was still speaking with the king, the prophet Nathan came
in. …28 King David answered and said: ‘Summon Bathsheba to me.’
So she came into the king’s presence, and stood before the king. 29The
king swore, saying, ‘As the LORD lives, who has saved my life from
every adversity, 30as I swore to you by the LORD, the God of Israel,
“Your son Solomon shall succeed me as king, and he shall sit on my
throne in my place,” so will I do this day.’ 31Then Bathsheba bowed
with her face to the ground, and did obeisance to the king, and said,
‘May my lord King David live forever!’ (NRSV)
8:5
She said, ‘If it pleases the king, and if I have won his favor, and if
the thing seems right before the king, and I please him, let an order be
written to revoke the letters devised by Haman son of Hammedatha the
Agagite, which he wrote giving orders to destroy the Jews who are in
all the provinces of the king. 6For how can I bear to see the calamity
that is coming on my people? Or how can I bear to see the destruction
of my kindred?’ 7Then King Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther and to the
Your Majesty 103
Jew Mordecai, ‘See, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and they
have hanged him on the gallows, because he plotted to lay hands on the
Jews. 8You may write as you please with regard to the Jews, in the
name of the king, and seal it with the king’s ring; for an edict written in
the name of the king and sealed with the king’s ring cannot be
revoked.’ (NRSV)

2:20
Then she said, ‘I have one small request to make of you; do not
refuse me.’ And the king said to her, ‘Make your request, my mother;
for I will not refuse you.’ 21She said, ‘Let Abishag the Shunammite be
given to your brother Adonijah as his woman.’ 22King Solomon
answered his mother and said: ‘And why do you ask Abishag the
Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom as well! For he is
my elder brother; ask not only for him but also for the priest Abiathar
and for Joab son of Zeruiah!’ (NRSV)
The result

5:5
Then the king said, ‘Bring Haman quickly, so that we may do as
Esther desires.’ So the king and Haman came to the banquet that Esther
had prepared

1:34
There let the priest Zadok and the prophets Nathan anoint him king
over Israel; then blow the trumpet, and say, “Long live King
Solomon!” 35You shall go up following him. Let him enter and sit on
my throne; he shall be king in my place; for I have appointed him to be
ruler over Israel and over Judah.’ (NRSV)

5:9
The king’s secretaries were summoned at that time,… and an edict
was written…to the Jews and to the satraps and the governors and the
officials of the provinces… to every province in its own script… 10He
wrote letters in the name of King Ahasuerus, sealed them with the
king’s ring, and sent them … 11By these letters the king allowed the
Jews who were in every city to assemble and defend their lives, to
destroy, to kill, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or
province that might attack them, … 12on a single day throughout all the
provinces of King Ahasuerus, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth
month, which is the month of Adar…. 14… The decree was issued in the
citadel of Susa.

2:23
Then King Solomon swore by the LORD, saying: ‘So may God do to
me, and more also, for Adonijah has devised this scheme at the risk of
his life! 24Now therefore as the LORD lives, who has established me and
placed me on the throne of my father David, and who has made me a
house as he promised, today Adonijah shall be put to death.’ 25So King
Solomon sent Benaiah son of Jehoiada; he struck him down, and he
253
died.
There are many points of comparison among these four episodes. In the Book of
Esther, it is written that Esther approached the king twice (starting in 4:7, and
8:3). Both times she approached him unsummoned. Bathsheba also approached
a king twice (starting in 1 Kings 1:11, and 2:17). More specifically, the OT
describes her approaching King David twice and King Solomon once.
Nevertheless, in this discussion, Bathsheba’s double approach to King David
will be considered one event.
The general details of the description of these events are similar. The
narrators use the same framework for these descriptions. The OT describes the
reasons for the approaches, the acts of the women when approaching, the
reaction of the kings to these approaches, the dialogue during the meeting, and
finally, the results. The discussion of these events will follow the order of
description in the OT.
These women shared the same general reasons for approaching the king.
These reasons can be described as a wish to express a personal request of the
queen for someone who is related to her in some way. One should note that,
though in the first meeting with the king for both women the subject of request
had a direct influence on the woman, in the second meeting it did not. For both
women, the reason for their approach is described in detail the first time and
only briefly the second time. The first approaches are both questions of life and
death for the women approaching and their loved ones. In both cases, the events
are described as an act initiated by a third party. A main difference between the
first approaches is that while Bathsheba immediately accepted Nathan’s advice
to go to the king, Esther hesitated and only after Mordecai threatened her did
she finally agree to approach the king. In the descriptions of the second
approach, there is no mention of such hesitation.
_______________
253
Excluding Esther 4:7 and 5:1, all translations from the NRSV.
Your Majesty 105
The second part involves a description of the acts of the woman, including
some of the ceremonial deeds of the woman while approaching the king. In the
first approach, Esther wears her royal clothing, comes into the inner court and
254
stands there. Bathsheba, on the other hand, goes into the king’s room. 1 Kings
1:1-4, 15 supplies an explanation for this place of meeting: King David was old
and sick and needed the services of Abishag. Therefore, the king’s room was not
the usual place for such meetings but was used as such due to these special
circumstances.
One can find differences in the manners of approaching. While Esther
prepares herself by wearing special clothes, Bathsheba does not need such
preparation. Furthermore, Esther stands in the inner court but does not approach
the king and does not dare come near him. It is the king who makes the first
move. Bathsheba, on the other hand, comes into the king’s room and then bows
and nods to him. By these gestures she, while making her obligatory act when
coming to the king, gets his attention.
In the second approach Esther falls at the king’s feet, weeping and pleading.
She no longer pays attention to royal etiquette. Her falling at his feet is no
longer a part of the customs of royalty but, rather, is a desperate attempt to
arouse the king’s sympathy. Bathsheba, on the other hand, is very sure of
herself. There is no description of royal manners. She went in order to speak to
the king, and that is exactly what she does, nothing more and nothing less. On
both occasions, the woman does not behave according to the rules. But while
Esther is making herself unworthy, begging and crying, Bathsheba talks to the
king with no introduction, as if she was speaking to her equal or even to
someone inferior in position.
Differences can be found not only in the first actions of these women in the
presence of the king but also in the kings’ reactions to the women’s appearance.
This reaction of the king is to be found in the third part of the descriptions. In
the first episode in the Book of Esther, there is also a description of the
background. The narrator emphasizes life at court and its customs by placing the
characters in different parts of the court and by describing the setting of their
actions. The actions described in this episode are not the king’s only but also
Esther’s. It is written that the King was sitting on his royal throne and, seeing
Esther, liked what he saw and therefore stretched out his scepter. This
description is interrupted by a description of Esther’s deeds: she came closer to
him and touched the scepter. After these actions the king began to speak. In the
episode in 1 Kings 2:16, however, no royal deeds are involved; the king simply
begins to speak.
In the second approach, King Ahasuerus also uses his scepter, but this time
the scepter is used differently. The first time Esther did not approach the king
until he raised his scepter towards her direction. The second time, however, first
_______________
254
For the descriptions of the two approaches of Esther to the king in the Greek ver-
sions, see Bickerman 1951:257-258.
Esther approaches the king and falls at his feet begging him to help her; only
then does the king raise his scepter as a symbolic act for his interest in her wish.
In the first approach, the raising of the scepter signified the sparing Esther’s life;
in the second, it represents the king’s positive reaction to her request.
Only after the king has raised his scepter towards Esther was she free to
stand up and make her plea in detail. In 1 Kings 2:19, a totally different situation
emerges. It is not the woman who bows; it is the king who rises from his throne,
comes forward to her direction, bows, and then sits back on his throne. The king
did not let Bathsheba stand in front of him more than needed. He immediately
ordered a throne be brought for his mother. Only when she finally sat on his
255
right side did she begin to speak to him.
In both episodes, it is the woman who starts the dialogue with the king, but
while Esther starts by begging, crying, and bowing, Bathsheba starts speaking
while she is seated comfortably on the throne. There is a significant difference
between the king’s reaction to Esther’s entry and the reaction of the king when
Bathsheba entered the room. In Esther’s case, the king does not move from his
throne. The only gesture he makes is his moving his scepter. When Bathsheba
approaches, however, the king acts in a royal manner but with great respect for
her. The text includes an explanation for the reason of the king’s unusual
behavior. This difference is not mentioned explicitly, but is rather suggested by
the relative positions of the participants: Bathsheba was the king’s mother.
According to the text, as the king’s mother, she received special treatment from
the king and had a special place next to him at the court. Esther, on the other
hand, did not have a regular place in the court and therefore had to stand up
while speaking to the king. Furthermore, that Bathsheba sat down next to the
king shows that she had a high position in the palace which, though not equal to
the position of the king (he did not let her sit on his throne), was important
nonetheless: she had her place on his right side.
Esther’s position, on the other hand, was not of great importance. The king
showed her neither respect nor affection. She held a high position in that she
could approach the throne room without being stopped at its entrance, but she
did not have a special place among those who had access to it. She had no
special privilege at this point in the narrative.
The fourth stage of the narratives include a dialogue between the king and
256
the woman. At this point, both the reason for the approach and the manner of
approach are similar. In the description of the first approaches to the king, it is
the king who starts talking with the unsummoned woman, while the women
have the last reply. In the events of the second approaches, the order is reversed.
_______________
255
Nolan and Gunn 1993:162, the description of the king’s act is the narrator’s
means of slowing the main line of events.
256
About the role of dialogue in biblical narrative and its characteristics, see, among
others, Sternberg 1987:1-23.
Your Majesty 107
In the first approach, the king begins with a question. The approach of the
king to Esther includes expressions of feelings. It seems as if he is worried about
her. King David, on the other hand, is more direct in his question. He does not
pay attention to Bathsheba’s mental and emotional state but instead asks her
directly to state her wish. The women’s answers is partly determined by the way
the kings asked their questions. King Ahasuerus takes upon himself the function
of Esther’s protector, and she in her turn uses the same line: “If it pleases the
king.” Her request should be taken into consideration by the king only if it
pleases him. This overtone is broken when instead of sharing with the king her
distress, Esther invites him and Haman to a banquet. Bathsheba uses the same
words in her response that the king used in his question. When the king asked
for her wish directly, she answers directly, though she ‘reminds’ the king of his
previous promises in hopes that he will ‘keep them.’ Both Esther and Bathsheba
use the men’s titles and not their names. Esther approaches Ahasuerus as ‘the
king,’ and Bathsheba first approaches David as “my lord,” then “my lord the
king” (v.20ff.), and finally with “my lord King David” (v.31). The most
important difference between these scenes is that while Esther speaks to the
king in the third person, Bathsheba speaks to the king in the second person. In
Esther’s approach, one finds the manners of the palace: one speaks to the king in
the third person. Though Bathsheba uses some expressions suitable to court
etiquette, she does not follow them carefully. She, however, complements her
words with a bow, something that Esther does not do.
The last part of the episodes includes the results of the approaches of the
unsummoned women. Though they were not successful in every case, in both
episodes of first approach the results were successful; both women got what
they asked for. But since Esther did not ask for what she desired directly, rather,
she used her first approach to lay the groundwork for her actual request at the
second banquet. Bathsheba, on the other hand, was straightforward with her
request and therefore got exactly what she wished for. In both episodes, the
women left the king better off than before.
In the episodes that describe the second unsummoned meeting with the
king, there were different kind of results. While Esther succeeded even the
second time in getting what she asked for, Bathsheba, though the king
welcomed her with great honor, was denied. While Esther approached the king
in a very humble and submissive way, as in her first approach, the last time she
asked for what she wished and received it and more. She not only succeeded in
getting the king to realize that he made a mistake by giving Haman a free hand,
she herself received authority she did not have when she first came to him. The
situation with Bathsheba is the opposite: the king not only denied her request
but also emphasized her carelessness in bringing the petition to him. Finally,
both episodes resulted in death. In the story of Esther, the Jews survived but
many others died, among them Haman and his family. In the story of Bathsheba,
Adonijah and his followers were killed.
Bathsheba’s role in the palace, her rank, and her status among the other
257
royal women in the palaces of David and Solomon are clear. She was the chief
wife who became a queen mother. She was ranked first among the other women
not only in the palace of David but also in the palace of Solomon. Esther’s
status, however, is not similarly clear.
Comparisons among these episodes describing the approaches of Bathsheba
to her kings and the episodes describing the approaches of Esther to her king,
have shown the following:
The framework of these stories is similar. The royal woman approaches the
king unsummoned for a reason. She needs his help in a matter that is both
private but which nevertheless has political ramifications. There is, however,
one main difference between these approaches: the assertion that Esther was
risking her life and the description of her preparations before doing so. While
Bathsheba also put herself at risk while approaching the kings, she did not
hesitate when doing so. No preparations made by Bathsheba are described.
Furthermore, differences are to be found among the stages of the approach.
Bathsheba comes alone into the throne room when she wishes to speak with
King Solomon and into the king’s private rooms in the episode with David
while Esther approaches alone up to the threshold and thereafter waits to be
called. The relationship between these women and their kings is clearly seen in
the different episodes, as are the changes in these relationships from one woman
to the other. As discussed above, the similarities are also wide ranging, both in
the issues mentioned in these texts and in the many major and minor details they
share. It seems, therefore, that though the women’s positions were similar, the
privileges each enjoyed were quite different.
3.3 The Ring

Diamonds are not always a girl’s best friend; sometimes rings are even better.
This part of the study will deal with the “story of the ring.” This kind of item is
to be found in the stories of both Esther and Jezebel. In both cases, the ring is
the king’s private seal and the one who uses it is the woman, the queen.
The king’s signet ring is defined differently in the two stories. In the story
of Jezebel it is called ‫חֹותָ ם‬. In the Book of Esther, however, it is called ‫ ַט ַבעַת‬,
which can be translated as “ring.”
‫ ַט ַבעַת‬appears in the OT as three kinds of rings. The first, which is of no
interest for this study, is a ring that is used for holding or carrying things, such
_______________
257
According to Solvang 2003:147, Bathsheba was the chief wife. Solvang bases her
claim on the fact that Solomon was David’s designated heir. But there is another aspect
which problematizes Solomon’s claim to the throne, namely, that if it was so obvious,
Bathsheba would not have pointed out that David gave her an oath.
Your Majesty 109
as in Exodus 25. It appears with this meaning several times, only, however, in
the book of Exodus. The second meaning is a woman’s jewel. It carries this
meaning three times in the OT: Exodus 25:22, Numbers 31:50, and Isaiah 3:21.
The third meaning of ‫ ַט ַבעַת‬as a ring is of great relevance for this study. This
time it is a special kind of ring, a signet ring. It is interesting to note that this
word appears with this meaning only in connection with two kings: Pharaoh
(Genesis 41:42) and Ahasuerus (Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, and 10). Altogether this
258
totals six times, five of which in the Book of Esther.
The verses in which the signet ring of the king appears as ‫ ַט ַבעַת‬can be read
in order to find out whether there are some parallel elements between them: in
Genesis 41:42, it is written: “Removing his signet ring from his hand, Pharaoh
put it on Joseph’s hand; he arrayed him in garments of fine linen, and put a gold
chain around his neck.” This verse is included in the cycle of stories about
Joseph. The verse deals with the period of time of Joseph in the palace of
Pharaoh when he has become a vizier (vv. 41-46). In this verse, Joseph has
259
received the king’s signet ring as a symbol of the authority granted him.
Though in this text a man receives the ring and not a woman, it is important for
this study because it clarifies the meaning of the act: it emphasizes the power of
the person who holds it. In the Book of Esther, three people are mentioned as
enjoying the power of the ring besides the king:
Haman
‫ ַהמְדָ תָ א ָה ֲאגָגִי צ ֵֹּּרר‬-‫ ַט ַבעְתֹו ֵּמעַל י ָדֹו ַוּי ִתְ נָּה ְל ָהמָן בֶן‬-‫ַוּיָסַר ַה ֶמלְֶך ֶאת‬
.‫ וַּי ֹּאמֶר ַה ֶמלְֶך ְל ָהמָן ַה ֶכסֶף נָתּון לְָך ְו ָהעָם ַלעֲשֹות בֹו כַּטֹוב ְבעֵּינֶיָך‬.‫ַהּי ְהּודִ ים‬
-‫ ֲאׁשֶר‬-‫ַוּיִק ְָראּו ס ֹּפ ְֵּרי ַה ֶמלְֶך בַח ֹּדֶ ׁש ה ִָראׁשֹון ִבׁשְלֹוׁשָה ָעשָר יֹום בֹו ַוּיִכָתֵּ ב ְככָל‬
‫ש ֵָּרי‬-‫מְדִ ינָה ּומְדִ ינָה ְו ֶאל‬-‫ ַהפַחֹות ֲאׁשֶר עַל‬-‫ ַה ֶמלְֶך ְו ֶאל‬-‫ִצּוָה ָהמָן אֶל ֲא ַחׁשְדַ ְר ְפנֵּי‬
‫ׁשוֵּר ֹּׁש נִכְתָ ב‬
ְ ‫עַם ָועָם מְדִ ינָה ּומְדִ ינָה ִככְתָ בָּה ְועַם ָועָם ִכלְׁשֹונֹו ְבׁשֵּם ַה ֶמלְֶך ֲא ַח‬
.‫ְונֶחְתָ ם ְב ַט ַבעַת ַה ֶמלְֶך‬
So the king took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to
Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of the
Jews. The king said to Haman, “The money is given to you,
and the people as well, to do with them as it seems good to
you.” (3:10-12) (NRSV)
Mordecai
-‫ ַט ַבעְתֹו ֲאׁשֶר ֶה ֱעבִיר ֵּמ ָהמָן ַוּי ִתְ נָּה ְלמ ְָרדֳּ כָי וַתָ שֶם אֶ סְתֵּ ר ֶאת‬-‫ַוּיָסַר ַה ֶמלְֶך ֶאת‬
‫ׁשוֵּר ֹּׁש ַוּיַחְת ֹּם ְב ַט ַבעַת ַה ֶמלְֶך‬
ְ ‫בֵּית ָהמָן… ַוּיִכְת ֹּב ְבׁשֵּם ַה ֶמלְֶך ֲא ַח‬-‫מ ְָרדֳּ כַי עַל‬
.‫ ְבנֵּי ה ַָר ָמכִים‬--‫ׁשתְ ָרנִים‬
ְ ‫ׁשלַח ְספ ִָרים ְבי ַד ה ָָרצִים בַסּוסִים ר ֹּ ְכבֵּי ה ֶָרכֶׁש ָה ֲא ַח‬
ְ ִ ‫ַוּי‬
_______________
258
Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that a ring, even if it was a ruler’s ring, was
not used always as a seal, and, on the other end, a seal of a king was not necessarily
shaped as a ring.
259
Wenham 1994:396.
Then the king took off his signet ring, which he had taken from
Haman, and gave it to Mordecai. So Esther set Mordecai over
the house of Haman…. He wrote letters in the name of King
Ahasuerus, sealed them with the king’s ring, and sent them by
mounted couriers riding on fast steeds bred from the royal herd
(8:2, 10) (NRSV)
And Esther
-‫ ַהּי ְהּודִ ים כַּטֹוב ְבעֵּינֵּיכֶם ְבׁשֵּם ַה ֶמלְֶך ְוחִתְ מּו ְב ַט ַבעַת ַה ֶמלְֶך כִי‬-‫ְו ַאתֶ ם כִתְ בּו עַל‬
.‫אֵּין ְל ָהׁשִיב‬--‫ ַה ֶמלְֶך ְונַחְתֹום ְב ַט ַבעַת ַה ֶמלְֶך‬-‫נִכְתָ ב ְבׁשֵּם‬-‫כְתָ ב ֲאׁשֶר‬
You may write as you please with regard to the Jews, in the
name of the king, and seal it with the king’s ring; for an edict
written in the name of the king and sealed with the king’s ring
cannot be revoked. (8:8)
Haman was both the receiver and the only user of the ring in the event for which
he received it from the king. When Mordecai received it, however, he shared its
power with Esther, who did not receive the ring from the king. Nevertheless, she
was present with Mordecai and the king when the king gave the ring to
Mordecai. Thus, from the context and the fact that at the same occasion she also
gave Mordecai something that increased his wealth and prestige, it seems as if
she had risen to a level from which she felt free to do as she pleased. Therefore,
she, being with Mordecai when he acted, confirmed her authority and his. The
last verse in which the ring is mentioned describes Mordecai acting with the
authority of the king and using the ring by himself.
The process is similar in all cases. First, the decree is written in the name of
the king and later on it is sealed with the king’s name. It is only when these two
procedures are finished that the order is counted as a royal decree and is not to
be changed in any way. One of these procedures is insufficient for an order to be
counted as a royal decree.
Genesis 41:42 is even more relevant to this study when read in context of
the MT story of Esther, where the king actually gave the ring to Mordecai for
his use and not to Esther although she was present at the time. The great
difference between these two episodes is that in Genesis it is Joseph who uses
the ring while in the Book of Esther it is Mordecai and Esther together who
make use of it.
There is, however, another Hebrew term in the OT for the signet ring: ‫חֹותָם‬.
In this meaning, the word ‫ חֹותָ ם‬appears only twice as a jewel for the hand:
Genesis 38:18 and 1 Kings 21:8. In both instances, it is used also as a signet ring
for a man of high status. In both instances, too, it has been given to a woman for
a short period of time.
In Genesis 38, the signet ring was given to Tamar by Judah for keeping as a
deposit together with his cord and staff:
Your Majesty 111
-‫לְָך וַת ֹּאמֶר ח ֹּתָ ְמָך ּופְתִ ילֶָך ּו ַמּטְָך ֲאׁשֶר ְבי ָדֶ ָך ַוּי ִתֶ ן‬-‫וַּי ֹּאמֶר מָ ה ָהע ֵָּרבֹון ֲאׁשֶר ֶאתֶ ן‬
.‫לָּה ַוּי ָב ֹּא ֵּאלֶי ָה וַתַ הַר לֹו‬
He said, ‘What pledge shall I give you?’ She replied, ‘Your
signet and your cord, and the staff that is in your hand.’ So he
gave them to her, and went in to her, and she conceived by
him. (38:18) (NRSV)
It is written that Judah gave Tamar his seal; it is not, however, certain that this
seal was in the shape of a ring. Nevertheless, upon doing so, he gave her his (at
least economic) power, and therefore had to keep his word. Furthemore, the fact
that he had a seal emphasizes his high status and wealth.
In 1 Kings 21:8, the seal was given by Ahab, king of Israel, to his wife
Queen Jezebel
-‫ ַהזְ ֵּקנִים ְואֶל‬-‫ׁשלַח ה ְספ ִָרים ֶאל‬
ְ ִ‫וַתִ כְת ֹּב ְספ ִָרים ְבׁשֵּם ַאחְָאב וַתַ חְת ֹּם בְח ֹּתָ מֹו וַת‬
.‫נָבֹות‬-‫ׁשבִים ֶאת‬ ְ ֹּ ‫הַח ִֹּרים ֲאׁשֶר ְבעִירֹו הַּי‬
So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name and sealed them with his
seal; she sent the letters to the elders and the nobles who lived
with Naboth in his city. (21:8) (NRSV)
As mentioned earlier in this study, the relations between Jezebel and Ahab
were close. Therefore, she had access to his seal and could do with it as she
pleased. Although Jezebel was a very powerful queen who influenced not only
her husband but also political and religious matters in the kingdom of Israel,
she, in some cases, had to use King Ahab’s seal as she did in the case of Nabot
as described above.
Three women in the OT use a man’s signet ring for their purposes and
needs: Tamar, Jezebel, and Esther. There are striking parallels in the details and
descriptions concerning the episodes.
Furthermore, all these three episodes occurred after a great injustice had
been done. In Genesis, the injustice was towards Tamar, who was childless and
without any husband and for whom Judah refused to take responsibility. In 1
Kings , the injustice was done to Ahab by Nabot (at least as far as the king was
concerned). In the case of this injustice, Nabot paid with his life. And in the
Book of Esther, the injustice was made against the Jews. In all three stories
death and great sorrow were involved.
In all three stories the women manipulated the men in some way in order to
receive the signet ring and make use of it. All then women had a very strong
character.
Nevertheless, some differences are also to be found among these stories.
First and foremost, while in the stories in Genesis and 1 Kings the signet ring is
given according to the request of the receiver, in the Book of Esther it is given
by the man without being asked for. Furthermore, while Jezebel is described
throughout the story as a very active character, both Tamar and Esther are
changed from passive to active characters. Their character develops in parallel

