Annotations for Esther

1:1 India to Cush. The description of the region encompassed is consistent with descriptions of Xerxes’ realm found on the foundation inscription of his palace in Persepolis. India. The northwestern region of the Indus River Valley, which had been conquered by Darius. It corresponds to modern western Pakistan. Cush. The region south of Egypt. Originally, Cush was an Egyptian name for the area between the second and third cataracts of the Nile River. By Xerxes’ time, the term had come to mean southern Egypt, Sudan and northern Ethiopia.

1:3 banquet for all his nobles and officials. Eastern kings often threw lavish banquets for members of the nobility. The Greek author Ctesias reported that 15,000 nobles regularly dined at the tables of Persian kings. The Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal I bragged to have entertained 69,574 guests at a ten-day feast on the dedication of his palace at Calah.

1:4 a full 180 days. Many scholars understand the text to describe a six-month banquet attended by princes and nobles, during which the king’s majesty was on display. Such a long banquet certainly seems excessive, but it is not unprecedented in Jewish literature. The Apocryphal book of Judith tells of an Assyrian king who threw a four-month feast (Judith 1:1).

Alternatively, the Hebrew text does not necessarily mean that the feast lasted six months. Rather, it may imply consecutive acts: first, the feast for the nobles; then, a six-month demonstration of Persian wealth; and finally, a seven-day feast for the people of Susa. The six-month display of wealth might have been more like a tour of his kingdom. King Hezekiah of Judah apparently gave envoys from Babylon such a tour of his kingdom, demonstrating its wealth and glory (2Ki 20:12–19)—probably to draw them into an alliance. Some scholars have suggested that Xerxes’ demonstration was designed to reassure his nobles and garner support for the coming invasion of Greece.

1:5 enclosed garden. In the hot, dry climates of the Near East, gardens often provided some welcome relief. Ancient cuneiform texts describe lavish public gardens constructed in Mesopotamia. Such gardens were often furnished with exotic plants and animals, for the amusement of their visitors (see note on Ge 2:8). The Persians, however, developed monumental gardens to an art form. They served as vacation spots and hunting preserves, as well as displays of royal wealth. Classical writers report that the Persian gardens contained examples of every species of plant or animal in the world. The garden of Cyrus the Great in Pasargadae was one of the most elaborate ever excavated, with stone channels, basins and colonnaded pavilions. The garden was situated so that Cyrus and his guests could see it from his audience hall. The garden of Susa, which has not survived, was probably similar. Such gardens were called by the Persians paridaida, “beyond the wall” (i.e., an enclosed area). It is from this word that the Greeks derived their word paradeisos, which gives us the English word paradise.

1:6 couches of gold and silver. These were apparently not gold plated but solid gold. Herodotus reports that the men of Greece plundered such couches from the Persian camp after the Persians were forced to withdraw from Athens. These couches were cushioned with “rich covertures” to make them more comfortable. To the Greeks, such extravagance seemed to epitomize Persian excesses.

1:7 royal wine. In Achaemenid Persia, grape wine was primarily a drink for the wealthy. The masses had to be contented with “strong drink,” which included beer and date wines. Wine had to be imported from various regions, with inferior brands coming from Babylon. Better wines came from Syria and western Asia. The abundance of wine mentioned here is not meant to convey a sense of debauchery but of wealth and opulence.

1:8 allowed to drink with no restrictions. According to Josephus, it was the custom of the Persians to force the guests to drink nonstop, with the servants bringing wine continually to the table. Alternatively, it has been alleged that protocol required guests to drink whenever the king drank. Xerxes suspended this custom at this banquet, allowing guests to do as they pleased. His laxity in this matter might foreshadow the trouble he would have with a wife who felt his commands could be ignored.

