Rereading of Esther 3:8–15 depicts that lawlessness and revolt on the part of the Jewish diaspora community ignited the genocide in the Persian Empire. The narrative is explicit that Haman was not comfortable with two main issues concerning the Jews: (1) their laws were different from those of every other people and (2) they did not keep the king’s laws. In addition, some Jewish individuals were disrespectful to Persian superiors: Mordecai refused to bow down to Haman. Following Haman’s report, Emperor Xerxes endorsed the proposition of exterminating the Jews as a possible solution. The present study argues against a populist view that puts Haman in a bad light. Existing studies on the genocide narrative in Esther 3:8–15 appear to sympathise with the Jewish diaspora community in Persia in spite of their attitude that portrayed some rebellious tendencies. Examined from a security and defence perspective, Haman’s position should be given its merit because the Jews disobeyed the Persian laws and did not show respect to the Persian authorities. The study employs a narrative approach to argue that the Jewish diaspora community orchestrated the genocide by disobeying the Persian laws. It is further argued that Haman had correctly foreseen it coming and confided with Emperor Xerxes. The study will also discuss Haman as a strategist who speculated a possible Jewish revolt, which was confirmed by the massacre of 75 000 people including Haman’s children (9:1–10). This study will present to the academic readership a new dimension of reading Esther 3:8–15.
Previous studies variously provided some magnanimity on the book of Esther. The contribution of the present study to the readership and the academic community seeks to suggest a new reading of the book by arguing that the Jews provoked the Persian authorities by disobeying the laws of the land.
In the ancient Near East (ANE) and during biblical times, people used to move from one place to another either to buy food, for trade or as merchants (cf. Gn 26:3; 37:28; 42:1–3; 1 Ki 5:1–18). Human movement from areas of social and economic distress to those with better prospects for survival and self-actualisation has continued unabated (Isike & Isike
In the Book of Esther, it is very clear that the Jews towards the end of the story became like their oppressors. In order to survive the Jewish people had to do what Haman intended to befall on them. (p. 660)
Although Duguid (
This study utilises narrative inquiry as a qualitative approach (see Sandelowski
Factors that led people to migrate to other parts of the ANE varied. People would move from one place to another because of famine, trade or commerce. In both Mesopotamia and Hatti the voluntary immigration of individuals or families was tolerated, whilst the incursion of armed groups was resisted, but the presence of certain classes of outsiders was actively encouraged by the leaders of society (Beckman
The biblical text narrates the story of Abram who sojourned to Egypt because of famine in Egypt (Gn 12:10). Joseph was sold as a slave by his brothers to Midianite traders for 20 shekels of silver (Gn 37:25–28). Later on Joseph – who was honoured by the Pharaoh and was now in charge of procurement of grain in Egypt and second to Pharaoh (Gn 41:40–44) – told his brothers: ‘I am your brother Joseph whom you sold into Egypt’ (Gn 45:4). The Bible further explains that ‘famine was spread over all the face of the earth …’ (Gn 41:56), and that ‘People of all the earth came to buy grain from Joseph …’ (Gn 41:57). This severe famine that also struck Canaan made Jacob, Joseph’s father, to send his 10 sons ‘to buy grain from Egypt’ (Gn 42:3; 43:1–2). Finally, Jacob and his family together with their flocks and their herds migrated to the land of Goshen in Egypt (Gn 47:1–11). With the passage of time, Jacob’s descendants were treated as slaves in Egypt (Ex 1:11–14; Dt 15:15; 16:12; 24:18), which resulted in the exodus through Moses.