with the development of the plot.
3.4 Esther as a Possible Chief Concubine
In a previous study, the possibility for the existence of the status of chief
concubines among royal women in the palaces of the kings in Israel and Judah
was discussed. That study led to the conclusion that it is most probable that this
260
or, more accurately, an equivalent position, is to be traced in the OT. This part
of the study builds on and develops the ideas of the previous one, that is, an
examination of the possibility that Esther held such a position in the royal palace
of Ahasuerus.
As mentioned, the status and role determined as “chief of concubines”
existed in the Ancient Near East. The clearest evidence for its existence is found
261
in documents from ancient Egypt. According to Ancient Egyptian thought,
there was a strong connection between humans and the gods they worshipped.
The connection between the royalty and the gods was not based only on the
nature of relations between a believer and the object of his belief (the gods).
Rather, it was based on the belief that the thoughts, actions, and deeds of the
gods had their own reflection in the life of the Egyptians, especially the life and
actions of the royal family and its overseer, the king. Therefore, the Egyptians,
and especially their kings, at least in some aspects of their lives, tried to live
262
according to the myths of their gods.
Royal women and other members of the royal family had an active part in
263
cultic life. They were involved in it in different ways. Furthermore, there was
a striking uniformity in the hierarchy of royal women in the palace and the
264
hierarchy of women from the royal house in cultic life and practice. The queen
_______________
260
See Davidovich 2007:183-184
261
Davidovich 2007:170-176. See there also for previous studies. For such relations
to the gods in the 18 dynasty, see Gitton 1984.
262
On kingship in Egypt, see, among others, Frankfort 1948, Moody 1968, O’Connor
and Silverman 1995, and Baines 1998.
263
It is common among scholars to conclude that royal women who actively partici-
pated in religious life acted as representatives of femininity in general. See for example
Reiser 1972.
264
Troy 1986:76, points to the fact that this parallelism can be found also in the ter-
minology used in cultic life and associated with the house of royal women. On the posi-
tion of ‘the God’s Wife,’ see, among others, Redford 1967:71, 150-156, Robins 1993:43-
45, 151-153, and Arnold 1997:186. While ‘God’s Wife of Amun’ was basically used
only by royal women, ‘God’s Wife’ was not held in the first period of its use by members
of the royal house. Only at the time of Ahmose was it established among members of the
Your Majesty 113
and the other royal women were members of the Ḥnr. The Ḥnr, usually
translated as ‘harem,’ was the name given to the group of royal women who
265
served in the different cults.
One woman served as the overseer of the Ḥnr. In each of the Ḥnr there was
266
such a woman who took care of administrative issues connected to the shrine.
This position and title was used from the times of the Old Kingdom until the
267
Third Intermediate period. Nevertheless, not all queens were active in cultic
life and not all the royal women who were active in cultic life held this title or,
268
for that matter, the title of ‘God’s Wife.’
Parallel to the reduction in the importance and the use of the title ‘God’s
Wife of Amun,’ a new role and position, ‘Chief of Concubines,’ and with it, a
269
new rank, came into use. This new title represented a kind of cultic overseer.
While the rank of the ‘God’s Wife of Amun’ was that of a chief priestesses, the
rank of ‘The Chief of Concubines’ was usually held by the chief of the
270
musicians of the shrine.
royal family. These titles were used mostly in different periods, though during some
periods they existed simultaneously. On further differences between these two titles, see
Tyldesley 1994:204. According to Robins 1993:150, the importance of this title can be
seen by the fact that some queens used it as their only title. On this matter, see also
Tyldesley 1994:204. On the position of “God’s Wife of Amun” during the Third Inter-
mediate Period and the reasons for its great importance, see Robins 1983:153, Lesko
1987:21, and Tyldesley 1994:204. On this development in the nature of this title and the
tasks of its holder, see Tyldesley 1994:204.
265
Thus, Troy 1986:77-78. According to Nord 1981:137, this translation of the word
is incorrect. He further claims that during different periods this word had different mean-
ings, for example: “for the Old to Middle Kingdoms ‘musical performers’ is a more valid
translation for Ḥnr than ‘harem’ or ‘harem woman.’ There is no evidence for the sexual
function of these women” (145). Nevertheless, this translation is accepted by most ex-
perts in this field. One of the main tasks of these women, especially in worshiping Amun,
was to serve as musicians. See Blackman 1921:15. Blackman 1921:22 further notes that
in the New Kingdom, women from different classes served as musician-priestesses in the
shrines. As such, they had great of importance in cultic life, though they held different
status. On musicians in the cult, see Troy 1986:77.
266
Such women sometimes held slightly different titles, such as ‘Overseer of the
Ḥnr’, ‘Female overseer of the Ḥnr’, ‘Inspector of the Ḥnr’, and ‘great one of the harem.’
For further discussion, see Nord 1981:143 and Troy 1986:76.
267
On the development of the Ḥnr and its function and meaning during that time, see
Nord 1981:145.
268
On the most powerful queens who served as ‘God’s Wife of Amun,’ including
Ahmose Nefertari, Hatshepsut, Neferura, and Tiy see, among others, Redford 1967:72-
87, Lesko 1987:4ff., Robins 1993:43-52, and Tyldesley 1994:206.
269
However, Amun was only one of few gods to whom concubines were assigned.
See Blackman 1921:16.
270
For a review on the different groups of royal women and their function both in
cult and among other royal women, see Troy 1986. Blackman 1921:16 notes that the
271
Egyptian gods had several human ‘concubines.’ Their hierarchical
position as ‘Concubines of the God’ was based on the social status which they
272
had at the time when they got this position.
There can be no doubt about the influence that the Egyptians and their
culture had on Israelite society in ancient times. It can be traced both in the texts
of the OT and in extra-Biblical texts. The relationship between these two
peoples can be traced both before the Israelites became a nation, during the
early days of the Israelites as a people and in the times of the kings. It is
documented not only in the texts of the OT (Israel’s dwelling in Egypt, the
exodus from Egypt, and the political marriage of Solomon with the daughter of
Pharaoh). Extra-biblical evidence for these connections can be found from about
273
700 BCE, during the time of King Hezekiah.
One may assume that these connections led to cultural and political
exchanges between these peoples. Such influence could take place linguistically
through, for example, loan words, but also in the establishment and
development of social and cultural issues.
To support the assumption that Esther could have been portrayed by the
narrator of the OT Esther as a chief concubine, I will compare her and two other
women that already were defined in a previous study as probable chief
274
concubines and, furthermore, as pilagshim. These women held a high position
and they practiced their role in different kingdoms: Rizpah from the Great
Kingdom and Maacah from the Kingdom of Judah; both were royal women in a
kingdom different from the kingdom of Ahasuerus, where Esther lived.
earliest document in which the title of ‘God’s Concubine’ is found is from the 12th Dyn-
asty. According to Blackman 1921:15 and Lesko 1987:20 in some periods, several wom-
en held this title simultaneously and, therefore, a new rank was established, ‘First Chief
of Concubines.’ The woman who held this title had the other ‘chiefs of concubines’
under her supervision. On the tasks of the chief of concubines, see Lesko 1987:21.
271
And so did Egyptian kings see Robins 1993:61.
272
Thus Lesko 1987:20. In some cases, women who were ranked and acted as ‘chief
concubines’ were wives of the high priests. An example for such a situation is to be
found in the worship of Amun. On this, see Blackman 1921:10, 15-16. According to him,
on some occasions, women who were sisters or daughters of the high priest could hold
this position. For further review on priestesses and chief concubines in the cults of the
Egyptian gods, see Blackman 1921:8-30, and Lesko 1987:20ff.
273
Both in Assyrian and in Egyptian sources. See Albright 1953:4. For a discussion
on such connections see Lemche 1994:165-190, and see also another approach by Fre-
richs and Lesko 1997, and Whitelman 2000:8-22.
274
For this study and its conclusions see Davidovich 2007:176-184.
Your Majesty 115
There is no special term for the ‘Chief of Pilagshim’ in the OT. There is also,
however, no special term for some other roles and positions of women in the
275
OT, though they certainly existed, e.g. wives.
In previous research, in order to find out whether this assumption is correct,
two Biblical women, Rizpah and Maacah, were examined to identify those
features which distinguished them from other royal pilagshim in particular or
royal women in general and to see if there were some common elements to these
women.
This study will contain a comparison of the situation of these two women
with the status and position of Esther as described in the OT.
The following table illustrates the similarities in the structure of the given
276
information about these three women in the OT.
Rizpah Maacah Esther
Her Her origin is Her origin is Her origin is

origin not not entioned mentioned.
mentioned in in the OT. She came
the OT. However, it from a folk
is written different than
that she had the king’s.
a foreign
belief.
The name of Her heritage Her heritage

her father is is mentioned, is mentioned,
mentioned. It and so is the and so is the
might be so name of her name of her
that by father. father.
mentioning
the name of
her father the
text made
clear both her
heritage and
her origin at
the same
time.
_______________
275
For example, the word ‫ ִאשָה‬is used both for a woman and a wife, and there is no
term to define one from another.
276
A part of this table is found in Davidovich 2007:180-181.
Naming She is Mentioned Mentioned by

of the mentioned by by name. name.
woman name.
Her She had sons, She had No children

offspring who were children. Her of her are
considered as son, though mentioned in
legal heirs to not the first the text.
their father, son born to
the king. the king,
They were succeeded
killed his father as
probably king of
because the Judah.
new king
who did not
belong to the
same dynasty
thought them
to be future
threat to his
crown.
The She is She is She is

definition mentioned as mentioned as mentioned as
of her a pilegesh but one of the one of the
relations neither as the king’s king’s
with the pilegesh of women. women.
king Saul’s son
who ruled
after his
death, nor as
the pilegesh
of David, the
king who
took over the
throne.
Her She had no The king The king had

relations restrictions loved her a great
with the on her more than all affection for
king movement. his other her.
Your Majesty 117
David women.
probably
respected her.
Her place She had a She is titled She is titled

in the fairly high gebirah. Malkah.
palace position in
comparison
to the other
women in the
palace, and
even after the
king, who
took her into
his palace
died, her
freedom was
kept.
Her life Her status She was No

after the was not titled gebirah information is
king’s denied from during the given on
death her in the reign of her Ahasuerus
times of the grandson. successor and
reign of the his house.
new king.
She was still
counted as
the dead
king’s
pilegesh.
Her Acts Her acts were Her acts Her acts were
of great were of great of great
importance influence importance.
even under even under She
the rule of the the rule of influenced the
conqueror another king. political
king. She, by Therefore, decisions of
her acts, has when she did the king.
influenced not stop
the political worshiping
decisions of the Asherah,
the new king. the new king
removed her
title and
special
position as
gebirah.
Her These She These