1:9 Vashti. The name is unattested in any ancient sources, but appears to be Persian. It has been suggested that the name may derive from words meaning “the best” or “the beloved.” It might possibly then have been a title for the queen rather than a proper name. According to Herodotus (7.61), Xerxes’ queen (at least in the earlier years of his reign) was a woman named Amestris, daughter of one Otanes, a commander in Xerxes’ army. Amestris was reputed to be a powerful, merciless shrew. She was reported to be the mother of Artaxerxes I, Xerxes’ successor. also gave a banquet. The ancient Persians had no custom requiring that men and women dine separately. Indeed, wives usually accompanied their husbands to dinner banquets. All the same, there is no reason to doubt that segregated dinner affairs could occur. The Persepolis Fortification Tablets, ancient documents excavated from Persepolis, demonstrate that royal wives often acted independently of their husbands. Artystone, one of the wives of Darius I, owned two large estates and had her own servants. One tablet reports that the queen had 512 gallons (1,940 liters) of wine delivered to her house for some occasion, suggesting that she may have been hosting a banquet similar to that given by Vashti.

1:10 in high spirits from wine. Lit. “when the heart of the king was good with wine.” In Biblical anthropology, the heart is not so much the seat of the emotions as of reason and will. The text implies that wine had impaired the king’s judgment. But the Persians would not have regarded Xerxes’ inebriation as a problem. Both Herodotus (1.133) and Strabo (15.3.20) report that the Persians typically decided important matters when they were drunk. Herodotus adds that their decisions would be confirmed when they had sobered up. Decisions made when sober were reportedly considered suspect and had to be reconsidered after the parties were fully inebriated. Whether this truly represents Persian custom or is yet another example of how the Greek authors enjoyed ridiculing the Persians is difficult to discern. eunuchs. See note on 2Ki 9:32.

1:11 bring . . . Queen Vashti . . . in order to display her beauty. Jewish tradition holds that Vashti had been ordered to appear naked before the king, but the tradition has no historical support. Some Greek sources imply that the Persian queen was normally sequestered away and eschewed any public appearance; but scholars have demonstrated that this notion is mainly mythical. Royal women in Persia enjoyed high social status and were schooled in a variety of skills, including horsemanship and archery. They were known to appear in public, travel with their husbands and host feasts. There was nothing shameful in simply appearing at the banquet. Rather, it seems that Vashti was being commanded to act in a fashion that she believed beneath her station. Public displays of beauty were usually expected of concubines, not queens. The fact that she was told to wear the royal crown (which, according to ancient depictions, was actually more like a turban) may only have added insult to injury: the royal crown was a sign of her high status, while the king’s summons seemed to have denied her that very status.

1:13 wise men. They were a part of all ancient Near Eastern courts (indeed, all ancient monarchies). Herodotus confirms that it was the practice of the Persian kings to consult judges on judicial questions, as when King Cambyses (successor of Cyrus) sought a legal loophole that would allow him to marry his own sister.

1:19 cannot be repealed. The idea that the laws of the Medes and Persians could not be repealed is also found in Da 6:8, 12, but the notion is not clearly attested in any classical literature outside the OT. Indeed, the kings of Persia are frequently depicted as changing their decrees (e.g., when King Darius ameliorated his decree to execute the entire family of a certain Intaphernes, instead sparing his brother-in-law and eldest son). Perhaps the best way to understand the statements about the immutability of the king’s decrees is that it would have been considered disgraceful for the king to admit to having made an error, and so once the laws were written down, they would be reasonably immutable.

1:20 women will respect their husbands. Ancient Persia was a patriarchal society, and women in general were expected not only to honor their husbands, but to obey them as well. Nevertheless, we should not conclude that women were held in general subservience to men. The Persepolis Fortification Tablets reveal that women often worked as managers or directors of various businesses and sometimes supervised men. So while men might be urged to rule their homes, women were not generally oppressed.