King Solomon also levied forced labour from amongst the descendants of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites (1 Ki 9:20; see also Bremer
Nehemiah’s condemnation of usury was probably because it was exerted on fellow Jews (Buckley
The book of Esther tells the story of the deliverance of the Jews from extermination. Although the narrative differs from the Egyptian Exodus, one would see some resemblance in the two narratives in view of: (1) a community under subjugation and (2) the massacre of the natives. However, Esther 3:8–15 is a narrative about a young Jewish woman (Esther) and her uncle (Mordecai) who managed to secure the future of the Jewish people under the Persian Empire (Reid
The author of the book of Esther is not known. Reid further notes that the story is set in the reign of King Xerxes (486–465 BCE). During this time, some of the exiled Jews returned to Jerusalem, but others remained in Mesopotamia under Persian rule. The Jews who remained were aware that their position was tenuous because Haman was determined to destroy the Jewish people. The book of Esther has many parallels to the exodus story. In the exodus, Yahweh heard the cry of his oppressed people in Egypt (Ex. 6:5), now he hears the wailing of his people facing the terror of Haman (Est. 4:1–3). (pp. 80–81)
The empire of Xerxes was co-opted by Haman to spread the decree to eliminate Mordecai’s people. Esther co-operates with Mordecai and plays a crucial part in saving the Jews (Duguid
All the essential features of the Esther narrative are already there in Exodus 1–12: the foreign court, the mortal threat, the deliverance, the revenge, the triumph, and the establishment of a festival. (p. 11)
The given assertion renders the view that the author of Esther had the exodus tradition in mind. Duguid (
According to the book of Esther the festival of Purim, which occurs on the 14th day of Adar commemorates the escape of the Persian Jews from the death, which the vizier Haman had planned for them. (p. 145)
It has to be noted that whilst the date for execution of Haman’s plot was decided by a lot (Pur), which is Persian, the author of Esther decides to use the term
Of the accusations leveraged by Haman against Mordecai and the rest of the Jews, the question of intermarriage is not mentioned as being contentious. The biblical text forbade the Jews to have spouses from amongst pagan nations (Ex 23:31–33; 34:12–16; Dt 7:2). A case of Esther becoming Queen to a pagan king, to which Buisman (
The readership may need to take note of the fact that Jewish revolt was not unique during the time of Esther at the time of the Persian Empire. For example, the Assyrian domination of the southern Levant is widely discussed (Aster
… 2 Maccabees makes specific reference to a Jewish festival of the time known as ‘the Day of Mordecai’, to which the Maccabees attached the Day of Nicanor on the thirteenth of Adar, suggesting that the Jewish victory over Nicanor took place on the same day as the first of the two days of fighting described in the Esther stories (2 Macc. 15:35–36). The Day of Nicanor (instituted in 160 BCE) celebrated Judah Maccabee’s victory over a Seleucid military commander who (according to Jewish tradition) spit at the Jerusalem Temple and some of its priests while threatening to burn down the Temple in response to the Maccabees’ rededication of it and their attempts to restore Torah observance throughout the Promised Land (1 Macc. 7:25–38; a somewhat different account appears in 2 Macc. 15:1–39, serving as the culmination of the latter narrative). In the book of Maccabees (1 Macc. 7:39-49) the Jews turn to prayer, reminding God of his past judgments against threats to his Temple and his people, and calling upon him to intervene here. This is followed by a profound Jewish military victory that, on its surface, displays no clear divine intervention (1 Macc. 7:39–49). (pp. 50–51)
The argument that king Xerxes lacked a strong administrative skill or rather that his leadership can be described as
Analysing Haman as a strategist and his patriotism to nationalism need not be taken for granted. Any government or cabinet minister who is expected to deliver or execute their constitutional mandate, especially with regard to safety and security of citizens (see Rugwiji
During this time, near the end of his reign, Hadrian imposed restrictions on Jewish activity, which were probably a result of the revolt rather than the cause of the revolt. (p. 602)
Thus, Rugwiji (
The Decalogue (Ex. 20:3–17) given to Israel by Yahweh at Mount Sinai comprised a set of ten laws that were civil, ceremonial and moral in character by which Israel was going to live in the Promised Land. (p. 126)
At least before the establishment of the monarchy, lawlessness abounded because ‘In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes’ (Jdg 17:6; see also Rugwiji
The present study argued that lawlessness by the Jewish diaspora community triggered genocide in the Persian Empire. Two very crucial aspects that Haman raised were: (1) the Jewish laws were different from the laws of other people in the Empire and (2) the Jews had become lawless. An example was cited of Mordecai who disobeyed to bow down for Haman. The study discussed adherence to the law as the right thing to do and that any unlawful acts have a tendency of attracting violence. A disregard of the law tends to perpetuate a culture of rebellion, and the text of Esther 3:8–15 cannot be exonerated from it. Research has shown that any sport needs to be played according to the rules. Neglect of the rules may result in penalisation or complete ban from the sport. It was explored that Israel received from God through Moses at Mount Sinai a set of ceremonial, civil and moral laws by which they were going to live in the Promised Land. From that perspective, one would expect the Israelites to be a law-abiding citizenry. One would have looked up with expectation for this research to elaborate more on the specifics and the requirements of the Persian laws.