influence political influenced political
on her decisions people to decisions
people have believe in a have
influenced foreign influenced the
the situation goddess. situation of
of the people. her people.
In analyzing the information in this table, one may find striking similarities
between these women. These women held high positions because they were the
favorite women of their kings. They all had sexual relations with their king and
the capacity to influence him. They came from well-known families. They were
involved in the political life of the kingdom and had freedom of movement
outside the palace. All three were powerful women. They have been given
special attention in the text of the OT. Furthermore, there is no indication of
residential quarters for these women outside the house of royal women. In other
words, none of these women had her permanent living quarters beside the king.
However, some aspects included in their description are not common to all
three women. The most important among these aspects is the distinction in
titles: While Rizpah is titled pilegesh, Maacah is titled Gebirah, and Esther,
Malkah. One may assume that Maacah and Esther are not mentioned as
pilagshim because of the context in which a title more significant politically was
required, and since they held such a title, it was used.
Further differences are that Esther, though in some cases she considered her
situation fragile, was the only one who acted in the king’s name. She is also the
only one whose dwelling place is mentioned, though not after she might have
become the chief of pilagshim. And, finally, only the son of Maacah became a
ruler after his father’s death. However, one should not ignore the political
protest of Rizpah by guarding the corpse.
From the cases of Rizpah and Maacah the following are to be mentioned:
The chief of pilagshim enjoyed freedom of movement outside the house of royal
women and, for that matter, outside the palace with no restrictions mentioned.
Further revealed is the acknowledgement of the sons of ‘chief of pilagshim’ as
legitimate children of the king who did not require adoption or any other similar
procedure.
Moreover, the distinguished position that a woman of this status had was
preserved even when the king who put her in this position has died. This applies
Your Majesty 119
both to cases in which the kingdom was ruled by the king’s successor (as in the
case of Maacah) and to cases in which the kingdom was controlled by someone
who did not belong to the same dynasty (as in the case of Rizpah).
The woman who was a chief of pilagshim was not necessarily the pilegesh
with the most prestigious blood-line among the royal pilagshim in the house of a
certain king. Rather, the factor that was most important for the king’s was his
feelings for her, as emphasized in the story of Maacah.
Holding the position of chief of pilagshim, this woman could practice a
position parallel to the position of the first wife. A son of a chief pilegesh could
become the heir to the king even in cases in which he was not the first born.
This is proven both in the stories of both Maacah and Rizpah. As a result, such a
woman could possess the highest rank among royal women, that is, she could
become a queen mother. A Chief Pilegesh could hold the title Gebirah. With her
acts, she could influence the people of the kingdom.
Examining the case of Esther as chief of pilagshim the following issues are
to be mentioned: The chief of pilagshim could be of a foreign origin. This
applies to Esther, who came from a refugee family. She could be elevated to this
position because of her looks and her skill at pleasing the king and not
necessarily because of her family’s social or political position.
The status of the chief of pilagshim was determined by the king’s will. This
was also true in the case of Esther, whose position changed according to the
king’s whims.
In some cases, she could influence the king’s approach to different political
matters. This was true in the case of Rizpah, who influenced David; Esther’s
influence on Ahasuerus is clear. Because of her elevated position in the palace,
she could help the ones she wished. Esther could save the Jewish community in
the diaspora.
From the above it is possible to assume that Esther might have held the rank
of the chief of pilagshim in the house of Ahasuerus. Although the circumstances
in which she was brought into the palace were not very honorable, she came to
be a very influential woman.
3.5 Summary
This chapter contained a comparative analysis of Esther and other OT women,
including Abishag, Abigail, Jezabel, Bathshebah, Maacah, and Rizpah. This
comparison was made in order to shed light on Esther’s character, position, and
status. This comparison revealed several points of similarity and difference.
A first similarity is that in both the story of Esther and Abigail, a search is
being conducted for a young beautiful woman for the sake of the king. The
reasons for this search, however, differs in the two stories, since in each of them
the king has different needs. The searches in both stories also have political
implications as well. King David is unable to rule without a woman and
Ahasuerus is searching not only of a woman to satisfy him sexually but also one
to be a queen. And yet, in Esther’s case, her position is the result of several
events and she is chosen by the king from a large group of women. Abishag, on
the other hand, is chosen by the king’s advisors without competition from other
women. Still, in the end, Abishag does not have a sexual relationship with King
David, while the sexual implications between Esther and Ahasuerus are
obvious.
Abigail can be compared to Esther not only because she is obviously not a
royal woman when she is introduced in her story, but also because she, like
Esther, is able to avoid a grim fate by her personal intervention and by
exercising her influence over the king. There are, however, some differences,
such as, for example, while Abigail convinces the king to act on their first
meeting, Esther prepares for her request through a series of delays and meetings
before eventually convincing him.
Batsheba’s method for approaching the king offers a further point of
comparison. Both she and Esther approach the king at the urging of someone
else: Batsheba goes immediately following Nathan’s request and Esther, who at
first resists, complies after Mordecai repeatedly importunes her. Furthermore,
Bathsheba, who does not prepare herself for her encounter with the king (unlike
Esther), enters the king’s chambers formally, reminding him of a real or
invented promise. Esther, on the other hand, does not follow etiquette as she
falls desperately to the ground in front of the king, begging him to show mercy,
awaiting for him to raise his scepter. Batsheba presents her case to Solomon
while sitting on a throne next to the king. She is the queen-mother.
A further comparison to Esther and Ahasuerus can be made with the
relationship between Queen Jezabel and King Ahab. Like Esther, Jezabel
derives political power from the king, empowering her to kill her (and also his)
enemies. Their intimate relationship, however, seems rather different: they
probably shared a bed regularly, while Esther and Ahasuerus lived in separate
quarters.
The signet ring of the king is another recurring theme in the OT. It is first
found in the story of Joseph when Pharaoh lets him have power through the
ring. Later, three women use a man’s signet for their purposes and needs:
Tamar, Jezebel, and Esther. While Jezebel is described as a very active
character, using her power resolutely, Esther and Tamar are both quite passive
to begin with; they grow into more active figures as their narratives progress. In
the case of Esther, she is given the king’s signet ring without asking for it.
This chapter also contained a discussion on the possibility of Esther as chief
of pilagshim.
Royal women among the royal pilagshim could be of different origins and
could come from different social classes. In the Book of Esther, it is written that
Your Majesty 121
they had to be beautiful young women gathered from all over the kingdom. No
distinctions concerning the social status of their families in society were made.
Women could become royal women under different circumstances. While
some were brought into the palace as a result of political treaties, others were
brought by the king’s servants, and probably some were brought into the palace
directly after the king came to power along with the rest of the royal house of
the former king.
Among the royal women, pilagshim were one of the most important groups.
This is further emphasized in the Book of Esther by their reoccurring
appearances as a royal group of women, the detailed descriptions of the first
period of their life in the palace, and their status and rights in the different
kingdoms. They had the capacity to influence the king. Their quality of life and
their well-being were decided by the king himself. They had to obey the king
and, at least in some palaces, the king was not directly in charge of them, but
rather delegated the task to someone else who they had to obey as well.
They could have servants and maids of their own, at least in some cases.
Esther had no fewer than seven maids and also eunuchs who stood in her
service. The text describes the love and admiration of the eunuchs for her and
the obedience of the maids and eunuchs to her orders, even the peculiar ones
such as the three days of fasting, a custom which may have been familiar to
Jews but was almost certainly foreign to the Persian court. It is not improbable
that Esther was a pilegesh in the royal house of Ahasuerus.
At least in some palaces, including those described in the OT, there are
traces of the existence of the position of Chief Pilegesh. A Chief Pilegesh could
exist in every royal house in which they were royal pilagshim; therefore, there
could have been one in the royal house of Ahasuerus, who had many royal
women holding different positions. Usually this woman was in a position of
great authority in the royal household. The Chief Pilegesh existed in various
cultures.
Information about the political positions of the chief pilagshim can be
gleaned both from their deeds and the titles which are ascribed to them. Maacah
is known also as the gebirah of the kingdom of Judah during the reigns of her
offspring and Esther is known as Malkah in the Persian kingdom. Both terms
refer to political status and responsibility. Only one of these women, Rizpah, is
mentioned as a pilegesh. She is mentioned by no other title. This fact does not
exclude her from holding the position of Chief Pilegesh during the reign of King
Saul. As Chief Pilegesh, these women differed from the other royal women and,
for that matter, also from other royal pilagshim.
The royal pilagshim had special living quarters in the area of the palace, as
indicated in the cycle of stories about Absalom’s rebellion and as described in
the Book of Esther. According to Esther 2, they were not usually allowed to
leave this area without special permission. Nevertheless, this kind of prohibition
is not named in the other texts of the OT; hence, it should not to be taken for
granted as the reality of pilagshim in the palaces of the kings of Judah and
Israel. It is, rather, a matter of time and place.
However, Esther’s special position among these women is defined in
different ways. One of them is the use of the verb “to love” ‫ אהב‬to describe the
king’s feelings for her. The use of ‫ אהב‬for such a purpose is to be found also in
the description of the feelings of another king – Rehoboam to one of his women
– Maacah, who was a Chief Pilegesh.
Could Esther have been describes as the Chief Pilegesh? She could indeed.
Her being foreign would not have been an obstacle. Who held the position
would be entirely up to the king.
4. Head of the Diaspora
Before ending this work, last but definitely not least, I would like to come for-
ward with a suggestion that perhaps will make some scholars stand up and shout
out loud. Nevertheless, I will be brave enough to take it up for scholarly discus-
sion. As this study has proved, Esther was the leader of the Jews in the diaspora.
I would like now to take this conclusion one step farther and say that she proba-
bly held the position of “Resh Galuta.”
“Resh Galuta” is an Aramaic term that can be translated as “the head of the
diaspora.” “Resh Galuta” was the title of the leader of the Jewish diaspora in
Babylon and Persia. There are two traditions about the person who first held this
position. The first tradition is based on two sources: the Seder Olam Zuta, writ-
ten at the beginning of the ninth century, and the text of the OT, especially that
of 2 Kings and the books of Chronicles as well as some chapters in the books of
the prophets. According to these sources, the first head of the diaspora was King
Jehoiachin/Jeconiah of Judah after his expulsion to Babylon (2 Kings 25:27) in
277
597 BCE. The institution lasted until the 12th century CE. This tradition does
_______________
277
“In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of King Jehoiachin of Judah, in the twelfth
month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, King Evil-Merodach of Babylon, in the
year that he began to reign, released King Jehoiachin of Judah from prison; he spoke
kindly to him, and gave him a seat above the other seats of the kings who were with him
in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes. Every day of his life he dined
regularly in the king’s presence. For his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by
the king, a portion every day, as long as he lived.” (2 Kings 25:26-27), and in Chronicles
where a list of descendants is found: 1 Chronicles 3:18-24: “and the sons of Jeconiah, the
captive: Shealtiel his son, Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and
Nedabiah;The sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel and Shimei; and the sons of Zerubbabel:
Meshullam and Hananiah, and Shelomith was their sister;and Hashubah, Ohel,
Berechiah, Hasadiah, and Jushab-hesed, five.The sons of Hananiah: Pelatiah and Jeshai-
ah, his son Rephaiah, his son Arnan, his son Obadiah, his son Shecaniah.The son of
Shecaniah: Shemaiah. And the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah, and
Shaphat, six. The sons of Neariah: Elioenai, Hizkiah, and Azrikam, three.The sons of
Elioenai: Hodaviah, Eliashib, Pelaiah, Akkub, Johanan, Delaiah, and Anani, seven.”
not have much reinforcement in scripture outside the OT and the Seder Olam
278 279
Zuta, and there are scholars who claim it is false.
The second tradition about the identity of the first head of Jewish diaspora
and his successors is considered more historically accurate than the first one.
According to this tradition, the first head of the diaspora was Nachum in Baby-
lon in about 140-170CE. After him, this position was held by Huna I who was
recognized by Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi as the head of the Jewish diaspora. The
position lasted until 1258, when, fearing for their lives, the Jews decided to end
280
it. The last head of the diaspora was Samuel ben David. However, after this
long line of heads of diaspora was broken, there are indications that the institu-
tion of the head of the diaspora continued in some form in Baghdad until 1401
281
when it, too, was stopped.
The origin of the Resh Galuta is traditionally thought to be in the image of
King Jehoiachin and the exile to Babylon. However, no evidence has been
found to connect this king and the dynasty of Resh Galuta which connects this
position to the descendants of David or, for that matter, to King Jechonia, except
for some texts of questionable historicity. Furthermore, there is no evidence for
the origins of this post and the historical evidence for such a position can be
found only from the 2nd century CE.
The name Resh Galuta refers of course in its origin to the Jews in the Baby-
lonian diaspora. This community (or shall we say, these communities) is called
282
“Golah” and “Galut” already in the OT.
There are very few known sources concerning this image. Most of them are
Rabbinic and of uncertain historical basis. Most have a negative attitude towards
283
the position and character of the exilarchate and of course to its authority.
_______________
278
But see for example the texts of Rav Sherira Gaon (906-1006. The head of the
Academy of Pumbeditha) who had much to say about the exilarchs of the talmudic era in
his epistle and response. And see also Talmud Yerushalmi, Megilah 74b.
279
Among these, see Goode 1940 on the exilarchate during the years 637-1258. One
of his arguments, however, for the “legendary” information given in the Seder Olam Zuta
was that it is not mentioned in the texts of Josephus. This is not such a good argument for
any matter since not all that is written in Josephus is true and not all omitted from his
work should be regarded as fantasy. On the heads of diaspora between 140-637 based on
Seder Olam Zuta and the Talmud, see Lazarus 1890, cited in Goode 1940:149. On this
position among the Jews in Babylon, see Gafne 1987.
280
Until the finding of the Geniza of Kairo, the scholarly opinion was that the last
head of the diaspora was around 900CE. On the heads of diaspora between 140-637, see
Lazarus 1890.
281
See Goode 1940:168.
282
For examples of “Golah,” see Jeremiah 28:6, 29:1, 20, Ezekiel 1. For that of “Ga-
lut” see Jeremiah 28:4, 29:22.
Head of the Diaspora 125
Because, as I and other scholars have mentioned before, the writer of the
OT Book of Esther was very familiar with the customs of the Achaemenid Em-
pire, he also must have been aware of the position of “Resh Galuta,” which was
actively used both in the time of the Achaemenid Empire (539-332 BCE) and
thereafter, including the time of the writing of the OT Book of Esther. He used
this knowledge to implicitly define Esther as such. He could have done it for
many reasons, and if one insists in not accepting the serious ones, one should
not forget that irony, hidden and not hidden, abounds in the OT story of Esther.
Even if there is no historicity to the claim that the Resh Galuta is from the house
of David and that the origins of this position was with King Jehoi-
achin/Jeconiah, it does not change the high possibility that the author of the OT
book of Esther knew of this and tried to depict Queen Esther as Resh Galuta.
The best proof for this intention is the content of his story and the many
similar elements between the character of Esther in the OT and the position and
status of the “Resh Galuta” as known from the various sources. For example:
‫ ֲאׁשֶר ָק ָרהּו וְאֵּ ת פ ָָרׁשַת ַה ֶכסֶף ֲאׁשֶר ָאמַר ָהמָן ִלׁשְקֹול עַל‬-‫ַוּיַגֶד לֹו מ ְָרדֳּ כַי ֵּאת כָל‬
‫ׁשמִידָ ם‬ְ ‫ׁשגֶן כְתָ ב הַדָ ת ֲאׁשֶר נִתַן בְׁשּוׁשָן ְל ַה‬
ֶ ‫ ְו ֶאת ַפ ְת‬.‫ִגנְזֵּי ַה ֶמלְֶך ַבּי ְהּודִ ים ְל ַאבְדָ ם‬
‫נָתַ ן לֹו ְלה ְַראֹות אֶת ֶאסְתֵּ ר ּו ְל ַהגִיד לָּה ּו ְלצַּוֹות ָעלֶי ָה לָבֹוא אֶל ַה ֶמלְֶך ְלהִתְ ַחנֶן לֹו‬
.‫ּו ְל ַבקֵּׁש ִמ ְל ָפנָיו עַל ַעמָּה‬
Mordecai told him all that had happened to him, and the exact
sum of money that Haman had promised to pay into the king’s
treasuries for the destruction of the Jews. 8Mordecai also gave
him a copy of the written decree issued in Susa for their de-
struction, that he might show it to Esther, explain it to her, and
charge her to go to the king to make supplication to him and
entreat him for her people. (4:7-8)
Mordecai delivers Haman’s decree to Esther on the matter of the murdering of
the Jews. This decree was absolute, namely, that the killing should be done not
only for the fun of it but as an order from the highest corridors of power, and
therefore it is anchored in the law of the kingdom. This is seen in two places:
‫ ְל ַאבְדָ ם‬and in ‫ׁשמִידָ ם‬
ְ ‫ ְל ַה‬, to erase and to kill them completely. He tells her to plead
to the king for the lives of her people. She is the one Jew who stands closest to
the king and Mordecai delegates the mission to convince the king to keep the
Jews alive to her; in doing so, he actually makes her a representative of the
283
A 2005 doctoral thesis written by Geoffrey Herman, soon to be published by Brill
under the title The Babylonian Exilarchate in the Sasanian Era, examines the Resh Ga-
luta as a Jewish leadership institution in Sasanian Babylonia. According to Herman, both
in antiquity and in modern times and research the Davidic lineage of this post is accept-
ed, a wrong assumption, since, according to him, the Exilarchate was not connected to
King David and did not start with King Jehoiachin/Jeconiah.
Jewish diaspora all over the kingdom and in the king’s palace. This is further
emphasized through the use of the feminine possessive in conjunction with the
word “people,” saying “her people” rather than “the people” or “the Jewish
people.”
The situation described in these verses referring to Esther is parallel to the
appointment of a person to the position of Resh Galuta. In Babylonia and Persia
and thereafter also in other places in the diaspora, the Resh Galuta, the head of
the Jewish community in the diaspora, was chosen by the leaders of the Jewish
284
community and not by the ruling authorities. This, too, was the case with Es-
ther. She did not enter the palace as the leader of the Jewish community but
when the Jewish community was in distress, a special leader had to be appoint-
ed. This leader was directly appointed by a member of the diaspora Jewish
community in King Ahasuerus’ Persia. The man who appointed her was not,
moreover, just any member of the community, but Mordecai himself, who was
not only a distinguished member of the community (a fact emphasized by the
obedience of the Jews all over the kingdom to his request) but also an important
member of the Persian administration, as evidenced by his position at the king’s
gate.
‫ ַאל תְ דַ מִי ְבנַ ְפׁשְֵּך ְל ִה ָמלֵּט בֵּית ַה ֶמלְֶך ִמכָל‬:‫וַּי ֹּאמֶר מ ְָרדֳּ כַי ְל ָהׁשִיב אֶל ֶאסְתֵּ ר‬
.‫ַהּי ְהּודִ ים‬
‫כִי אִם ַהח ֲֵּרׁש תַ ח ֲִריׁשִי ָבעֵּת הַז ֹּאת ֶרוַח ְו ַה ָצלָה יַעֲמֹוד ַלּי ְהּודִ ים מִ מָקֹום ַאחֵּר ְו ַא ְת‬
.‫ּובֵּית ָאבִיְך ת ֹּאבֵּדּו; ּומִי יֹודֵּ ַע אִם ְלעֵּת כָז ֹּאת ִה ַגעַתְ ַל ַמלְכּות‬
Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, “Do not think that in the
king’s palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews.
14
For if you keep silence at such a time as this, relief and deliv-
erance will rise for the Jews from another quarter, but you and
your father’s family will perish. Who knows? Perhaps you
have come to royal dignity for just such a time as this.”
(4:13-14)
Mordecai does not give up and does not accept Esther’s refusal. He urges her to
act by saying that the faith of the Jews, her people, is connected to her faith and
therefore whatever happens to them will happen to her as well. He further em-
phasizes that if she will not help, the Jews’ salvation will still come but she will
not survive with them. Mordecai concludes by saying that it is obvious that she
has reached the position of “malkhut” for a time like this. She has been given a
_______________
284
On this issue in later years and on the problems it created, see Zeitlin 1941:287-
300, who also compares the communities in France and Germany that insisted on follow-
ing this rule and the communities in Spain and other places that sometimes had as their
leaders people who chosen by the ruling governments.
role, a duty, a mission in life and she cannot ignore it when it is uncomfortable
for her or even when fulfilling it puts her life at risk.
The word “malkhut” used here is to be understood referring both to her po-
sition in the palace and among the Jews. Nevertheless, it can be interpreted in
two different ways also in each of these fields. Speaking about “malkhut” as a
position in the palace could mean that Esther actually came into the palace and
became one of its royal women or that she actually became the queen. The se-
cond understanding of “malkhut” is within the Jewish community in the diaspo-
ra. Even though she had become one of the royal women and moved among the
non-Jewish elements of society, she still had a role as a member of the Jewish
community. This role grew after she entered the palace: her status among the
Jews and her importance in managing their affairs increased. “Malkhut” in this
case refers to her status in the Jewish community of the kingdom. This term is
parallel to the term of the head of the diaspora given in Seder Olam Zuta, which
uses the masculine form of the same noun (because the one who held this posi-
tion in that time was a man) and in Aramaic ‫מלכא‬, namely, the king. That is to
be understood as the ruler, the leader, the one who carry the burden of responsi-
bility for all the Jewish community in the diaspora.
‫ לְֵּך כְנֹוס ֶאת כָל ַהּי ְהּודִ ים ַהנִמְ ְצאִים בְׁשּוׁשָן‬.‫וַת ֹּאמֶר ֶאסְתֵּ ר ְל ָהׁשִיב אֶל מ ְָרדֳּ כָי‬
‫ׁשת יָמִים ַליְלָה וָיֹום גַם ֲאנִי ְונַעֲר ֹּתַ י ָאצּום‬ ֶ ‫וְצּומּו ָעלַי וְַאל ת ֹּאכְלּו וְַאל תִ ׁשְתּו ׁשְֹל‬
‫ ַוּיַעֲב ֹּר ָמ ְרדֳּ כָי‬.‫כֵּן; ּו ְבכֵּן ָאבֹוא אֶל ַה ֶמלְֶך ֲאׁשֶר ֹלא כַדָ ת ְו ַכ ֲאׁשֶר ָאבַדְ תִ י ָאבָדְ תִ י‬
.‫ַוּיַעַש כְכ ֹּל ֲאׁשֶר ִצּוְתָ ה ָעלָיו ֶאסְתֵּ ר‬
Then Esther said in reply to Mordecai, 16 “Go, gather all the
Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and
neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. I and my
maids will also fast as you do. After that I will go to the king,
though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish.”
17
Mordecai then went away and did everything as Esther had
ordered him. (4:15-4:17)
From this point on, Esther takes the leadership role upon herself. She does not
waste any more time, but immediately acts and issues orders according to her
belief of how she could get the best results out of a dire situation. She orders
Mordecai in a short and authoritative manner to gather the Jews of Susa and to
perform a religious act as a group; she adds that during that time she and her
maids will perform the same act. She lived in the palace for several years and,
during all those years, probably never performed any religious acts or kept any
Jewish traditions. When, however, she stood at the head of the Jewish communi-
ty of the diaspora, she felt obliged to participate in the ritual life of the commu-
nity. Though she is aware of the big risk she is taking, she recognizes that she is
ready to make the sacrifice that is demanded of her by her new position of au-
thority over her endangered people. From that moment on, Mordecai acknowl-
edges her superiority over him and the other members of the Jewish community.
He obeys her at once.
‫וַתַ עַן ֶאסְתֵּ ר ַה ַמ ְלכָה וַת ֹּאמַר אִם ָמצָאתִ י חֵּן ְבעֵּינֶיָך ַה ֶמלְֶך ְואִם עַל ַה ֶמלְֶך טֹוב‬
.‫ׁשתִ י‬
ָ ‫ׁש ֵּאלָתִ י ְו ַעמִי ְב ַב ָק‬
ְ ‫תִ נָתֶ ן לִי נַ ְפׁשִי ִב‬
Then Queen Esther answered, “If I have won your favor, O
king, and if it pleases the king, let my life be given me—that is
my petition—and the lives of my people—that is my request.”
(7:3)
Esther had achieved a sufficiently high status that she could plead with the king
not only for her life and safety but also for the survival of the Jewish community
in his kingdom. This community is referred to as Esther’s people. She is the
leader of this Jewish community and as such is their representative at the highest
levels of the kingdom’s political hierarchy. This parallels the role of the head of
the diaspora, who in times of distress plead with the authorities for the safety of
‘his people’:
‫ׁשפָחֹות נִמְ כ ְַרנּו‬
ְ ‫ׁשמִ יד ַלהֲרֹוג ּו ְל ַאבֵּד ְואִלּו ַל ֲעבָדִ ים ְו ִל‬ ְ ‫כִי נִ ְמכ ְַרנּו אֲ נִי ְועַמִ י ְל ַה‬
.‫ׁשתִ י כִי אֵּין ַהצָר ׁש ֹּוֶה ְבנֵּזֶק ַה ֶמלְֶך‬ ְ ‫ֶהח ֱַר‬
For we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be
killed, and to be annihilated. If we had been sold merely as
slaves, men and women, I would have held my peace; but no
enemy can compensate for this damage to the king. (7:4)
This passage offers additional information concerning Esther’s plea. She ex-
plains to the king that she would not have disturbed him and would not try to
prevent from him benefiting from the money Haman claims to be able to pro-
cure if it was not a matter of life or death. She appeals not only to his personal
affection for her, but also to convince him that this is a very important matter for
the state. The heads of the diaspora were similarly tasked with delivering the
taxes to the rulers. He was not the one who had to collect it; however, it could
285
be one of his tasks to deliver the taxes from the Jewish community. Esther
refers to the economic benefits for the king from this matter and therefore she
emphasizes that if it was not a matter of survival she would not have inter-
286
fered.
;‫ׁשוֵּרֹוׁש ְל ֶאסְתֵּ ר ַה ַמ ְלכָה ֶאת בֵּית ָהמָן צ ֵֹּּרר ַהּי ְהּודִ ים‬
ְ ‫בַּיֹום הַהּוא נָתַ ן ַה ֶמלְֶך ֲא ַח‬
.‫ּומ ְָרדֳּ כַי בָא ִל ְפנֵּי ַה ֶמלְֶך כִי ִהגִידָ ה ֶא ְסתֵּ ר מַה הּוא לָּה‬
‫ַוּיָסַר ַה ֶמלְֶך ֶאת ַט ַבעְתֹו ֲאׁשֶר ֶה ֱעבִיר ֵּמ ָהמָן ַוּי ִתְ נָּה ְלמ ְָרדֳּ כָי; וַתָ שֶם ֶאסְתֵּ ר אֶת‬
.‫מ ְָרדֳּ כַי עַל בֵּית ָהמָן‬
_______________
285
On this matter, see Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon “The Epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon.”
286
For such an incident of a head of the diaspora who had to deliver these taxes, see
the head of the diaspora David ben Zakkai (917-940).
On that day King Ahasuerus gave to Queen Esther the house of