1:22 to each people in their own language. The official language of the western Persian Empire was Aramaic, even though it was not the native tongue of the Persians. The Achaemenid rulers saw the advantage of continuing to use the lingua franca of the Babylonian Empire they had overtaken. Laws and decrees were usually published in Aramaic. Translating this particular decree into all the languages of the empire would have been a monumental undertaking.

2:2 Let a search be made. This method of procuring a queen is unprecedented in the ancient world. Usually, the queen was of noble rank, chosen for family or political connections, not simply for her beauty. But that does not rule out the possibility that a beautiful woman might catch the king’s eye and rise to a position of power, as in the case of Bathsheba, wife of King David (2Sa 11). virgins. The word here does not necessarily mean those who have never had sexual intercourse, but only young women of marriageable age still under the authority of their fathers. Nonetheless, in the ancient Near East, it would have been unlikely that the king would have taken married or sexually active women into his harem. While there were cases when a king might take another man’s wife, such cases were usually politically motivated—as when David took Michal, daughter of the former king Saul, from her current husband in order to solidify his association with the royal house (2Sa 3:13–15)—or were regarded as examples of tyranny (as with David and Bathsheba, 2Sa 11). There is no reason to assume that married women were taken into Xerxes’ harem.

2:3 in every province of his realm. The text clearly indicates that the candidates for queen were to be taken from all the different ethnic groups in Xerxes’ kingdom. While it would not have been unusual for the king’s harem to include women of various nationalities, it may have been exceptional for the queen to be a non-Persian. But there were documented exceptions to the tradition, including Artaxerxes I and Darius II, both of whom had Babylonian queens. harem. Lit. “house of women,” a special quarters reserved for the king’s wives and concubines.

2:5 tribe of Benjamin . . . the son of Shimei, the son of Kish. The reference to a Benjamite named Kish is reminiscent of Saul, the first king of Israel. Saul was also of Benjamin, and his father was named Kish (1Sa 9:1). The name Shimei too is associated with the house of Saul (2Sa 16:5). Mordecai’s forebears named here are probably not the same people mentioned in the books of Samuel (but it is not impossible, since the word “son” in Hebrew can simply mean “descendant”). The allusion to Saul, however, is probably deliberate given Mordecai’s antagonism to Haman, who is identified as an Agagite—the known opponent of Saul (see note on 3:1).

2:7 Hadassah. Like Mordecai, Esther had a Babylonian name, but her Hebrew name is also recorded. The Hebrew name Hadassah evidently means “myrtle.” This name is not attested anywhere else in the OT or in any known ancient records or literature. The Babylonian name “Esther” derives from Ishtar, the name of one of the most widely honored pagan goddesses. Since Ishtar was the goddess of love, the name seems especially fitting for the woman who was destined to win the heart of the Persian king.

2:8 taken to the king’s palace. Although only one woman would be chosen to replace Vashti, the other women would not be able to return to their homes. Rather, they all would become wives of the king, even if only of “concubine” status (see note on 1Ki 11:3). They remained in the harem even after one was selected to be queen. So Esther did not commit fornication when she finally slept with the king, as some commentators have suggested. Rather, she was fulfilling her conjugal duties as one of the king’s wives.

2:9 special food. Lit. “her portion of food.” The Hebrew word translated “portion” generally means something reserved for those in special positions and offices, such as kings or Levites (2Ch 31:3; Ne 12:44). The text does not necessarily imply that Esther’s food was different from that of the other concubines, but apparently the chief eunuch attended to her food personally. Unlike Daniel and his companions (Da 1), Esther seems to have had no qualms about accepting food from the royal household. Indeed, the fact that she had not revealed her nationality (v. 10) implies that she ate the same food as the rest of the women in the harem, since demanding a kosher diet would have betrayed her nationality.

2:11 he walked . . . near the courtyard of the harem. The Greek author Plutarch, among others, reports that the Persian nobles were jealous of their harems, and any man who approached them would be killed. But Herodotus writes of eunuchs admitting men to the harems, and one nobleman spoke regularly with his daughter, who was one of the royal wives. It was probably not difficult for Mordecai to see his cousin and even speak to her, so long as he had the permission of the chief eunuch.