The notion of Haman’s plan to exterminate all the Jewish immigrants because of Mordecai’s disobedience towards Haman can further be problematised. The narrative in the Book of Esther highlights the notion that the ‘crime’ of Mordecai of being disrespectful to a minister of state meant that all immigrant Jews must be exterminated. It can be speculated that Haman interpreted Mordecai’s negative attitude as representing the general feeling amongst the Jews aimed at undermining the Persian authority. The text does not present to the readership the criminal activities by the other Jews living in the Persian Empire as a whole. The Persian provincial leadership identified the general mood of Jewish conspiracy and rebellion. It is also natural for any security system (both ancient and modern) to be concerned when the leadership of a group opposed to the government starts moving around and telling their followers how bad the government is, especially when Mordecai demonstrated it openly. Usually, the opposition leadership is looked at with suspicion because of the influence they have on their followers. Haman might have regarded Mordecai as a dangerous person. For Haman to exterminate Mordecai and the ideology he stood for was a job ‘half-done’ because of the perceived seed of rebellion that Mordecai had sown amongst the rest of the Jews.
In my reading of Esther 3:8–15, Haman is presented as a strategist and patriot to nationalism in the narrative; he raises the question of unlawfulness on the part of Jewish immigrants dwelling in the empire. Although Haman was not living anymore to witness the massacre of the Persians by the Jews, one would suspect sheer pride on the part of king Xerxes to take stock of the casualties of the genocide without reflecting on Haman’s foresight. One would also regard Xerxes’ action as betrayal of his own people for both his failure to investigate allegations of lawlessness amongst the Jews and for allowing a militant response by the Jews themselves in retaliation to the planned extermination by the Persians. One would expect Xerxes as a leader to be resilient and prioritise national pride by protecting the nation against attack ahead of individual/personal interests. In my view, King Xerxes did not react in his right frame of mind. Or maybe, he did; however, his decision was consistent with what happened elsewhere in the then ancient world that kings would react or not react precisely on advice by their spouses. Some examples will suffice. King Ahab’s seizure of Naboth’s vineyard and the murder of Naboth by Ahab following the advice by the king’s wife, Jezebel (1 Ki 21); in the New Testament we read that Pilate was hesitant to condemn Jesus to death by crucifixion because his wife had sent him a message that said: ‘Have nothing to do with that righteous Man, because last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him’ (Mt 27:19). Had the Jews not insisted, Pilate would have withdrawn from executing Jesus when the former contemplated on his wife’s advice. However, Pilate finally complied with the Jewish demand by handing over Jesus to be crucified (Lk 23:25; see also Rugwiji
It can also be presupposed that the people that the Jews killed in Persia were civilians who were unarmed and untrained for war. It would be unreasonable for Xerxes to allow the Jews to continue massacring the Persians without the intervention of the Defence and Security system; such a stance would bring into disrepute Xerxes’ leadership style. Given the fact that Xerxes allowed the genocide by the Jews as depicted in the narrative, the readership will then have another explanation that of the Deuteronomistic writer who always attempted to present the Jews as victorious over their enemies in every battle. It can further be problematised that Esther’s call to fasting and praying by the Jews, was actually a call to a revolution, which she saliently orchestrated through deceitfulness. Such a stance about Esther’s actions is perceived on the realisation that a call to fasting and praying can understandably be a quest for the reverse of Haman’s plan, but certainly not an armed struggle as portrayed in the narrative. Nonetheless, Haman’s proposition for an extermination of the Jews arose precisely from the latter’s neglect and disobedience of the laws of the Persian Empire. Rebellious attitude of the Jewish immigrants in Persia was tantamount to military response because of its threat to defence and security.
The author declares that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
T.T.R. is the sole author of this research article.
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author.
Deuteronomist history will be discussed in detail in a future study.
This concept will be discussed in detail in this study.
I have deliberately left out that discussion for another research because of space constraint. The focus at the moment in this present discourse is the lawlessness of the Jewish diaspora community as depicted in the book of Esther.