Haman, the enemy of the Jews; and Mordecai came before the
king, for Esther had told what he was to her.
Then the king took off his signet ring, which he had taken from
Haman, and gave it to Mordecai. So Esther set Mordecai over
the house of Haman. (8:1-2)
This passage includes two important points. The first is that Esther received
Haman’s house from the king, which can also be understood as a transfer of his
political power to her. The second issue is Mordecai’s arrival at the palace be-
cause of his relationship to Esther. Mordecai was promoted within the political
echelons of the kingdom; this suggests Esther’s power as the head of the diaspo-
ra. With the power given to her by the Jewish community, she was better able to
climb the social and political hierarchy in the kingdom. Furthermore, she had
the power to appoint others to key positions: the second verse emphasizes that
Esther gave Mordecai his promotion. This was also the situation also for many
of the heads of the diaspora during the centuries, many of whom benefited per-
sonally from their position (see, for example, the case of Josiah Hassan and his
appointment as the head of the diaspora circa 933CE).
8:5-7 emphasizes Esther’s role as the representative of the Jewish communi-
ty in the diaspora; one of the primary tasks of the head of the diaspora was to
solve problems between Jews and other people who lived in the same kingdom.
She also had the power to promote Jews within the political hierarchy, in this
case, Mordecai. Her last responsibility was to represent the issues of the Jews
before the ruling authorities.
The rest of the book shows that Esther’s actions were successful and that
the Jews survived Haman’s decree even though he and many others wished for
their destruction. She successfully fulfilled her role as the head of the Jewish
diaspora in the kingdom of Ahasuerus.
Only Haman (at 3:8) and Esther (at 7:3) presume to address the king in the
second person singular. The other characters do not address him unless they
have been asked and, when they respond, speak in the second person formal.
Haman is described in the text as follows: “King Ahasuerus promoted Haman
son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him and set his seat above all
the officials who were with him...” (3:1-2). Haman was the first in rank of all
other ministers and politicians in the kingdom. The king himself was the one
who promoted him and all people gave him respect and honor. At 3:15, Haman
is described sitting and having some laughs with the king. This episode leaves
no doubt about Haman’s high rank. He was the closest man to the king. In such
circumstances, by letting Esther use the second person singular when addressing
the king in 7:3, the writer emphasizes the high status she gained both inside and
outside of the palace and her closeness to the king.
According to the OT Book of Esther (7:16), it is Esther who asks the king to
change the edict that Haman has managed to distribute with orders to kill the
Jews. In doing this, she fulfils her duties as Resh Galuta to take care of the
community of the Jews in the diaspora and also to be a mediator between the
Jewish community and the authorities or the king.
At 8:2, Esther was the one who gave Haman’s house to Mordecai, thus ex-
ercising her power as Resh Galuta to administer dealings within the Jewish
community. One should add that the editor of the L version was sufficiently
disturbed by this and wrote instead that the king was the one who gave the
house of Haman to Mordecai.
At 8:6, as Esther begs for the life of the Jews and the survival of the Jewish
communities all around the kingdom of Ahasuerus, she says:
‫כִי אֵּי ָככָה אּוכַל ו ְָראִיתִ י ב ָָרעָה ֲאׁשֶר י ִ ְמצָא ֶאת ַעמִי ְואֵּי ָככָה אּוכַל ו ְָראִיתִ י בְָאבְדַ ן‬
.‫מֹולַדְ תִ י‬
For how can I bear to see the calamity that is coming on my
people? Or how can I bear to see the destruction of my kin-
dred?
And for the last arguments one should go back several steps, or shall I say, sev-
eral chapters, to 2:5-7. Several facts are revealed there about Esther, both in a
direct and indirect fashion. The context of these verses must be reinterpreted in
a slightly different way than they were previously.
Esther was a young woman who, when she was a child, was orphaned. As a
result, her cousin adopted her. Therefore, she received his name and lineage. He
in turn is described as the son of those who were deported from Jerusalem with
Jehoiachin/Jeconiah, King of Judah, by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. He
also belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. His genealogy is also partly described by
mentioning two of its important members, Yair and Kish. It is emphasized that
Esther was adopted by Mordecai (2:7) and, therefore, his lineage becomes hers.
But the writer clarifies the importance of her lineage by defining the relationship
between Esther and Mordecai even before the adoption – they were cousins.
Thus, he gives Esther a claim to an illustrious pedigree based on blood, not just
adoption: she and Mordecai were already part of the same family.
These people held very high status both before and during their deportation
from Jerusalem (2 Kings 24) and it is right to assume that during the time of the
diaspora their position in the Jewish community and in the kingdom at large
remained high. All the above points suggest Mordecai’s and Esther’s distin-
guished heritage.
Esther’s characterization fits the attributes of the Resh Galuta, who tradi-
tionally was one who had connections to King Jeconiah and the offspring of the
house of David. Further, in chapter two, it is written that Esther was taken into
the palace and dwelt there. According to the Babylonian Talmud Gittin 7 and
the Jerusalem Talmud Megila 3, the head of the diaspora could dwell in the
palace.
And finally, chapter two also mentions that a banquet was made for Esther
upon her becoming a “queen,” and that this banquet was glorious. It is written in
the Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 7 that upon the appointment of the head of the
diaspora there was a celebration in the palace and that this celebration was glo-
rious and attended by many delegations from the Jewish community all around
the empire.
One should not, therefore, ignore the possibility that Esther was the Resh
Galuta, “the head of the diaspora.”
4.1 Before Concluding
Scholars differ in their conclusions regarding the status and rank of Esther in the
palace of Ahasuerus on three main points: Her status as a queen, the nature of
her relationship with the king, and her status among the Jews of this kingdom.
While some scholars argue that it would have been impossible for Esther to
become a queen, others are of the opinion that Esther was a queen in the king-
dom of Ahasuerus, even as these, too, disagree on the nature of this rank. On the
287
one side are those who claim Esther was the one and only queen of Ahasuerus.
288
On the other hand, some claim that she was only one of several queens. Others
289
agree with Moore, who writes: “Esther was called queen, but she did not rule.”
There are also two main opinions concerning the type of relationship Esther
290
had with the king. The first is that Esther was the king’s wife. The second is
291
that she was one of his royal women, though not his wife. Wright claims that
scholars who opposed the thought of Esther being the king’s wife were wrong
since they based their opposition on the rule presented by Herodotus. They,
according to Wright’s argument, did not pay attention to the fact that Persian
kings from the Achaemenid Empire had several wives, among them women
292
who did not belong to the seven noble families. In his critique, Wright himself
did not take into consideration that, except for two cases, all these wives were of
Persian origin. Esther, on the other hand, may have come from an important
_______________
287
Thus Paton 1908:184.
288
Moore 1971:18, and Clines 1984:286.
289
Moore 1971:18.
290
Thus Paton 1908:184 and Wright 1970:38
291
Moore 1971:20.
292
Wright 1970:38.
293
Judean family but was not originally Persian, a situation which she shared with
other royal women and concubines.
Scholars such as Paton and Brockingston claim that Esther was a substitute
294
for Vashti. This opinion is in accordance with the biblical text. Nevertheless,
one may assume that this statement is only partially correct. Esther was Vashti’s
substitute as a queen but not necessarily as a wife. Nowhere in the text is it men-
tioned that the king married Esther. Furthermore, her becoming queen does not
necessarily imply that she became the king’s chief wife since, as mentioned
previously in this study, there could be several queens at the same time in the
Persian court. A further fact to be taken into consideration is that a ‫‘ כתר‬crown’
such as the one put on Esther’s head when she was declared a queen was not
295
only for the chief wife. Other women in the royal house could also wear them.
_______________
293
Few scholars thought that it was possible for Esther to become one of the royal
women due to her family’s important status among these who have been exiled. Among
these scholars are Bickerman 1967:209, Wright 1970:45, Moore 1975:74, Gordis 1974:6,
and Yamauchi 1980:107. But see Clines 1984:287.
294
Paton 1908:180 and Brockingston 1969:229.
295
Thus Salvesen 1999:36.
5. Conclusions
The aim of this study was to examine the status of Esther in the palace and her
position among other royal women as well as among the Jews in order to deter-
mine whether or not Jewish traditional thought about Esther conforms to the
available data.
The Book of Esther was studied both as one of the books of the OT and as a
book that merits special attention in Judaism. The book received its special
place because every year on the day before the Jewish holiday of Purim, on a
day called ‘Taanit Esther,’ according to Judaism, one has to fast and read the
Megila, that is, the Book of Esther. As a result of the contents of the book, its
happy ending with the salvation of the Jews, its place in Judaism throughout the
years, and because Esther is the main character in the book carrying her name,
no one has doubted the status of Esther in King Ahasuerus’ household or exam-
ined her position in the Jewish diaspora community. But let us examine the
position of Esther as described in the OT.
The theme of searching for a beautiful young girl for the king from all over
the kingdom is not unknown in the OT. It appears also in other sections. One
such search appears in the story of Abishag in the first chapter of the book of
Kings. This is not the only place where a comparison with the story of Esther
would be possible. Indeed, the circumstances that lead to these searches, though
they seem very different, have one major aspect in common: the incompetence
and impotence of the kings and the suggestion for the search by his advisors. As
already mentioned, it is written in 1 Kings 1:1-4 that King David was old and
cold. He could not take care of his obligations as a man or as a king. Ahasuerus,
though not that old and definitely not so cold, was, at the time of the suggestion,
unable to function due to a severe hangover after a big feast in which he partici-
pated the previous night. One might add that while in 1 Kings the search was
after one girl and only she was summoned, in the Book of Esther, while the
search was also for one girl, several were summoned to the capital from among
whom the king could choose according to his preferences. One notices also that
the choice of Abishag was made solely by the king’s advisors and messengers
while, in the case of Esther, though the first choice was made by the king’s
advisors and messengers, the final choice was made by the king himself. This
difference is further illuminated by the fact that, according to 1 Kings 1:4, King
David never had sexual relations with Abishag, while, according to Esther chap-
ter 2, King Ahasuerus had such relations not only with Esther but also with
some of the other girls summoned.
In a previous study, I suggested that Abishag was not given the title of a
royal woman because she was never acknowledged as an integral part of King
296
David’s ‘house of women;’ rather, she had a secondary position in his palace.
Esther, by contrast, dwelt in the ‘women’s house’ and was counted among the
royal women of king Ahasuerus.
The scene describing Esther returning to the king’s chambers and her con-
versation with Mordecai before acting leave no doubt concerning her fear and
lack of-self-confidence regarding her position. Furthermore, in comparing this
scene to others in the OT in which women came into the king’s chamber in
order to make a request or speak to the king about some matter, one finds a great
difference between the other scenes and the one in the Book of Esther. These
scenes have been compared to the one in the Book of Esther in order to find out
more details about the character of Esther, her nature and position. The results
were as follows:
Bathsheba-David: Bathsheba went to meet David after she was urged to do
so by someone who knew what was going on behind the scenes, just as Morde-
cai had urged Esther. Bathsheba, however, did not hesitate when approaching
the king, but rather went to his private chambers in order to discuss the matter
with him. This also differs from Esther, who went to the official reception room
of the throne. Bathsheba also urges the king to secure her son’s position as his
only and legal heir to the throne. Nevertheless, though she came with a lot of
self-confidence, she followed formal etiquette in addressing the King. Esther, on
the other hand, being much less confident in her position, or simply having a
different position, used other measures to achieve her goals.
Bathsheba-Solomon: Upon coming to the throne room of Solomon, Bath-
sheba is at the highest position a woman can have among the royal women in
the palace as well as in the kingdom. She is the queen mother. Therefore, she is
treated with great respect by the king. Also, when Esther approaches the king
the second time, her position among the women of the palace and also in the
Jewish community is already established and is reflected in the way she ap-
proaches the king. She is still one of his subjects even as she stands in front of
him as leader of an entire ethnic group. Because of her high political status, she
managed to get what she wished for, unlike Bathsheba, who failed because she
did not consider the feelings of the King. Esther, on the other hand, was aware
enough not to disturb the King unless it was a matter of life and death. Bathshe-
ba, unlike Esther, took her rights for granted and paid the price of failure.
Abigail-David: Abigail represents a large group of people whom she is try-
ing to rescue. She also succeeds in her task. However, no one urges her to ap-
proach the king: the initiative is hers alone. And, since at that time she was not a
royal woman and could not approach the King inside the palace, she was forced
to make it happen outside the palace. As in the story of Esther, she managed to
change the fates of those for whom she was responsible at the last minute. As in
_______________
296
Davidovich 2007.
Conclusions 135
the case of Esther, Abigail benefited personally without even asking, since in
rescuing her group, she became one of the royal women. Esther, who had to be
persuaded to approach the king, grew into her role as if born for it, just as Mor-
decai mentioned when convincing her to undertake her task.
Jezebel-Ahab: Jezebel approached the king from a different starting point.
She was his wife and had a different level of authority as the ruling queen. Hers
was the power not only to ask for changes but also to implement them. She had
the political power of the Baal-cult in Israel. Occasionally, she acted as the rep-
resentative of the king, speaking for him. One may assume such political power
was also in Esther’s hands towards the end of the story, as she too acted in the
name of the King and, like Jezebel, used his royal seal.
All these events contain meetings between kings and women who held
power both within the court and in the larger kingdom. This is exactly how
Esther is considered both in traditional Jewish thought as well as among modern
scholars.
The importance of the royal women can also be measured in their capacity
to influence the king on political issues. One such important group of royal
women was the group of royal pilagshim. The only woman mentioned both by
name and as a royal pilegesh is Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah. This woman in-
fluenced King David’s policy concerning the rival house of the deceased King
Saul. It was an outstanding achievement since she was not David’s pilegesh but
rather the royal pilegesh of the deceased king. She was nevertheless able to
influence David due to her mental strength and her force of will. Rizpah could
not prevent the implementation of those decisions the king had already made but
she could, and did, change their final outcome. A great catastrophe for the house
of Saul was transformed into a proper and honorable burial ceremony for Saul
and his descendants, just as it should have been from the beginning. These re-
sults are quite similar to those of Esther. By convincing the king to let her act
for the sake of her people, a day that would have been a day of sorrow and grief
was changed to a day of salvation and celebrations for the Jews.
The importance of the royal women in political matters is thus to be meas-
ured not only according to their actions and the actions that were taken as a
consequence of them, but also, in some cases, according to their titles (Maacah,
for example, is called gebirah).
It is written that Ahasuerus “ruled from India until Ethiopia.” If so, his
kingdom was very large, many times larger than the kingdoms of Israel and
Judah combined. Thus, if in Judah and Israel numerous royal women can be
found, the power of Ahasuerus must have been reflected in an even larger num-
ber of royal women. The text describes a complex of rooms quite similar to
those found at the palaces of Darius and Xerxes, and thus a separate area in the
palace that was allocated to the royal women.
The Book of Esther mentions not only the “house of the women,” but also
the “second house of women.” The text also describes, though not in detail, the
way of life in one of the places and the procedures that were performed before a
woman was transferred from one “house” to the other. We get a special and
unique opportunity to have a glance at the life of royal women from the inside.
In order to know whether there was another place for the women who had
already visited the king (or, more correctly, ‘that the king visited’) or if the
‘house of the women’ was divided into two separate parts and, in order to clarify
whether the king could marry Esther, who did not come from a noble family,
and, more importantly, was not even Persian, but was, rather, a Jewish girl, one
must examine not only the biblical text but also the Persian sources from the
time hinted at in the story, that is, circa 450 BCE, which provide a socio-
historical background for the events described in the story. This is important
because even if this story did not happen during the Achaemenid period, its
author probably knew some details about this dynasty and its kings and used
them for his own purposes.
Neither the environment nor the fact that Esther had maids and eunuchs in-
dicates with certainty that she was a ‘chief wife.’ She could have been one of
the other wives of the king, even one of his favorite concubines or in a parallel
position to that of a ‘chief concubine.’ One aspect, however, makes matters even
more puzzling. Why, in consideration of the above, is she called ‘malkah’ and in
which contexts? Esther is called malkah because she was the socio-political
leader of the Jews in the diaspora at that time, and the title appears in the OT
because it is written from a Jewish perspective. It must be in the position as
leader of the Jews that she deserves the title of “malkah,” as the woman who
ruled Jewish society in Persia.
Esther is called ‫ ַמ ְלכָה‬for two reasons:
1. She was one of the royal women, malkah, which is the parallel term for
the Greek ‘basileia.’
2. She was a political leader of the Jews in the Diaspora. The Book of Es-
ther gives a Jewish perspective on the events. The narrative depicts Esther as an
important figure. She was a ‫ ַמ ְלכָה‬, the woman who ruled over the Jewish com-
munities in the kingdom of Ahasuerus. The use of this term for her does not
necessarily mean that she also ruled over the rest of the nations in the Persian
kingdom. Ahasuerus was a Persian king and, as such, had several royal women
of different social origins and different ranks in his royal house. One of them
might have been a beautiful Jewish girl with an impressive Jewish lineage, as
would be proper for a Jewish queen and leader.
The fact that she found grace in the king’s eyes made it possible for her to
help her people as a great leader, or perhaps, as a great queen, should do. As
297
Moore notes, Esther was called queen; she did, however, not rule. He adds that
even after five years, Esther was not secure in her position in the palace and this
means that she might in fact have had a very weak position. Nonetheless, accu-
rate as this interpretation might be, this study also emphasizes that she was not
passive, but rather acted to improve her standing. Furthermore, the situation
_______________
297
Moore 1971:18.
Conclusions 137
changed from the moment she took matters into her own hands and acted out-
side the rules of her time and place. Indeed, she broke these rules and in doing
so broke her way into the king’s heart, climbing the ladder of political power,
both as leader of the Jewish community and to a position of respect and honor at
the court of Ahasuerus.
The Jews were a small but important minority. This can be learned from the
high position Mordecai had gained even before Esther was taken into the palace.
His high position can be established both from the fact that he lived in the capi-
tal city and from his daring not to give Haman the respect he thought he should
get. Mordecai is further described sitting at the king’s gate, a place well known
for advisors of high position and wise men. And more so, he also had a high
place among the Jews who belonged to the different communities all over the
kingdom. Upon his words, all fasted and, later on, protected themselves by kill-
ing those who had tried to kill them, and, finally, celebrating. Also, when the
king found out that Esther was a Jew, he supported her and gave authority both
to her and to Mordecai. Therefore it is probable that hers was a political mar-
riage to tie the king to the Jewish community, as kings often did by marrying
298
into powerful families in the kingdom.
As previously demonstrated, women from many different levels of society
could become royal women. A king could take a woman according to his desire
without explanation. This woman was taken to the royal palace and became the
property of the king. One should not ignore an important detail, namely that
these women did not become, except for a few exceptional cases, queens or first
wives to the king. Still, there are examples where these women could gain pow-
er and influence by speaking to the king’s heart. This power in practice was not
necessarily accompanied by formal titles.
Esther was taken to the royal palace because of her beauty and not because
of heritage; therefore one cannot see her relationship with the king of Persia as
one of the political marriages that were widespread in the ancient Near East in
general and in Persia in particular. Furthermore, there is no doubt that the text in
the Book of Esther is a pragmatic text and as such wishes to present Esther as
the queen of Persia. In the historical documents from this period there is no
evidence, however, that King Xerxes has had a queen named Esther.
Esther was perhaps the acting Queen of the Jews in the diaspora for a while.
The text of the OT supports this. But this fact does not mean that she was the
queen for all the people in the kingdom of Ahasuerus. It is possible that Esther
was the woman who held the rank of the Chief of Pilagshim in the house of
Ahasuerus. Though she came into the palace as one from the crowd and not of
her own volition, she became a very influential woman. The fact that she came
from an honorable family might have helped her to gain such a high position
among the royal women. However, her origin made it more difficult for her to
_______________
298
For such political unions between kings and people or family with a high position,
see Brosius 1996: 38-46.
be recognized as the king’s first wife. Because of all the above, it is most proba-
ble that she could have reached the status and rank of the chief of concubines
299
and was, therefore, in a position to help her people in their time of need.
According to the story, she was a descendant of a family of high status in
the community of exiled Jews (from Judah) in the kingdom. Nevertheless, she
was brought into the palace and introduced to the king not as though she was
from the nobility but in the same way that other young beautiful women who
were gathered from all over the kingdom were introduced to him. Although
during the first period of her dwelling in the palace she was treated in approxi-
mately the same way as was the other girls, she had the support of the eunuch
who was responsible for the girls during the process of preparations before the
meeting with the king. She was even luckier because of the great affection the
king had for her. From this moment on, she is called by the title malkah and is
mentioned as such several times in the text.
Again, even though some instances show that this title and her new position
were of great importance to her life in the palace, these things did not give her
security. Furthermore, they could be taken away from her at any moment. When
asked to plead to the king about the danger that her people faced, she did not
respond positively but, rather, tried to avoid the task. According to the text, she
did not want to come to the king without being summoned because she feared
for her life.
Looking at other stories in the OT in which main wives are described as ap-
pealing or speaking to the king, it seems that Esther’s great fear was a unique
phenomenon among these kinds of women. Furthermore, Esther did not deem it
proper to appear before the king if not summoned. She probably did not consid-
er herself to be different from the other royal women. A further detail that
emerges from the text is that Esther and the king did not share the same accom-
modations. Thus, although called a queen in the story, she did not live with the
300
king.
She and the other royal women in the palace of Ahasuerus lived in the
house of royal women, where she had her own maids. It is not, however, written
in which part of the house of royal women she dwelt. All the other young wom-
en gathered into the palace were moved to a different section in the house of
royal women after spending one night with the king. This section was the one in
which the pilagshim dwelt. However, the text is silent concerning the exact
place in the house of royal women in which Esther dwelt after her first union
with the king.
_______________
299
This was a usual side effect of the relationship a woman from a family with polit-
ical importance gained upon living in the palace. According to Solvang 2003:22: “That
family would appear to have greater access to the king’s favor.”
300
For a different case of a queen who lived in the king’s apartment, see Jezebel-
Ahab.
Conclusions 139
In addition, there might have been a danger not only for her status in the
palace but also for her life. She was given the title of queen and yet she did not
rule and, even when she sent orders and instructions to her people, she did it in
the king’s name; she could not exercise her own authority. Nevertheless, her
people were saved as a result of her words and deeds. Of this there can be no
doubt: she had the power to influence the king and was in a position to do so.
301
Esther develops as a character. She is the main character of the story in the
version found in the Old Testament. In her first period in the palace, she was
under the custody of others and she “did not tell her people” (2:20) or act as a
Jew and, therefore, was not considered a Jew. With her recognition of her duties
and role as the leader of the Jewish diaspora, her position and status in the pal-
ace of the king and in the political life of the kingdom evolves.
Who, then, was Esther? Who could she have been?