2:13 According to Greek sources, the royal concubines were expected to entertain the king in various ways throughout the night, ready to provide sexual companionship when requested. We can assume that the women were given items that would help them with their diversions, including musical instruments (harps and flutes), musicians to accompany their singing, and perhaps other tools of entertainment.

2:14 concubines. See note on 1Ki 11:3.

2:15 eunuch . . . in charge of the harem. We know much about the administration of ancient harems from records found primarily in Assyria. These documents demonstrate that harem life was well regulated and under the watchful eye of trusted eunuchs. There were frequent conflicts among the women, as they would sometimes scheme and plot for favors for themselves and any children they had borne. The eunuchs were charged to ensure that such conflicts did not erupt in violence.

2:18 He proclaimed a holiday. Lit. “He caused a rest to take place.” The phrase is ambiguous and has been interpreted as a release from work, from military service or from taxation.

2:21 officers. Lit. “eunuchs” (see note on 2Ki 9:32). The story is reminiscent of an incident in which a eunuch assassinated Artaxerxes III in order to replace him with Artaxerxes’ son Arses.

2:23 impaled on poles. The Hebrew word translated “poles” literally means “tree” or “wooden object.” The text refers to the common practice of impaling victims on wooden stakes. The Code of Hammurapi and Assyrian law codes sometimes prescribe impaling as an actual method of execution, and the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II bragged of how he impaled rebellious vassals. But more often, malefactors were executed by other methods, and their dead bodies were impaled for a public display. Also, it has been demonstrated that the Persians practiced crucifixion, and the punishment spoken of here might refer to that practice: impaling people alive on wooden posts and allowing them to die of exposure. book of the annals . . . of the king. All ancient Near Eastern monarchs kept records of events that occurred during their reigns (see note on 1Ki 14:19).

3:1 Haman . . . Hammedatha. These names are Persian. Agagite. Rendered as a Gentile noun, i.e., an indication of ethnic origin. Ancient interpreters universally understood the text to mean that Haman was a member of the race of Agag, or the Amalekites (see notes on Nu 13:29; Dt 25:19). During the reign of King Saul, God ordered Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites and to take no plunder from them (see 1Sa 15:2, 3 and notes). But Saul saved some of the loot and took the Amalekite king, Agag, as a captive (1Sa 15:7–9). The prophet Samuel killed Agag, but not before informing Saul that his disobedience would cost him his throne (1Sa 15:26–33). Since Mordecai is associated with the house of Saul (see note on Est 2:5), the clash between Mordecai and Haman is set up as a “rematch” of the Saul-Agag affair. seat of honor higher than . . . all the other nobles. The exact nature of Haman’s position is not explicit in the text. Modern writers frequently call him Xerxes’ “vizier” or “prime minister,” but it is uncertain that the Achaemenid court had such a position. Another possibility is that he held the position of hazarpatish, or “Commander of the Thousand” (called the “chiliarch” by the Greeks). This officer was the head of the king’s personal bodyguard, and no one could enter the king’s presence without his permission. The Greeks believed the chiliarch was the second great power of the kingdom, but they probably formed a mistaken impression based on the officer’s easy access to the throne. Persian sources do not seem to attribute a great deal of authority to the position.

3:2 knelt down. According to Herodotus, the Persians were very conscious of social class, observing strict protocols. They would greet equals with a kiss, but would always bow and make obeisance before those of higher standing. Such prostrations were foreign to the Greeks but common throughout the Near East. Ancient Near Eastern peoples often knelt before one another as a sign of respect. Israelites generally had no qualms with such demonstrations (e.g., Ge 33:3; 42:6; 1Sa 20:41; 24:8). Given that prostration was such a common sign of respect, Mordecai’s refusal to kneel down or pay Haman honor (v. 3) is a mystery. The rabbis invented a story that Haman carried an idol with him, and it was before this image that Mordecai refused to bow. But this story was moralistic rather than historical, with no textual support. A more likely explanation may be found in Mordecai’s assertion that he will not bow to Haman because he (Mordecai) is a Jew (v. 4). It is probably ethnic antagonism between Jews and Amalekites that lies behind Mordecai’s refusal to pay Haman the required homage (see note on v. 1).