Through this study, a number of different possibilities have been encoun-
tered. One would be that she belonged to a large group of royal women, perhaps
even to the royal pilagshim. As possibly the king’s favorite, she could even have
held the foremost position among these pilagshim.
Another position she might have held was that of queen. This is the standard
confessional approach of Jewish thought and tradition. In that case, she inherited
the status of the former queen, Vashti. Even if this was the case, however, ac-
cording to the results of this study, she would have been queen not of all the
peoples of the Persian Empire, but rather only of the Jewish people.
However, a third suggestion appears in the study, the assumption that she
was in fact the Resh Galuta: the leader of all the Jews in exile, the Head of the
Diaspora. What follows constitutes a survey of the different pieces of evidence
which lead to this conclusion.
Was she one of the Pilagshim?

A king could take any woman he desired without having other reasons but
his personal preferences and temporary wish. This woman was then taken into
the royal palace to be the property of the king.
Except for a few exceptional cases, these women became neither ruling
queens nor chief wives to the king; rather, they became part of a group of royal
women at the palace. In a few cases, however, these women could gain power
and have influence on different situations, gaining the king’s attention and af-
fection. That is, through their individual charismatic abilities, they could win the
interest of the King and, ultimately, his help. This power did not, however, grant
the royal women an official political position in the kingdom. And yet Esther
does indeed have an official title according to the Jewish sources. Might Esther
have been the first among these pilagshim?
_______________
301
On this, see also Hallo 1983:24.
Every royal house in which there were royal pilagshim seems to have had
one more prominent woman. This would, therefore, also have been the case in
the royal house of Ahasuerus, who had many royal women. Usually this woman
had a very high position in the royal household and was highly respected. As for
Esther, the text describes the love and admiration of the eunuchs for her and the
obedience of the maids and eunuchs to her commands. Their obedience is all the
more remarkable given that some of her behaviour must have been viewed as
rather peculiar, such as the three day fast. This tradition would have been famil-
iar to the Jews but was likely unknown to the servants and maids of the royal
palace. Thus, from the behaviour of maids and eunuchs towards Esther, she,
according to the Jewish sources, appears to have had this more prominent stand-
ing.
Esther, as a foreign woman, would not have been excluded from the possi-
bility of having the more prominent rank if for no other reason than that the king
made his choices according to his preferences without, in this case, being bound
by laws such as the one requiring the queen to come from one of a number of
influential families. Furthermore, she is given a title according to the same tradi-
tion. As mentioned above, there is no special title for the one occupying the
position of chief of pilagshim. However, the lack of title for other women, in-
cluding wives, was not uncommon. In the OT, according to the comparison
made above with two other women, the following can be determined: while
Rizpah is given the title of pilegesh, Maacah is a gebirah, and Esther, malkah.
This last, the title of Esther, leads to a further possibility regarding her status.
Was she the queen of the Persian Empire?

The Book of Esther is a pragmatic text and as such presents Esther as the
queen of Ahasuerus’ kingdom. In the historical documents from this period,
however, there is no evidence for one of the Achaemenid kings having a queen
named Esther, or, for that matter, of any a chief wife whose character fits her
302
description. Furthermore, and even if, according to the Book of Esther she was
a queen, it does not mean that she was queen of all the people in the kingdom of
King Ahasuerus. She is an important figure in the ‘history of the Jews of the
Diaspora.’ Of course, one can doubt the historicity of this story, though it makes
no difference concerning Esther’s character, status, and role, since this investi-
gation concerns the story as it is told in the Book of Esther.
Vashti could not reasonably be the only queen. It is written in the text that
Ahasuerus ruled “from India to Cush.” His kingdom was very big. Such a huge
power must have been represented symbolically through the number of royal
women its ruler possessed. The text itself describes a complex that is quite simi-
lar to the one found at the palaces of Darius I and Xerxes I of the Achaemenid
dynasty.
_______________
302
And see Moore 1975:73.
Conclusions 141
In the Book of Esther, a ‫ בֵּית ַהנָׁשִים‬is mentioned. Furthermore, a ‫ׁשנִי‬

ֵּ ‫בֵּית ַהנָׁשִים‬
is also mentioned. The text describes, though not in detail, how the women lived
inside and the procedures performed before a woman was transferred from one
‘house’ to the other. These two ‘houses’ were two sections of the same area in
the royal palace in which the royal women resided. It is not written if Esther was
brought into the second section of the house or not but, both according to the
procedure described in the text and because in the description of Esther’s life in
the palace there is nothing to support the opposite position, it is likely that she
too was brought to this section. The fact that the king did not marry her, due to
the absence of this information in the text, emphasizes this possibility even
more.
Since the narrator of the Book of Esther uses his knowledge about Persian
society and court and its rules, Esther’s position according to extra-biblical texts
that describe this society and its rules has been assessed in order to clarify
whether or not the king could marry Esther, who did not come from a noble
Persian family and for that matter, was not even Persian.
The Achaemenid King Xerxes had a wife called Amestris. Some scholars
have mentioned the resemblance of the sound of this name to the sound of the
name Esther and assumed that these two names refer to the same woman. But
since the two events of taking Esther into the king’s palace and the time in
which Amestris became Xerxes queen do not fit each other historically, the
conclusion of several scholars is rather that Esther is not a historical figure at all
but more likely a (possibly composite) literary character.
If one considers the rule that Herodotus described (3:84) as having histori-
cal value, one can exclude Esther from being a wife of any Persian king since
she was not a member of one of the seven noble Persian families. Reading the
Book of Esther, one cannot find any evidence for her belonging to these special
families. The Book of Esther emphasizes that Esther was brought to the palace
as part of a mass gathering and not because of any individual merit. And, final-
ly, she was chosen as the king’s companion because of her looks and probably
because she knew how to behave in the house of the royal women.
Scholars of the OT dealing with the historicity of the Book of Esther have
used Herodotus’ statement concerning the rule of marriage of the Achaemenid
dynasty as evidence that the Book of Esther had no historical value. Brosius, on
the other hand, has argued against the possibility that Herodotus’ statement
itself contained truth and claimed that nothing in the history of the Achaemenid
kings implies that such a rule existed. Even if there are no documents from the
Achaemenid period proving that this rule actually existed during the Achaeme-
nid period, however, one can at least conclude that all the kings who belonged
to this dynasty also had wives who originally belonged to these seven noble
families.
The Achaemenid kings practiced polygamy and, therefore, could have had
several women in their royal houses; probably more than one of them held the
status of the king’s wife. Thus, one of these wives may have been from the sev-
en noble families, but not all of them.
In the Book of Esther, the king is called Ahasuerus. Scholars have tried to
define which Persian king of the Achaemenid period might fit. Three possibili-
ties have emerged: Xerxes I, Artaxerxes I, and Artaxerxes II.
The narrator of the book knew at least some of the history of the Achaeme-
nid dynasty and made use of this knowledge in his writing. Therefore, available
information on the manners and customs of these kings has been used in this
investigation. The fact that only Vashti is mentioned does not serve as a proof of
her being Ahasuerus’ only wife, or for that matter, that she was the only queen.
It is most probable that there were many royal women in the house of Ahasue-
rus. This is emphasized by the gathering of the girls. It might be that Vashti was
the one who was summoned to the king’s banquet because of her beauty and not
because she was the most distinguished of all the king’s women. Esther, who
was brought to the palace instead of Vashti, inherited Vashti’s status, if not her
formal title as Ahasuerus’ queen. Furthermore, Esther was also brought to the
palace because of her beauty. This could have been the reason for the affection
the king had for her. Esther was one of many women in King Ahasuerus’ royal
house of women; one who quite possibly gained favor in his eyes for a short
period of time because of her looks. She could, therefore, also influence his
decision concerning the Jews even if she did not have any official political sta-
tus nor was she chief wife of the king (until the king decided otherwise). She
had her own apartment, but this apartment was not that of the king’s chief wife,
the woman who ruled over the Empire, side by side with the king.
Addressing the king without being summoned was a very risky act for her.
She could lose not only the benefits that she had earned during her stay in the
palace for such a daring approach, but indeed, her life.
This finally points towards the final conclusion about Esther’s status.
303
Was she the Head of the Diaspora?
“Resh Galuta” is an Aramaic term that may be translated as “the Head of
the Diaspora.” “Resh Galuta” was the title of different persons (until now
known only as men) who were each in his own time the head of the Jewish
diaspora in Babylon and Persia.
It must be considered probable that the writer of the OT Book of Esther
knew well the customs of the Achaemenid Empire; he must, however, have also
been aware of the position of “Resh Galuta,” which was actively used both in
_______________
303
One must take care when defining the kingdom described in the OT Book of Es-
ther as the Persian Empire, as many other scholars have done, in order to avoid problems
that might occur in connection with such a definition. The historical accuracy or, for that
matter, inaccuracy of the book and its characters are not relevant to the current study,
which contains an analysis of the character of Esther as described in the OT, taking into
account the great knowledge that the writer of this OT Book of Esther had. Nor, howev-
er, should one ignore his wide imagination, one of his virtues as a great writer.
Conclusions 143
the time of the Achaemenid Empire (539-332 BCE) and after. In fact, the term
was in full use during and after the period when the OT Book of Esther is
thought to have been written.
It seems that the writer used this knowledge and indeed defined Esther as
the Head of the Diaspora. He does this, however, without mentioning it directly.
The strongest evidence for this approach is found in the contents of his story and
the many similar elements between the character of Esther in the OT and the
elements known from the position and status of the Resh Galuta. As presented
above, the characteristics of the Head of the Diaspora appear not only from one
but indeed several different sources.
From the intertextual comparisons made above, it is quite clear that the way
Esther behaves, as well as how she is approached by the King and other state
officials and, not least, the personal responsibility she accepts when it comes to
the fate of the Jewish people, all indicate one reasonable conclusion:
Whether she was a member of the pilagshim, or carried the title of Queen of
(the Jews?), is a question of secondary importance. Of more importance is that
Esther was indeed Resh Galuta, the one woman in Jewish history who is known
to have been the Head of the Diaspora, the formal leader of all the Jews in exile.
Esther taught us all a lesson. It is not impossible to become the queen of a

great empire, even when starting without parents. One only has to have some
luck, some courage, and a few people to encourage you. If you really struggle
and use your brain you could even, while being a queen, save your life and the
lives of the ones you care for. If you do not give up, there is a good chance that
your efforts will be successful.
Bibliography
Ackroyd, P. R., (1981), “The Succession Narrative (So-Called),” Interpretation
35/4, pp. 383-396.
Adar, Z., (1959), ‫הסיפור המקראי‬, (The Biblical Story), Jerusalem.
Albright, W. F., (1953), “New Light from Egypt on the Chronology and History
of Israel and Judah,” BASOR 30, pp. 4-11.
Albright, W. F., (1968), Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, New York.
Anderson, B. W., (1950), “The Place of the Book of Esther in the Christian
Bible,” Journal of Religious Studies 30, pp. 32-43.
Anderson, A. A., (1989), 2 Samuel, Dallas.
Arnold, D., (1996), The Royal Women of Amarna; Images of Beauty from An-
cient Egypt, New York.
Arnold, P. M., (1986), Gibeah in Israelite History and Tradition, Ann Arbor.
Artzi, P., (1987), “The Influence of Political Marriages on the International
Relations of the Amarna-Age,” in La Femme dans le Proche-Orient An-
tique: Compte rendu de la XXXIIIe rencontre assyriologiques internationale
(Paris, 7-10 juillet 1986), ed. J. M. Durand, Paris, pp. 23-26.
Aus, R., (1988), Water Into Wine and the Beheading of John the Baptist; Early
Jewish-Christian Interpretation of Esther 1 in John 2:1-11 and Mark 6:17-
29, Atlanta.
Avishur, Y., (1999), Studies in Biblical Narrative; Style, Structure, and the
Ancient Near Eastern Literary Background, Tel Aviv.
Bauer, H. and P. Leander, (1922), Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen
Sprache des Alten Testamentes, Halle a.S.
Bahrani, Z., (2001), Women of Babylon, Gender and Representation in Mesopo-
tamia, London & New York.
Baines, J., (1998), “Ancient Egyptian Kingship: Official Forms, Rhetoric, Con-
text,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East; Proceed-
ings of the Oxford OT Seminar, ed. J. Day, Sheffield, pp. 16-53.
Bakan, D., (1979), And They Took Themselves Wives, New York.
Bal, M., (1988), Death and Dissymmetry, Chicago.
Bal, M., (1989), Anti-Covenant, Counter-Reading Women’s Lives in the Hebrew
Bible, Sheffield.
Balcer, J. M., (1987), Herodotus & Bisitun, Stuttgart.
Bardtke, H., (1963), Das Buch Esther, Gütersloh.
Bardtke, H., (1964), Luther und das Buch Esther, Tübingen.
Bar-Efrat, Sh., (1979), ‫( העיצוב האמנותי של הסיפור במקרא‬Narrative Art in the
Bible), Tel Aviv.
Bibliography 145
Bar-Efrat, Sh., (1989), Narrative Art in the Bible, Sheffield.