3:7 pur. The Babylonian word for a lot, a form of divination (see the article “Urim and Thummim”). The form of the lot and how it was used are uncertain. One possibility is that the lot was cast onto a surface that was divided into sections marked with the names of the months and days. The day on which the lot fell would be considered the god’s choice. Another possibility is that lots with months and days printed on them would be placed inside a pouch. The pouch would be shaken until one of the lots popped out, thus indicating that a god had chosen that particular date.

3:8 customs . . . laws. Both words translate the same Hebrew word (dat). The Persians regularly allowed subject peoples to follow their own laws and customs, so long as these did not interfere with the peace of the empire. The Jews did, indeed, have unique customs, such as keeping the Sabbath and eating kosher foods, but these presented no danger to Xerxes. More troublesome was the charge that the Jews would not obey the king—i.e., they were rebellious (cf. Ezr 4:14–15). Xerxes had dealt with the revolt in Egypt in the first year of his reign (485 BC), and he ferociously suppressed revolts in Babylon in 484 and 482 BC. In the course of this action, Xerxes showed none of the mollifying tendencies for which Cyrus had been famous. He had no compunctions about using ruthless tactics to secure the compliance of his subjects.

3:9 ten thousand talents of silver. The size of the bribe that Haman offered was fantastic. According to the standard established by King Darius, it equaled about 375 tons (340 metric tons) of silver. Based on the figures given in Herodotus, Haman’s bribe has been estimated to equal about two-thirds of Persia’s annual revenue.

3:10 signet ring. Or seal ring. Served as a signature in the ancient world (see note on 1Ki 21:8).

3:11 Keep the money. The Hebrew reads lit. “The money is given to you.” Many translators follow the Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT, in understanding that Xerxes told Haman that the king would fund the Jews’ destruction himself rather than accept Haman’s offer of silver. But since Mordecai states later that Haman’s promised funds would go into the royal treasury (4:7), the Hebrew reading seems preferable. The expression probably means that Haman had sufficient funds to do as he had said. It is uncertain where these funds would have come from. If they were his personal funds, they represented a vast fortune. Another possibility is that Haman’s position gave him authority over certain public monies, and Xerxes granted him permission to use those funds for the task at hand. Or, perhaps Haman was anticipating a great deal of spoil from the destruction of the Jews, and he intended to use those funds to pay off his mercenaries.

3:13 the order to . . . annihilate all the Jews. We should not think that members of the general public are being offered a license to kill Jews. The verse implies military action and is probably being sent to provincial garrisons.

4:1 tore his clothes, put on sackcloth. See notes on 1Sa 4:12; Job 1:20; see also the article “Mourning.”

4:2 the king’s gate. See note on Ne 2:1.

4:8 to show to Esther and explain it to her. Perhaps the edict was written in Persian and had to be translated into Aramaic for Esther’s benefit. Another possibility is that Esther was illiterate and could not read the edict for herself (see the articles “Literacy,” “Books and Literacy”). Greek sources tell us that the royal women of Persia were trained in horsemanship, martial arts and other skills, but they make no mention of literary training.