Bar-Efrat, Sh., (1996), ‫ ( שמואל ב‬II Samuel), Jerusalem.
Barr, J., (1968), Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament,
Oxford.
Barr, J., (1973), “Reading the Bible as Literature” BJRL 56, pp. 10-33.
Bartholomae, C., (1904), Altiranisches Wörterbuch, Strassburg.
Bauer, H. and P. Leander, (1922), Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen
Sprache des Alten Testamentes, Halle a.S.
Beal, T. K., (1997), The Book of Hiding: Gender, Ethnicity, Annihilation and
Esther, London.
Beal, T. K. and T. Linafelt, (1999), Ruth and Esther, Sheffield.
Beckman, G., (1996), Hittite Diplomatic Texts, Atlanta.
Bekkenkamp, J. and F. Van Dijk, (1987), “The Canon of the OT and Women’s
Cultural Traditions,” in A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs, ed. A.
Brenner, Sheffield, pp. 67-85.
Ben Yehuda, E., (1940), Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis, vol. 10, Jerusalem, p.
4938.
Ben-Barak, Z., (1987), “The Queen Consort and the Struggle for Succession to
the Throne,” in La Femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique: Compte rendu de
la XXXIIIe rencontre assyriologiques internationale (Paris, 7-10 juillet
1986), ed. J. M. Durand, Paris, pp. 33-40.
Ben-Barak, Z., (1991), “The Status and Rights of the Gebirah,” JBL 110/1, pp.
23-34.
Ben-Yashar, M., (1990), "‫“( "עיון בפרשת ריצפה בת איה‬Study on the Matter of
Rizpah the Daughter of Aiah”), Bet Miqra’ 36/A, pp. 56-64.
Bendavid, A., (1972), Parallels in the Bible, Jerusalem.
Berg, S. B., (1979), The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes and Structure, Missou-
la.
Bergey, R. L., (1983), The Book of Esther-Its Place in the Linguistic Milieu of
Post-Exilic Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Study in Late Biblical Hebrew, Diss.,
Dropsie College.
Berilko, Ch., (1985), "‫“( "שאלה אחת קטנה‬One Small Question”), Bet Miqra 30/2,
pp. 305-311.
Berlin, A., (1994), Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Winona
Lake.
Berlin, A., (2001),‫( אסתר‬Esther), Jerusalem & Tel Aviv.
Bickerman, E., (1944), “The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther,” in Studies
in Jewish and Christian History, vol. 1, ed. E. Bickerman, Leiden, 1976, pp.
225-245.
Bickerman, E., (1951), “Notes on the Greek Book of Esther,” in Studies in Jew-
ish and Christian History, vol. 1, ed. E. Bickerman, Leiden, 1976, pp. 246-
275.
Bickerman, E., (1967), Four Strange Books of the Bible: Jonah, Daniel, Kohel
eth, Esther, New York.
Biga, M. G., (1987), “Femmes de la Famille Royale d’Ebla,” in La Femme dans

le Proche-Orient Antique: Compte rendu de la XXXIIIe rencontre assyri-
ologiques internationale (Paris, 7-10 juillet 1986), ed. J. M. Durand, Paris,
pp. 41-47.
Bin-Nun, Sh. R., (1975), The Tawananna in the Hittite Kingdom, Heidelberg.
Bird. P. H., (1974), “Images of Women in the Old Testament,” in Religion and
Sexism, ed. R. R. Ruether, New York, pp. 41-88.
Black, J., A. George and N. Postgat, eds. (2000), A Concise Dictionary of Akka-
dian, 2nd ed., Wiesbaden.
Blackman, A. M., (1921), “On the Position of Women in the Ancient Egyptian
Hierarchy,” JEA 7, pp. 8-30.
Bleeker, C. J., (1959), “The Position of the Queen in Ancient Egypt,” in The
Sacral Kingship: contributions to the central theme of the VIIIth Interna-
tional Congress for the History of Religions (Rome, April 1956), Leiden, pp.
261-268.
Blenkinsopp, J., (1966), “Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Samuel
9:2ff) and the Yahwist Corpus,” VT 15, pp. 44-57.
Blenkinsopp, J., (1997), “The family in First Temple Israel,” in Families in
Ancient Israel, eds. L. G. Perdue, J. Blenkinsopp, J. J. Collins and C. Mey-
ers, Louisville, pp. 48-103.
Bodine, W. R., ed., (1995), Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: what it is
and what it offers, Atlanta.
Boling, R. G., (1975), Judges, Garden City.
Boyce, M., (1985), “Achaemenid Religion,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, I/4, ed.
E. Yarshater, pp. 426-429.
Boyer, L., (1986), “Concubinages et concubinats du code d’Hammurabi à la fin
du XIXe siècle,” in Les Concubinages: approche sociojuridique, ed. J. Ru-
belin-Devichi, Paris, 127-163.
Branch, R. G., (2005a), “Rizpah: Catalyst in King-Making. An Analysis of 2
Samuel 3:6-11,” Journal for Semitics 14/1, pp. 1-16.
Branch, R. G., (2005b), “Rizpah: Activist in Nation-Building. An Analysis of 2
Samuel 21:1-14,” Journal for Semitics 14/1, pp. 74-94.
Brenner, A., (1985), The Israelite Woman, Sheffield.
Brenner, A. and F. Van Dijk-Hemmes, (1993), On Gendering Texts, Leiden.
Briant, P., (1996), Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris.
Bright, J., (1981), A History of Israel, Philadelphia.
Brin, G., (1994), “Studies in Biblical Law,” JSOT sup 176, pp. 238-281.
Brinkman, J. A., (1971), “The Early Neo-Babylonian Monarchy,” in Le Palais
et la Royauté, ed. P. Garelli, Paris, pp. 409-415.
Brockelmann, C., (1908), Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der
Semitichen Sprachen, vol. 1, Berlin.
Brockingston, L. H., (1969), Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, London.
Brosius, M., (1996), Women in Ancient Persia, 559-331 BC, Oxford.
Bibliography 147
Brown, F., (1979), The New Brown-Driver-Bridges-Gesenius Hebrew and Eng-

lish Lexicon (B.D.B), Oxford.
Brueggemann, W., (1990), First and Second Samuel, Louisville.
Brunner, C., (1983), “Geographical and Administrative Divisions: Settlements
and Economy,” in The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3/2, The Seleucid,
Parthian and Sasanian Periods, ed. E. Yarshater, Cambridge.
Bryan, B., (1982), “The Etymology of Hnr ‘Group of Musical Performers,” BES
4, pp. 35-53.
Bryce, T., (2005), The Kingdom of the Hittites, Oxford.
Burney, C. F., (1970), The Book of Judges and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the
Book of Kings, New York.
Burney, M. A., (1903), Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, Oxford.
Bush, F. W., (1996), Ruth, Esther, Waco.
Cameron, A. & A. Kuhurt, eds., (1993), Images of Women in Antiquity, London.
Carlsson, R. A., (1964), David, the Chosen King, Stockholm.
Carruthers, J., (2008), Esther through the Centuries, Cambridge.
Caspari, W., (1991), “The Literary Type and Historical Value of 2 Samuel 15-
20,” in Narrative and Novella in Samuel: studies by Hugo Gressmann and
other scholars 1906-1923, ed. D. E. Gunn, Sheffield, pp. 59-88.
Cazelles, H., (1955), “David’s Monarchy and the Gibeonite Claim,” Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 87, pp. 165- 175.
Chatman, S., (1978), Story and Discourse, Ithaca.
Chohen, S. J. D., (1983), “From the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of
Intermarriage,” HAR 7, pp. 23-40.
Clements, R., (1989), The World of Ancient Israel, Cambridge.
Clines, D. J. A., (1984a), The Esther Scroll, Sheffield.
Clines, D. J. A., (1984b), Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, London.
Clines, D. J. A., (1990), “Reading Esther from Left to Right: Contemporary
Strategies for Reading a biblical text,” in The Bible in Three Dimensions,
ed. D. J. A. Clines, Sheffield, pp. 31-52.
Clines, D. J. A., (1991), “In Quest of the Historical Mordecai,” VT, 41/2, pp.
129-136.
Clines, D. J. A., (1998), “Methods in Old Testament Study,” in On the Way to
the Postmodern; Old Testament Essays, 1967-1998,vol. 1, ed. D. J. A.
Clines, Sheffield, pp. 23-45.
Cogan, M., (2000), 1 Kings, New York.
Cohen, Ch., (1982), ”Studies in Extra-Biblical Hebrew Inscriptions I. The Se-
mantic Range and Usage of the Terms ‫ אמה‬and ‫ שפחה‬,” Natun lheker
hamikra’ 5-6, p. 25ff.
Cohen, R., and R. Westbrook, eds., (2000), Amarna Diplomacy; The Beginning
of International Relations, Baltimore & London.
Collins, J. J., (1997), “Marriage, Divorce, and Family in Second Temple Juda-
ism,” in Families in Ancient Israel, eds. L. G. Perdue, J. Blenkinsopp, J. J.
Collins, and C. Meyers, Louisville, pp. 104-162.
Collins, J. J., (2000), Between Athens and Jerusalem, 2nd ed., Cambridge.
Conroy, C., (1978), “Avsalom Avsalom,” AnBib 81, pp. 48-90.
Cooper, A., (1987), “On Reading the Bible Critically and Otherwise,” in The
Future of Biblical Studies, eds. R. E. Friedman and H. G. M. Williamson,
Atlanta, pp. 61-80.
Culley, R. C., (1985), “Exploring New Directions,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its
Modern Interpreters, eds. D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker, California &
Philadelphia, pp. 167-200.
Curtis, E. L., (1910), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of
Chronicles, Edinburgh.
Damrosch, D., (1987), The Narrative Covenant, San Francisco.
Dandamaev, M. A., (1989), A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire,
Leiden.
Davidovich, T., (2003), “Was Maacah King Rehoboam’s Wife?,” Orientalia
Suecana 53, pp. 83-92.
Davidovich, T., (2007), The Mystery of the House of Royal Women; Royal Pil-
agshim as Secondary Wives in the Old Testament, Stockholm.
Davidson, J., (1997), Courtesans and Fishcakes: the Consuming Passion of
Classical Athens, London.
Davies, E. W., (1993), “The Inheritance of the First-Born in Israel and the An-
cient Near East,” JSS 38/2, pp. 175-191.
Davis, E. W., (1981), ”Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage,”
VT 31, pp. 138-144, 257-268.
Day, L., (1995), Three Faces of a Queen, Sheffield.
Diakonoff, I. M., (1986), “Women in Old Babylon Not under Patriarchal Au-
thority,” JESHO 29, pp. 225-238.
Dorothy, C. V., (1997), The Books of Esther: Structure, Gender, and Textual
Integrity, Sheffield.
Driver, S. R., (1966), Books of Samuel, 3rd ed., Oxford.
Durand, J. M. and J. Margueron, (1980), “La Question du Harem Royal dans le
Palais de Mari ,” Journal des Savants, 148/84-5, pp. 253-280.
Durand, J. M., (1987), ” L’organisation de l’espace dans le palais de Mari : Le
témoignage des textes”, in Le système palatial en Orient, en Grèce et á
Rome, ed. E. Lévy, Leiden, pp. 39-110.
Eberharter, A., (1914), Ehe und Familienrecht der Hebräer, Munster.
Ehrlich, A. B., (1914), Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, VII, Leipzig.
Eichrodt, W., (1970), Ezekiel, Philadelphia.
Eisenman, R. H & M. Wise, (1992), The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, Dorset.
Eisenmann, R. and M. Wise, ed., (1992), The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, New
York.
Emerton, J. A., (1979), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament,
Leiden.
Epstein, L. M., (1948), Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism, New York.
Bibliography 149
Evans, A., (2011), “‘And Mordekhai's Order Esther Obeyed’ - Comparison of

Structural Delimitation of the Narrative Flow in MT and LXX Esther 2,”
Journal for Semitics 20/1: 233-249.
Even Shoshan, A., (1966), ‫( מילון חדש‬A New Dictionary), Jerusalem.
Exum, J. Ch., (1990), “Murder They Wrote: Ideology and the Manipulation of
Female Presence in Biblical Narrative,” in The Pleasure of Her Text, ed. A.
Bach, Philadelphia, pp. 45-68.
Exum, J. Ch., (1992), Tragedy and Biblical Narrative, Arrows of the Almighty,
Cambridge.
Farley, J. H., (1968), Abraham and His Times, Philadelphia.
Fokkelman, J.P., (1981), Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol.
1, King David, Assen.
Fokkelman, J. P., (1990), Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol.
3, Assen & Maastricht.
Fornara, C.W., (1971), Herodotus: An Interpretative Essay, Oxford.
Fox, M. V., (1991), The Redaction of the Books of Esther: on reading composite
texts, Atlanta.
Fox, M. V., (2001), Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther, 2nd ed.,
Grand Rapids.
Frankfort, H., (1948), Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern
Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature, Chicago.
Frerichs, E. S and L. H. Lesko, eds., (1997), Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence,
Winona Lake.
Friedl, R., (1996), Der Konkubinat im Kaiserzeitlichen Rom: Von Augustus bis
Septimius Severus, Stuttgart.
Friedl, C., (2000), Polygynie in Mesopotamien und Israel, Munster.
Frisk, H., (1969), Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg.
Frolov, S., (1995), “Rizpah on the Rock. Notes on 2 Samuel 21:1-14,” Biblia E
Oriente 37/3, pp. 145-154.
Frolov, S., (2002), “Two Eunuchs, Two Conspiracies, and One Loyal Jew: The
Narrative of Botched Regicide in Esther as Text- and Redaction-Critical
Test Case,” VT 52/3, pp. 304-325.
Fuchs, E., (1982), “Status and Role of Female Heroines in the Biblical Narra-
tive,” Mankind Quarterly 23/2, pp. 149-160.
Fuerst, W. J., (1975), The Five Scrolls, Cambridge.
Gafne, Y., (1987), The Babylonian Jewry and its Institutions, Jerusalem. (in
Hebrew)
Galvin, M., (1981), The Priestesses of Hathor in the Old Kingdom and the 1 st
Intermediate Period, Ann Arbor.
Gardiner, A. H., (1911), Egyptian Hieratic Texts, Leipzig.
Gardiner, A. H., (1953), “The Harem at Miwër,” JNES 12/3, pp. 145-149.
Gardner, J. F., (1986), Women in Roman Law and Society, London & Sydney.
Garsiel, M., (1990), “Wit, Words, and Saul: Reflections on the Comic and Trag-
ic Visions,” in On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible, eds. Y. T.
Radday, and A. Brenner, Sheffield, pp. 161-168.
Gesenius, W., (1962), Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch, 17th ed.,
Berlin, Göttinger & Heidelberg.
Gillian, K., (1996), The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the ‘Succession Narra-
tive,’ Sheffield.
Gilner, D. J., (1989), The Status of Women in Ancient Israel, unpublished, Cin-
cinnati.
Gitton, M., (1984), Les divines éspouses de la 18e dynastie, Centre des re-
cherches d’histoire ancienne, vol. 61, Anales Littéraires de l’université de
Besançon, Paris.
Glassner, J. J., (1986), ”De Sumer a` Babylone: Familles pour gérer, Familles
pour régner,” in Histoire de la famille, vol. 1, ed. A. Burgière, Paris, pp. 99-
133.
Glück, J. J., (1965), “Merab or Michal,” ZAW 177, pp. 72-81.
Goode, A. D., (1940), “The Exarchate in the Eastern Caliphate, 637-1258,” The
Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series 31/2, pp. 149-169.
Gordis, R., (1974), Megillat Esther. The Masoretic Text with Introduction, New
Translation and Commentary, New York.
Gordis, R., (1981), “Religion, Wisdom and History in the Book of Esther: A
New Solution to an Ancient Crux,” JBL 100, pp. 358-88.
Gordon, C. H., (1953), Introduction to OT Times, New York.
Gordon, R. P., (1995), ”A House Divided: Wisdom in Old Testament Narrative
Traditions,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel, eds. J. Day, Gordon, R. P. and H.
G. M. Williamson, Cambridge, pp. 94-105.
Gordon, R. P., (1993), 1 & 2 Samuel, Sheffield.
Graham, A., (2000), Intertextuality, London & New York.
Gray, J., (1964), 1 & 2 Kings, London.
Greengus, S., (1969), “The Old Babylonian Marriage Contract,” JAOS 89, pp.
505- 532.
Greenspoon, L. J. and S. White Crawford, eds., (2003), The Book of Esther in
Modern Research, New York.
Greenstein, E. L., (1987), “A Jewish Reading of Esther,” in Judaic Perspectives
on Ancient Israel, eds. J. Neusner, B. A. Levine and E. S. Frerichs, Phila-
delphia, pp. 225-243.
Gruber, M. I., (2002), ”The Achaemenid Period,” Esther’s Children, A Portrait
of Iranian Jews, ed. H. Sarshar, Philadelphia, 1-12.
Gunn, D. M., (1976), “Traditional Composition in the ‘Succession Narrative,’”
VT 26, pp. 214-229.
Gunn, D. M., (1978), The Story of King David, Sheffield.
Güterbock, H. G & H. A. Hoffner, (1994), The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago.
Güterbock, H. G., (1971), “The Hittite Palace,” in Le Palais et la Royauté, ed.
Bibliography 151
P. Garelli, Paris, pp. 305-314.

Haase, R., (2003), “The Hittite Kingdom,” in A History of Ancient Near Eastern
Law, ed. R. Westbrook, Boston & Leiden, pp. 619-656.
Hallo, W. W. and W. K. Simpson, (1971), The Ancient Near East, A History,
New York, Chicago, San Francisco & Atlanta.
Hallo, W. W., (1983), “The first Purim,” Biblical Archaeologist 46:19-29.
Halpern, B., (1996), The First Historians; The Hebrew Bible and History, 2nd
ed., Pennsylvania.
Harris, R., (1976), “Woman in the Ancient Near East,” in The Interpreter’s Dic.
Of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick, Abingdon, pp. 960-963.
Hartman, L. F., (1963), “Concubine,” Encyclopaedia Dictionary of the Bible,
New York.
Harvey, W. J., (1965), Character and the Novel. Ithaca.
Hawass, Z., (2000), Silent Images: women in Pharaonic Egypt, London & New
York.
Herman, G. (2005), The Babylonian Exarchate in the Sassanid Era, unpublished
doctoral thesis, Jerusalem (unpublished-Hebrew).
Hertzberg, H. W. (1964), 1 & 2 Samuel, London.
Herzfeld, E. E., (1934), Archaeological History of Iran, London.
Herzfeld, E. E., (1968), The Persian Empire; Studies in Geography and Ethnog-
raphy of the Ancient Near East, Wiesbaden.
Hillers, D. R., (1972), Lamentations, New York.
Hobbs, T. R., (1985), 2 Kings, Waco.
Hochman, B., (1985), Character in Literature, Ithaca.
Hodel-Hoens, S., (2000), Life and Death in Ancient Egypt, New York.
Hoerth, A. J., G. L Mattingly & E.M. Yamauchi, eds., (1996), Peoples of the
OT World, Cambridge.
Hoffner, H. A., (1969), “Some contributions of Hittitology to the OT Study,”
TynB 20, pp. 48-51.
Hoglund, K., (1991), “The Achaemenid Context,” in Second Temple Studies,
vol. 1 Persian Period, ed. Ph. R. Davies, Sheffield, pp. 54- 72.
Horn, S. H., (1964), “Mordecai, A Historical Problem,” BibRe 9, pp. 14-25.
Horst, S., Von. (1967), “Die Vorgeschichte der Königserhebung Sauls,” ZAW
79, pp. 155-171.
Huffmon, H. B., (1966), “The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yada’,” BASOR
181, pp. 31-38, 184.
Hyman, R. T., (1995), “Power of Persuasion: Judah, Abigail, and Hushai,” JBQ,
23, pp. 9-16.
Hölscher, G., (1922), Geschichte der israelitischen und jüdischen Religion,
Giessen.
Ishida, T., (1977), The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel, Berlin & New York.
Ishida, T., (1982), “Solomon’s Succession to the Throne of David – A Political
Analysis,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon And Other Es-
says, ed. T. Ishida, Tokyo, pp. 175-187.
Ishida, T., (1987), “Adonijah the Son of Haggith and His Supporters: An In-
quiry into Problems About History and Historiography,” in The Future of
Biblical Studies, eds. R. E. Friedman and H. G. M.Williamson, Atlanta, pp.
165-188.
Jacobsen, T., (1939), The Sumerian King List, Chicago.
Japhet, S., (1993), 1 & 2 Chronicles , London.
Jasnow, R., (2003a), “Egypt, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Peri-
od,” in A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook, Boston &
Leiden, pp. 255-288.
Jasnow, R., (2003b), “Egypt, New Kingdom,” in A History of Ancient Near
Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook, Boston & Leiden, pp. 289-360.
Jasnow, R., (2003c), “Egypt, Third Intermediate Period,” in A History of An-
cient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook, Boston & Leiden, pp. 777-818.
Jenni, E. and C. Westermann, eds., (1971, 1976), Theologisches Handwörter-
buch zum Alten Testament, 2 vol., Munich.
Jensen, P., (1892), “Elamitische Eigennamen. Ein. Beitrag zur Erklärung der
elamitischen Inschriften,” WZKM 6, 209-226.
Jobes, K. H., (1996), The Alpha-Text of Esther; Its Character and Relationship
to the Masoratic Text, Atlanta.
Jobling, D., (1991), “Forced Labour: Solomon’s Golden Age and the Question
of Literary Representation,” Semeia 54, pp. 57-76.
Jobling, D., (1998), 1 Samuel, Collegeville.
Johnstone, W., (1997a), 1 and 2 Chronicles , vol. 1, Sheffield.
Johnstone, W., (1997b), 1 and 2 Chronicles , vol. 2, Sheffield.
Jones, B. W., (1978), “Two Misconceptions about the Book of Esther,” CBQ 39,
pp. 171-181.
Kapelrud, A. S., (1955), “King and Fertility, a Discussion of II Sam 21:1-14,”
Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift, 56, pp. 113-122.
Kapelrud, A. S., (1959), “King David and the Sons of Saul,” in The Sacral King
ship: contributions to the central theme of the VIIIth International
Congress for the History of Religions (Rome, April 1955), Leiden, pp.
294-301.
Kaufman, Y., (1962), ‫( ספר שופטים‬The Book of Judges), Jerusalem.
Kautzsch, E., ed., (1946), Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed., Oxford.
Kees, H., (1964), Die Hohepriester des Amun von Karnak von Herihor bis zum
Ende der Äthiopienzeit, Leiden.
Keys, G., (1996), The Wages of Sin, A Reappraisal of the ‘Succession Narra-
tive,’ Sheffield.
Klaus, N., (1987), "‫“( "נאום אביגיל‬Abigail’s speech”), Bet Miqra 32/4, pp. 320-
331.
Klein, L. R., (1994), “A Spectrum of Female Characters in the Book of Judges,”
in A Feminist Companion to Judges, ed. A. Brenner, Sheffield, pp. 24-34.
Knight, G. F., (1984), Isaiah 40-55, 2nd ed., Edinburgh.
Knoppers, G. N., (1993-4), Two Nations under God, vol. 1-3, Atlanta.
Bibliography 153
Kohler, L. and W. Baumgartner (1958), Lexicon in Veteris Testament Libros,

Leiden.
König, F. E., (1881), Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Spra-
che, vol. I, Leipzig.
König, F. E., (1895), Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen
Sprache, vol. II/1, Leipzig.
König, F. E., (1897), Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen
Sprache, vol. II/2, Leipzig.
Korosec, V., (1938), ”Ehe,” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie, vol. 2, Berlin and
Leipzig, pp. 281-293.
Kossmann, R., (2000), Die Esther Novelle: vom Erzählten zur Erzählung, Lei-
den.
Kutsko, J. F., (2000), Between Heaven and Earth, Winona Lake.
LaCocque, A., (1998), Romance She Wrote, Harrisburg.
Laffey, A. L., (1988), An Introduction to the Old Testament; A Feminist Per-
spective, Philadelphia.
Lafont, S., (2003), “Middle Assyrian Period,” in A History of Ancient Near
Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook, Leiden-Boston, pp. 521-564.
Lanaik, T. S., (1998), Shame and Honor in the Book of Esther, Atlanta.
Lasine, S., (1984), “Guest and Host in Judges 19,” JSOT 29, pp. 37-59.
Lawson Younger, K., W. W. Hallo and B. F. Batto, eds., (1991), The Biblical
Canon in Comparative Perspective, New York & Ontario.
Lebram, J. C. H., (1972), “Purimfest und Estherbuch,” VT, 22, pp. 208-222.
Lefèbre, G., (1929), Histoire des Grandes Prêtres d’Amon de Karnak, Paris.
Lemche, N. P., (1988), Ancient Israel; A New History of Israelite Society, Shef-
field.
Lemche, N.P., (1994), “Is It Still Possible to Write A History of Ancient Isra-
el?,” SJOT 8/2, pp. 165-190.
Lesko, B. S., (1987), The Remarkable Women of Ancient Egypt, Providence.
Lesko, B. S., ed., (1989), Women’s Earliest Records from Ancient Egypt and
Western Asia, Atlanta.
Levenson, J. D., (1978), “ 1 Samuel 25 as Literature and History,” CBQ, 40,
pp. 11-28.
Levenson, J. D & B. Halpern, (1980), “The Political Import of David`s Marriag-
es,” JBL, 99/4, pp. 507-518.
Levenson, J. D., (1997), Esther: A Commentary, London.
Liddell, H. G. & R. Scott (1996), Greek English Lexicon, 9th ed., Oxford.
Lipinski, E., (1997), Semitic Languages Outline of A Comparative Grammar,
Leuven.
Liver, J., (1967), ”The book of the Acts of Solomon,” Biblica 48/1, pp. 75-101.
Liver, J., (1968), ‫ אנציקלופדיה מקראית‬,‫מעכתי‬,‫”( מעכה‬Maacah, Maacahti”), in Bibli-
cal Encyclopaedia, eds., Y. Liver, Sh. E. Levinstem, B. Mazar and Ch. Rab-
in, vol. 5, p. 193.
Lockhart, L., (1939), Famous Cities in Iran, Brentford.
Loewenstamm, S., (1971), ”Esther 9:29-32: The Genesis of a late addition,”

HUCA 42, pp. 117-124.
Luckenbill, D. D., (1927), Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon, vol. 2, Chi-
cago.
Macdonald, J., (1964), “The Particle ‫ את‬in Classical Hebrew: some new data on
its use with the nominative,” VT, 14, pp. 264-275.
MacDowell, D. M., (1978), The Law in Classical Athens, Ithaca.
Maine, H., (1917), Ancient Law, Introduction by J. H. Morgan, London.
Malamat, A., (1955), “Doctrine of Causality in Biblical and Hittite Historiog-
raphy: A Parallel,” VT, 5, pp. 1-12.
Malamat, A., (1995), “Is There a Word for the Royal Harem in the Bible? The
Inside Story,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells, eds., D. P. Wright, D. N.
Freedman and A. Hurvitz, Winona Lake, pp. 785-788.
Manniche, L., (1991), Music and Musicians in Ancient Egypt, London.
Marks, J. H. & Good R. M. (1987), Love & Death in Ancient Near East, Essays
in Honor of Marvin. H. Pope, Guilford.
Mauchline, J. (1971), 1 and 2 Samuel , London.
Mayers, C., (1988), Discovering Eve, New York.
Mazar, B., (1957), “The Campaign of Pharaoh Shishak to Palestine,” VT
Suppl.,4, pp. 57-66.
McCarter, P. K. Jr, (1981), “Plots, True or False, the Succession Narrative as
Court Apologetic,” Interpretation, 35/4, pp. 355-367.
McCarter, P. K., (1984), 2 Samuel , Garden City.
McKane, W., (1963), 1 & 2 Samuel , London.
Mckeating, H., (1993), Ezekiel, Sheffield.
Mckenzie, J. L., (1968), Second Isaiah, New York.
McKenzie, S. L., (2000), King David, A Biography, Oxford.
Mettinger, T. N. D., (1976), King and Messiah; The Civil and Sacral Legitima-
tion of the Israelite King, Lund.
Meyers, C., (1978), “Roots and Restriction: Women in Early Israel,” BA 41, pp.
91-103.
Meyers, A. C., ed., (1987), The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Ann Arbor.
Mieroop, M. van der (2002), “A Critical Review on ‘The Shemshara Archives
vol. 1: The Letters, by Eidem, J.,’” JCS 54, pp. 130-134.
Milik, J.T., (1992-93), “Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la grotte 4
de Qumran,” RevQ 15-16, pp. 321-99.
Montgomery, J. A. and H. S. Gehman, (1951), A Critical and Exegetical Com-
mentary on the Books of Kings, Edinburgh.
Moody, Y. D., (1968), Spirit of the Living God, Philadelphia.
Moore, C. A., (1967), “A Greek Witness to a Different Hebrew Text of Esther,”
ZAW, 79, pp. 351-358.
Moore, C. A., (1971), Esther, Garden City.
Moore, C. A., (1975), “Archaeology and the Book of Esther,” BA, 38, pp. 62-79.
Moore, C. A., (1977), Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions, New York.
Bibliography 155
Moore, C. A., (1983), “Esther Revisited again: a further Examination of Certain

Esther Studies of the past ten years,” Hebrew Annual Review 7, Biblical and
other studies in honor of Robert Gordis, pp. 169-186.
Moore, G. F., (1903), Judges, 2nd ed., Edinburgh.
Moran, W. L., (1992), The Amarna Letters, Baltimore & London.
Mowinckel, S., (1959), “General Oriental and Specific Israelite Elements in the
Israelite Conception of the Sacral Kingdom,” in The Sacral Kingship, Lei-
den, pp. 283-293.
Mulder, M. J., (1972), “Versuch zur Deuteronomium von SOKENET in 1. Kön.
I 2, 4,” VT 22, pp. 43-54.
Mulder, M. J., (1998), 1 Kings, vol. 1, Leuven.
Muraoka, T., (trs.), (1991), A Grammar of the Biblical Hebrew, vol. 2, Rome.
Muraoka, T., (trs.), (1993), A Grammar of the Biblical Hebrew, vol. 1, Rome.
Murphy, R. E. and O. Carm, (1981), Wisdom Literature; Job, Proverbs, Ruth,
Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, Grand Rapids.
Myers, J. M., (1965A), II Chronicles, New York,
Myers, J. M., (1965B), 1 Chronicles , New York.
Myers, J. M., (1975), “The Way of the Fathers,” Interpretation, 29, pp. 121-140.
Naguib, S. A., (1989), Le clergé féminin d’Amon thébain à la 21 e dynastie,
Bergen.
Niccacci, A., (1990), The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, Shef-
field.
Nicol, G. G., (1998), “David, Abigail and Bathsheba, Nabal and Uriah. Trans-
formations within A Triangle,” SJOT 12, pp. 130-145.
Niessen, R., (1980), “The Virginity of the ‫ עלמה‬in Isaiah 7:14, Bibliotheca Sa-
cra, 137/546, pp. 133-150.
Nolan Fewell, D. and D. M. Gunn, (1993), Gender, Power & Promise, The
Subject of the Bible’s First Story, Nashville.
Nord, D., (1975), “Der königliche Harem,” JNES 34, 142-145.
Nord, D., (1981), “The Term Ḥnr: ‘Harem’ or ‘Musical Performers’?,” Studies
in Ancient Egypt, The Aegean, and the Sudan; Essays in Honor of Dows
Dunham on the Occasion of His 90th Birthday, June I, 1980, eds., W. K.
Sympson and W. M. Davis, Boston, pp. 137-145.
Noth, M., (1968), Könige, Neukirchen.
Nyberg, H. S., (1952), Hebreisk Grammatik, Uppsala.
O’Connor, D and D. P. Silverman, eds., (1995), Ancient Egyptian Kingship,
Leiden.
O’Connor, K. M., (2003), ”Humour, Turnabouts and Survival in the Book of
Esther,” in Are We Amused?, ed. A. Brenner, London & New York, pp. 52-
64.
O’Connor, M., (1987), “The Women in the Book of Judges,” HAR 10, pp. 277-
293.
Oelsner, J., B. Wells, and C. Wunsch, (2003), “Neo-Babylonian Period,” in A

History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook, Boston & Leiden,
pp. 911-974.
Ogden, D., (1999), Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: the Hellenistic Dynasties,
London.
Olmstead, A. T., (1966), History of the Persian Empire, Achaemenid Period, 5th
ed., Chicago.
Oswalt, J. N., (1998), The Book of Isaiah, Cambridge.
Paton, L. B., (1908), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of
Esther, Edinburgh.
Peirce, L. P., (1993), The Imperial Harem, Women and Sovereignty in the Otto-
man Empire, New York & Oxford.
Perdue, L. G., (1997), “The Israelite and Early Jewish Family: Summary and
Conclusions,” in Families in Ancient Israel, eds., L. G. Perdue, J. Blen-
kinsopp, J. J. Collins and C. Meyers, Louisville-Kentucky, pp. 163-222.
L. G. Perdue, J. Blenkinsopp, J. J. Collins and C. Meyers, eds., (1997), Families
in Ancient Israel, Louisville.
Pfeiffer, R. H., (1941), Introduction to the Old Testament, New York.
Pfitserer Darr, K., (1991), Far More Precious than Jewels, Louisville.
Phelan, J., (1989), Reading People, Reading Plots, Chicago.
Phipps, W. E., (1992), Assertive Biblical Women, New - York.
Pippin, T., (1994), “Jezebel Re-Vamped,” in A Feminist Companion to Samuel
and Kings, ed. A. Brenner, pp. 196-207.
Pokorny, J., (1959), Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, vol. 1, ed.
T. Pokorny, Bern, pp. 323-324.
Poulssen, N., (1982), ”An Hour with Rispah, Some Reflections on II Sam 21,
10,” in Von Kanaan bis Kerala, eds., W. C. Delsman, J. T. Nelis, J. R. T. M.
Peters, W. H. Ph. Römer and A. S. Van der Woude, Neukirchen-Vluyn, pp.
185-212.
Powell, J. E., (tr.) (1949), Herodotus, Oxford.
Praag, A. Van, (1945), Droit matrimonial assyro-Babylon, Amsterdam.
Prásek, J. Van, (1968), Geschichte der Meder und Perser bis zur makedonischen
Eroberung, vol. 2, 2nd ed., Darmstadt.
Pritchard, J. B., ed., (1973), Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3rd ed., New Jersey.
Rabin, C., (1974), “The Origin of the Word pilegesh,” JJS 25, pp. 353-364.
Ratner, R. J., (1997), Gender Problems in Biblical Hebrew, Ann Arbor.
Rawson, B., (1974), “Roman Concubinage and Other de facto Marriages,” in
Transactions of the American Philological Association 104, pp. 279-305.
Redford, D. B., (1967), History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of
Egypt: Seven Studies, Toronto.
Reiser, E., (1972), Der königliche Harem im alten Ägypten und seine Verwal-
tung, Dissertation der Universität Wien Bd 77, Vienna.
Rice, G., (1990), Nations under God. A Commentary on the Book of 1 Kings,
Edinburgh.
Bibliography 157
Richardson, M. E. J., ed., (1996), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament, Cologne, Leiden & New York.
Robertson Smith, W., (1963), Kinship & Marriage in Early Arabia, 2nd ed.,
Boston.
Robins, G., (1983), “The God’s Wife of Amun in the 18th Dynasty in Egypt,” in
Images of Women in Antiquity, eds., A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt, London, pp.
65-78.
Robins, G., (1993), Women in Ancient Egypt, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Rofe, A., (1987), “Family and Sex Laws in Deuteronomy” Henoch 9, pp. 131-
159.
Rook, J., (1997), “Making Widows: The Patriarchal Guardian at Work,” BTB
27/1, pp. 10-15.
Rook, J., (1998), “When is a Widow Not a Widow?,” BTB 28/1, pp. 4-6.
Rosenberg, J., (1986), King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible,
Bloomington.
Roth, M. T., (1989), Babylonian Marriage Agreements, 7th-3rd Centuries B.C.,
Kevelaer.
Roth, S., (2002), Gebieterin aller Länder; Die Rolle der königlichen Frauen in
der fiktiven und realen Außenpolitik des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches, Frei-
burg.
Salvesen, A., (1999), ”‫( כתר‬Esther 1:11; 2:17; 6:8) ’Something to Do with A
Camel ’?,” JSS 44/1, pp. 35-46.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H., (1993), “Exit Atossa: Images of Women in Greek
Historiography on Persia,” in Images of Women in Antiquity, eds., A. Came-
ron & A. Kuhurt, London, pp. 20-33.
Saydon, P. P., (1964), “Meaning and Uses of the Particle ‫את‬,” VT 14, pp. 192–
210.
Schearing, L. S., (1992), “Maacah,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N.
Freedman, New - York, pp. 429-430.
Schmitt, R., (1985), “Achaemenid Dynasty,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. I/4,
ed. E. Yarshater, pp. 414-426.
Schneider, T. J., (2000), Judges, 2nd ed., Collegeville.
Schulman, A. R., (1979), “Diplomatic Marriage in the Egyptian New King-
dom,” JNES 38/3, pp. 177-193.
Schulz, A., (1991), “Narrative Art in the Books of Samuel,” in Narrative and
Novella in Samuel, ed. D. M. Gunn, Sheffield, pp. 119-170. [Translated
from the German: “Biblische Zeitfragen,” 11th series, 6-7, 1923].
Segal, M. H., (1958), A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, 2nd ed., Oxford.
Segal, E., (1994), The Babyloniann Esther Midrash; A Critical Commentary,
Atlanta.
Seibert, I., (1974), Women in Ancient Near East, New York.
Shafer, B. E., ed., (1991), Religion in Ancient Egypt; Gods, Myths, and Personal
Practice, Ithaca and London
Shaw, I., ed., (2000), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford.
Sicherman, H., (2003), “’Foremost in Rank and Foremost in Power;’ Conflict