4:11 any man or woman who approaches the king . . . without being summoned . . . put to death. Additional evidence for such a policy is scant. Herodotus makes the point that access to the king was limited, with only the seven noble families of Persia allowed free passage into his presence. Other ancient authors write that no one could enter the king’s presence without the permission of the chiliarch, who would demand to know their business. There is clear evidence that few people could march into the king’s chamber uninvited. Even so, the text gives us no clues as to why Esther did not simply request an audience with the king, especially since Haman’s edict would not be carried out for another 11 months. One possible explanation is that if Haman were, indeed, Xerxes’ chiliarch (see note on 3:1), Esther would have had to make an appeal to Haman in order to be admitted into the throne room. Revealing her plans to Haman would have put her in a difficult position, to say the least. unless the king extends the gold scepter. The custom of the king extending his scepter in this manner is unattested outside the book of Esther. Many Persian reliefs, however, depict the king holding a scepter, a thin staff about the length of his body with a knob on one end. It seems to have had some function when he was holding court, since the scepter is prominent in scenes of royal audiences. thirty days have passed since I was called to go to the king. The queen’s contact with the king was physically limited by the fact that she had her own private chamber in the palace and did not regularly dine with the king. Furthermore, since the king had his choice of many concubines, the queen shared his bed infrequently. Nonetheless, the statement that the queen had not been in the king’s company for 30 days seems somewhat unusual. It may imply that Esther had fallen out of the king’s favor, which could explain her reluctance to appear before him unannounced.

4:16 fast. Fasting often accompanied prayer, to demonstrate the deep concern of those making petitions to the Lord (cf. 1Sa 7:6; 2Sa 12:16–22; Ezr 8:21, 23; Jnh 3:3–8). In Esther’s case, the fast she calls is designed to implore God’s favor on her behalf, even though prayer is never actually mentioned.

5:3 up to half the kingdom. This statement should not be taken literally. Its repetition in v. 6 and 7:2, as well as its appearance in Mk 6:23, suggests that this phrase was an idiomatic means of expressing royal favor.

5:4 come today to a banquet. Esther’s delay in presenting the petition for her people’s lives should not be interpreted as a sign of cowardice. Rather, Esther was following typical Near Eastern protocol for presenting a request. She begins by asking for a small favor but eventually she works her way, one concession at a time, to the real issue at hand.

5:14 pole. Refers to a pike for impaling victims (see note on 2:23). But in the reliefs from ancient Assyria, such pikes are usually not much larger than the people impaled on them. It is possible that Haman’s 75-foot-tall “pole” includes the hill or platform on which the pike stands.

6:1 the book of the chronicles. See note on 2:23 (“book of the annals”). read. The form of the Hebrew verb implies continuous, extensive reading rather than a short recitation. Evidently, Xerxes listened to the royal chronicles all through the night, until Haman arrived to present his request (v. 4; cf. 5:14, which says that Haman planned to go “in the morning” to see Xerxes).

7:4 sold as . . . slaves. See note on Lev 25:39.

7:8 falling on the couch. The Persian nobles dined reclining on couches rather than sitting. Each guest would have their own couch, which would be decorated in ways befitting their rank. It is unclear if Haman threw himself on the queen or if he merely fell. In either case, he had committed an egregious error: According to some authors, touching the king’s wife was penalized with death. In Assyrian law, no man was allowed to draw within more than seven paces of a member of the king’s harem. covered Haman’s face. In ancient Greece and Rome, it was customary to cover the head of someone condemned to death. However, there is no evidence for this practice among the Persians. It has also been argued that this phrase is a figure of speech simply meaning “to faint,” but this suggestion is based on a questionable reading of an Arabic expression. Thus, the meaning of this gesture remains uncertain. In an Assyrian elegy, covering the face is treatment of the dead, so this may indicate that Haman has died and it is his corpse that is impaled (v. 10).

8:11 right to assemble. Since the king’s first decree could not be revoked (see 1:19 and note), this decree was designed to ameliorate its effects. We can assume that the Jews would have defended themselves against those who tried to kill them. But this decree specifically gave the Jews the right to “assemble.” The Hebrew term used here often means to muster an army. Thus, the Jews are authorized to begin gathering and arming soldiers to defend themselves against Haman’s mercenaries. Without such a decree, mustering an army would have been viewed as an act of rebellion. This decree was sent everywhere (v. 9), which would presumably discourage anyone from attacking the Jews, knowing that the Jews would be prepared to defend themselves.