Over the First-Born in Israel,” JBQ 31/1, pp. 17-25.
Silverman, D. P., (1991), “Divinity and the Deities in Ancient Egypt,” in Reli-
gion in Ancient Egypt; Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice, ed. B. E. Shaf-
er, Ithaca and London, pp. 7-87.
Skinner, J., (1930), Genesis, 2nd ed., Edinburgh.
Smith, C., (1998), “´Queenship’ in Israel? The Cases of Bathsheba, Jezebel and
Athaliah,” in King and Messiah in Israel and Ancient Near East; Proceed-
ings of the Oxford OT Seminar, ed. J. Day, Sheffield, pp. 142-162.
Smith, H. P., (1899), The Books of Samuel, Edinburgh.
Soden, W. Von (1981), Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, Wiesbaden.
Soggin, J. A., (1963), “Charisma und Institution im Königtum Sauls,” ZAW 75,
pp. 54-65.
Soggin, J. A., (1981), Judges, Philadelphia.
Solvang, E. K., (2003), A Woman’s Place is in the House, Sheffield.
Spanier, K., (1994), “The Queen Mother in the Judean Royal Court: Maacah- A
Case Study,” in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings, ed. A. Bren-
ner, Sheffield, pp. 186-195.
Speiser, E. A., (1964), Genesis, New York.
Stanton, E. C., and L. B. Chandler, (1974 rep.), “Comments on the Book of
Esther,” in The Women’s Bible, New York, pp. 84-92.
Steinkeller, P., (1981), “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” Acta Sumerologia 3,
pp. 75-92.
Sternberg, M., (1987), The Poetics of Biblical Narrative; Ideological Literature
and the Drama of Reading, Bloomington.
Stolper, M. W., (1985), Entrepreneurs and Empire The u r sú Archive, the
u r sú Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylon, Istanbul.
Sweeney, M. A., (1995), “The Critique of Solomon in the Josianic Edition of
the Deuteronomistic History,” JBL 114/4, pp. 607-622.
Sweeney, M. A., (1996), Isaiah 1-39, Cambridge.
Sykes, P., (1921), A History of Persia, vol. 1, London.
Talmon, Sh., (1995), “Was the Book of Esther Known at Qumran?,” DSD 2, pp.
249-267.
Talshir, Z., (2002), “1 Kings and 3 Kingdoms-Origin and Revision Case Study:
The Sins of Solomon (1 Kings 11),” Textus 21, pp. 71-106.
Terrien, S., (1985), Till the Heart Sings, Philadelphia.
Thiel, W. von, (1994), “Rizpa und das Ritual von Gibeon,” (1994), in Wer ist
wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?: Studien zur Theologie und Religionsges-
chichte Israels ; für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. O. Kaiser, Göttin-
gen, pp. 247-262.
Todd, J. A., (1990), Can Their Voices be Heard? Narratives about women in 1
Samuel 16 through 1 Kings 2, Ann Arbor.
Toorn, Van der, K., (1986), Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia, Assen.
Bibliography 159
Tov, E., (1982), “The ‘Lucianic’ Text of the Canonical and the Apocryphal
Sections of Esther: A Rewritten Biblical Book,” Textus 10, pp. 1-25.
Tov, E., (2001), Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed., Assen.
Treggiari, S., (1991), Roman Marriage, Oxford.
Trible, P., (1978), “Women in the Old Testament,” in The Interpreter’s Diction-
ary of the Bible, Sup. vol., eds., G. A. Buttrick and K. A. Crim, Abingdon,
pp. 963-966.
Troy, L., (1986), Patterns of Queenship in Ancient Egyptian Myth and History,
Uppsala.
Troyer, K. de (2002), “The Letter of the King and the Letter of Mordecai,” Tex
tus 21, pp. 175-207.
Tsevat, M., (1958), “Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and Isra
el,” JSS 3/3, pp. 237-243.
Tyldesley, J., (1994), Daughters of Isis; Women of Ancient Egypt, London.
Tyldesley, J., (1996), Hatchepsut: the Female Pharaoh, London.
Ulrich, E. Ch., (1978), The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, Missoula.
Valler, S., (1999), Women and Womanhood in the Talmud, Atlanta.
Vaux De, R., (1965), Ancient Israel, 2nd ed., London.
Veenhof, K. R., (1982), “The Old Assyrian Merchants and Their Relations with
the Native Population of Anatolia,” in Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn,
Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient, vol. 1, eds. H. J. Nissen and J.
Renger, Berlin,
Veijola, T., (1975), Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dy-
nastie nach der Deuteronomyeronomistische Darstellung, Helsinki.
Vermaak, P. S., (1994), “The Prowess of the Benjaminites,” JBQ 22/2, pp. 73-
84.
Vialle, C., (2010), Une analyse comparée D’Esther T et LXX, Leuven-Paris-
Walpole.
Vries De, S. J., (1985), 1 Kings, Waco.
Wacker, M. T., (2003), “Rizpa oder: Durch Trauer-Arbeit zur Versöhnung,
Anmerkung zu 2 Samuel 21, 1-14,” in Textarbeit, Studien zu Texten und ih-
rer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels,Festschrift
für Peter Weimar, eds. K. Kiesow und T. Meurer, Münster, pp. 545-567.
Wahlt, H. M., (1999), “Ester, das adoptierte Waisenkind. Zur Adoption im Al-
ten Testament,” Biblica 80, pp. 78-79.
Walfish, B. D., (1993), Esther in Medieval Garb: Jewish Interpretation of the
Book of Esther in the Middle Ages, Albany.
Walters, S. D., (1993), “Childless Michal, Mother of Five,” in The Tablet and
the Scroll, Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, eds. M. E.
Cohen, D. C. S. and D. B. Weisberg, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 290-296.
Ward, W. A., (1986), Essays on Feminine Titles of the Middle Kingdom and
Related Subjects, Beirut.
Watterson, B., (1991), Women in Ancient Egypt, New York.
Watts, J. D. W., (1985), Isaiah 1-33, Waco.
Watts, R. E., (2004), “Immanuel; Virgin Birth Proof Text or Programmatic

Warning of Things to Come (Isa. 7:14 in Matt 1:23)?,” in From Prophecy to
Testament, ed. C. A. Evans, Oxford, pp. 92 – 113.
Weber, M., (1952), Ancient Judaism, Glencoe.
Weidner, E. F., (1956), “Hof-und Harmes- Erlasse Assyrischer Konige aus dem
2.Jahrtausend v.Chr,” AfO 17, pp. 257-293.
Weisberg, D. B., (1971), “Royal Women of the Neo-Babylonian Period,” in Le
Palais et la Royauté, ed. P. Garelli, Paris, pp. 447-454.
Weisman, Z., (1976), ” ‫( שרותיה‬Jud. v 29),” VT 26, pp. 116-120.
Wells, J., (1907), ”The Persian Friends of Herodotus,” JHS 27, pp. 37-47.
Wenham, G. J., (1979), “The Restoration of Marriage Reconsidered,” JJS 30,
pp. 36-40.
Wenham, G. J., (1972), “Betulah, a Girl of Marriageable Age,” VT 22, pp. 326-
348.
Wenham, G. J., (1987), Genesis, vol. 2, Waco.
Wente, E., (1967), “On the Chronology of the 21 st Dynasty,” JNES 26, pp. 155-
176.
Westbrook, R., (1988), Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law, Paris.
Westbrook, R., ed., (2003), A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, 2 vols.,
Boston & Leiden.
Westermann, A., (1984), Genesis, vol. 2, and 3, Minneapolis.
White, S. A., (1989), “Esther: A Feminine Model for Jewish Diaspora,” in
Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, Minneapolis, ed. P. L. Day, pp.
161-177.
Whitelman, K. W., (2000), “’Israel is laid waste; his seed is no more’: What if
Merneptah’s scribes were telling the truth?,” Biblical Interpretation 8/2, pp.
8-22.
William, H. B., (1997), “Non-Synoptic Chronological References in the Books
of Chronicles,” in The Chronicler As Historian, eds. M. Graham, K. G.
Hoglund, and S. J. McKenzie, Sheffield, pp. 106-131.
Williamson, H. G., (1982), 1 & 2 Chronicles, London.
Wolde, E. van, (2002), “A Leader Led By A Lady; David and Abigail in I Sam-
uel 25,” ZAW 114/3, pp. 355-375.
Wright, G. E., ed., (1961), The Bible and the Ancient Near East, London.
Wright, J. S., (1970), “The History of the Book of Esther,” in New Perspectives
on the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Payne, London and Waco, pp. 37-47.
Wttekindt, W., (1926), Das hohe Lied und seine Beziehungen zum Itsarkult.
Yamauchi, E. M., (1980), “The Archaeological Background of Esther,” Biblio-
theca Sacra 127, pp. 99-117.
Yeivin, S., (1964), ”,‫“( "המלך יהושפט‬King Jehoshaphat”), Eretz-Israel 7, pp. 6-
17.
Zeitlin, S., (1941), “The Opposition to the Spiritual Leaders Appointed by the
Government,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 31/3, pp. 287-300.
Index of Old Testament References
Genesis 2:9, 42 Genesis 38, 110

Genesis 11:29, 43 Genesis 38:18, 110
Genesis 12, 53 Genesis 41:13, 58
Genesis 12:10, 53 Genesis 41:33, 72
Genesis 12:11, 54 Genesis 41:41- 109
Genesis 12:12, 54 46
Genesis 12:13, 54 Genesis 41:42, 109,110
Genesis 12:15, 54
Genesis 12:16, 54 Exodus 11:12, 49
Genesis 12:18, 54 Exodus 20:1- 50
Genesis 16:4-8, 43 18,
Genesis 19:22, 58 Exodus 25, 109
Genesis 19:33, 74 Exodus 25:22, 109
Genesis 19- 53
20:1, Numbers 12:47- 41
Genesis 20, 53 49,
Genesis 20:2, 54 Numbers 22:20- 41
Genesis 20:5, 54 23,
Genesis 20:9, 54 Numbers 31:50, 109
Genesis 20:11, 54
Genesis 20:13, 54 Deuteronomy 50
Genesis 20:14- 54 5:1-22,
17, Deuteronomy 41
Genesis 22:8, 72 14:28-29,
Genesis 25:28, 64 12:13,
Genesis 26, 53 Deuteronomy 41
Genesis 26:1, 53 17:9-14,
Genesis 26:7, 54 17:14-20,
Genesis 26:9- 54 24:17-22,
11,
Genesis 26:11- 54 Joshua 17:3, 41
14,
1 Samuel 1, 64 1 Kings 74
1 Samuel 74 13:33,
2:23, 1 Kings 98
1 Samuel 72 16:31,
16:1-17, 1 Kings 18:4, 98
1 Samuel 25, 95, 96 1 Kings 98
1 Samuel 97 18:19,
25:24, 1 Kings 19, 98
1 Samuel 97 1 Kings 21, 99
25:25, 1 Kings 21:8, 110, 111
2 Samuel 73 2 Kings 10:3, 72

2:26, 2 Kings 43
2 Samuel 14, 95 10:13,
2 Samuel 59 2 Kings 24, 130
15:30, 2 Kings 123
2 Samuel 61 25:26-27,
20:3,
2 Kings 25:27 123
1 Kings 1, 60, 100, 133
1 Kings 1:1-4, 83, 88, 105, Isaiah 1:23, 41
133 Isaiah 3:21, 109
1 Kings 1:4, 94, 133
1 Kings 1:11, 100, 104 Jeremiah 7, 41
1 Kings 1:15, 101, 105 Jeremiah 14:3, 59
1 Kings 1:16, 101 Jeremiah 28:4, 124
1 Kings 1:16- 102 Jeremiah 28:6, 124
31, Jeremiah 29:1, 124
1 Kings 1:19, 101 Jeremiah 124
1 Kings 1:34- 103 29:20,
35, Jeremiah 124
1 Kings 2, 60 29:22,
1 Kings 2:16, 106 Jeremiah 73
1 Kings 2:17, 100, 104 32:40,
1 Kings 2:18- 100
24, Ezekiel 1, 124
1 Kings 2:19, 106 Ezekiel 33:9, 74
1 Kings 2:20- 103
22, Hosea 3:1, 64
1 Kings 2:23- 104
25, Psalms 46
1 Kings 10:8, 74 145:13,
1 Kings 11:1- 79
5, Proverbs 8:30, 49
Index 163
Job 1, 58 139
Song of 43, 44 Esther 2:22, 43

Songs, 6:8-9, Esther 3, 55, 77
Esther 3:1-2, 129
Ruth 2, 41 Esther 3:4, 54
Esther 3:8, 129
Esther 1, 68 Esther 3:10, 109
Esther 1:10, 61 Esther 3:12, 109
Esther 1:11, 46 Esther 3:15, 129
Esther 2, 39, 62, 77, 94, Esther 4, 55, 56, 80, 87
121, 130, 131, Esther 4:4, 52
133 Esther 4:5-17, 62
Esther 2:1, 68, 88 Esther 4:7-9, 56, 104, 125
Esther 2:2, 88, 89, 90, 91 Esther 4:7-13, 100
Esther 2:2-3, 83, 84 Esther 4:11, 66, 79
Esther 2:3, 61, 71, 81, 82 Esther 4:13- 126
Esther 2:4, 68, 81, 89 14,
Esther 2:5-6, 45, 54 Esther 4:15- 127
Esther 2:5-7, 130 17,
Esther 2:7, 39, 40, 42, 43, Esther 4:16, 80
45, 49, 53, 54, Esther 5, 68, 77, 87
85, 86, 130 Esther 5:1, 46, 101, 104
Esther 2:8, 54, 81, 82, 89, Esther 5:2, 47
90 Esther 5:3-4, 102
Esther 2:8-9, 62 Esther 5:4, 55, 57, 97
Esther 2:8-16, 71 Esther 5:5, 57, 103
Esther 2:9, 45, 73, 80, 81, Esther 5:8, 97
82, 89 Esther 5:9-11, 103
Esther 2:10, 54, 71, 89 Esther 5:10, 68, 69
Esther 2:12, 76, 81, 82 Esther 5:11, 58, 68
Esther 2:13, 76, 81, 82 Esther 5:12, 58, 68, 104
Esther 2:14, 66, 76, 81, 82, Esther 5:13, 68, 69, 104
83, 84, 85 Esther 5:14, 68, 104
Esther 2:15, 76 Esther 6:1-3, 53
Esther 2:15- 45, 90 Esther 6:5, 47
16, Esther 6:8, 46
Esther 2:17, 46, 63, 64, 65, Esther 6:12, 70
68, 77, 90 Esther 6:12- 58, 69
Esther 2:19- 56 13,
21, Esther 6:14, 59, 69
Esther 2:20, 45, 49, 54, 79, Esther 7:1-4, 47
Esther 7:3, 128, 129 Esther 8:7, 52

Esther 7:3-7, 67 Esther 8:7-8, 103
Esther 8:8, 80, 109
Esther 7:4, 128 Esther 8:10, 81, 109
Esther 7:5, 97 Esther 8:15, 46
Esther 7:6, 60 Esther 9:1-5, 66
Esther 7:7, 60 Esther 9:12- 48
Esther 7:10, 55 13,
Esther 7:15, 54 Esther 9:20, 81
Esther 7:16, 130 Esther 9:21, 81
Esther 8, 47 Esther 9:29, 52, 81
Esther 8:1, 53, 54, 67 Esther 9:29- 48
Esther 8:1-2, 53,129 32,
Esther 8:2, 52, 54, 109, Esther 9: 31 52
130 1 Chronicles 123
Esther 8:3, 47, 48, 81, 97, 13:18-24,
100, 101 1 Chronicles 72
Esther 8:4, 48, 101 17:17,
Esther 8:5-7, 102 2 Chronicles 59
Esther 8:6, 130 26:20,

Esther, Queen of The Jews The Status and Position of Esther in The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esther, Queen of The Jews The Status and Position of Esther in The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esther, Queen of the Jews

Winona Lake, Indiana

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Davidovich, Tal, 1969–

I am also indebted to the Linders, Sven stipendium, to Carlo Lamberg

AJA American Journal of Archeology

1.2 Structure and Method

This study includes the following elements: an introduction, an examination

Furthermore, a comparative method will be used in order to study the posi-

1.3 Earlier Studies

For Jewish midrashic interpretations see, among others:

Olmstead’s History of the Persian Empire; Achaemenid Period (Chicago,

Charles V. Dorothy, in The Books of Esther: Structure, Gender, and Textual

1.4 Aim of investigation

1.5 The Achaemenid Dynasty and the Status of Royal

knowledge in his writing. Therefore, available information on the manners and

1.6 The Achaemenid Kings and Their Royal Women

political agreements concluded by marriage contracts or other contracts which

1.7 The different Versions of the Book of Esther

1.8 Queen Esther in Proof of History

2.2 The Story

2.3 Direct Characterizations/Descriptions of the Status of

2.3.1 Her Name

2.3.2 Her Nickname and Other Direct Description

2.3.2.1 “Without father and mother”

2.3.2.2 “Esther Bat Abihail”

2.3.2.3 “The young girl”

2.3.2.4 ‫תַֹּאר‬-‫ יְפַת‬and ‫טֹובַת מ ְַראֶה‬

2.4 Indirect Characterizations for the Status of Esther as

2.4.1 Her Actions

2.4.2 Her relations with Other Characters

2.4.2.1 Her relations with Mordecai

2.4.2.2. The Scenes with Haman

2.4.2.3 Esther and the Eunuch

serves as a messenger and mediator between Esther and Mordecai, allowing

2.4.2.4 Esther and Ahasuerus

2.4.3 The Description of the Other Women in the Text

And also in the following text:

Zeresh is mentioned as one of those closest to Haman. 5:10 describes how

2.5 The Description of Her Life in the Palace as One of

2.5.1 The First Period

2.5.2 The Second Period

regarded parts or all of it as a corruption in the OT text. Neither of these

2.6 “In the Evening She Came”

2.6.1 The Process

2.6.2 The Regulations

3.1 The Gathering of the Girls

1 Kings 1:1-4 Esther 2:

search be sought for my lord young girls of mar-

had charged her not to

mentioned only once. In the description of Esther, her beauty is emphasized by

3.2 Approaching the King

3.2.1 Approaching the King Outside His Throne Room

3.2.1.1. Abigail Approaching David

By refusing David’s request, he insulted him by demonstrating both his

3.2.1.2. Jezebel Approaching Ahab

3.2.2 Approaching the King: Esther Versus Bathsheba

The reason for the woman’s initiative

First approach, Esther

First approach, Bathsheba (1 Kings)

Second approach, Esther

Second approach, Bathsheba (1 Kings)