8:17 became Jews. The Hebrew verb occurs nowhere else in the OT, but there is little question about its translation. Its significance, however, is more problematic. What was the “fear of the Jews” that had seized them? Does the text mean only that many Gentiles sided with the Jews in order to avoid destruction? This interpretation seems unlikely. The lives of the Gentiles were not endangered; the Jews were authorized to kill only those who attacked them. Or is the idea here that the Gentiles were so impressed by the rise of Esther and Mordecai that they converted to Judaism? There is little evidence that Jews were actively seeking proselytes in this era. While they accepted those who wished to adhere to their faith, there is no evidence that the Jewish people were preaching or engaging in activities designed to convert Gentiles. Stories of Gentiles converting to Judaism (Rahab, etc.) were meant to demonstrate the superiority of Judaism to Jewish readers rather than to encourage Gentiles to adopt Judaism.

9:2 those determined to destroy them. The Jews did not carry out a general annihilation of everyone who disliked them. Rather, their hostility was reserved for those who attacked them. The total number of the dead—75,000 (v. 16)—is extremely large. By comparison, the number of Persian males in the empire’s army was reported to be 120,000 (native Persians were reported to comprise the bulk of the army). The entire population of the Persian Empire in this era has been estimated by modern scholars at 50 million people.

9:10 did not lay their hands on the plunder. Xerxes’ edict granted the Jews the right to plunder the spoil of their enemies (8:11), completely reversing Haman’s decree. The Jews’ refusal to touch the plunder might be designed to demonstrate that the slaughter was not motivated by greed. But it seems more likely that their restraint reflects the fact that the conflict is presented as a showdown between Israel and Amalek (see note on 3:1). Since God had forbidden the Israelites from taking plunder from the Amalekites (1Sa 15:3), they took no spoil from their enemies in this battle either.

9:22 days of feasting and joy and giving presents. Just as the book of Esther seems very “secular,” without religious content, so too the celebration of the Jews’ victory was designed as a secular celebration. There were no prayers, sacrifices or other religious observances prescribed for the day. In Jewish tradition, the central feature of the celebration (called Purim) is the reading of the scroll of Esther in the synagogue. Through the years, this reading has become a riotous affair, accompanied by noisemakers, costumes and heavy drinking. Indeed, the rabbis commanded Jewish revelers to drink until they could no longer distinguish between “Blessed be Mordecai” and “Cursed be Haman.”

9:23 agreed to continue the celebration. This festival—the festival of Purim (v. 26)—is the first festival adopted by the Jews that was not commanded by the Mosaic Law. The book of Esther does not demand that its readers observe Purim; rather, it describes how the Jews “establish a custom” (v. 28) to be followed throughout their generations. Another Jewish festival was later established in the same manner, when the Jews added the celebration of Hanukkah, commemorating the Hasmoneans’ victory over Antiochus Epiphanes in 164 BC.

9:26 Purim. Scholars have questioned whether the title “Purim” could actually be derived from the “pur” that Haman cast. First, there is the fact that the festival is called “lots” rather than “lot,” since only one lot was cast (3:7; in Hebrew, unlike English, a singular “lot” is cast). The second problem is that the lot plays a minor (and wholly negative) part in the story of the Jews’ deliverance. One theory holds that Purim was originally a Babylonian religious festival, and that Mordecai and Esther are Hebraized personifications of the Babylonian gods Marduk and Ishtar. More recently, scholars have contended that Purim was derived from a Babylonian or Persian New Year festival. At such festivals, it was commonly believed that the gods cast “lots” to determine the fates of humanity for the coming year. But there is no evidence of a pagan festival called “Purim,” so such reconstructions are wholly hypothetical.