Vivian Johnson
The book of Greek Esther of the Septuagint innovatively adapts an earlier Hebrew version of the text by adding six additions (additions A–F) and a few marked theological notices (2:20; 4:8; 6:13). In rewriting and updating the story of Esther, the author of Greek Esther gives it an obvious religious tone, having God more directly involved in the action of the story. This feature contrasts sharply with the earlier Masoretic Hebrew text (MT), which does not mention the deity explicitly.
The adaptations Greek Esther makes to the MT speak to the challenges of Jews in coping with multiple and sometimes divergent loyalties in a foreign empire. Greek Esther, MT Esther, and another Greek version of the story, called the Alpha Text (AT) all reveal how Jews attempted “to forge an identity in exile that would allow them both to thrive in their wider societies and to retain their loyalties as Jews” (Koller, 8). Greek Esther seems interested in creating a portrait of Esther that would align with the times of its postexilic audience.
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
The marked religious tone occurs at the outset of Greek Esther where, in addition A, God takes center stage as the source of deliverance for the “righteous nation” against whom “every nation” wages war. This cosmic battle occurs in a dream Mordecai has in which God provides him foreknowledge of an impending threat. Mordecai’s dream prefaces the content found in the MT, setting the entire story in a grand and universal framework. Indeed, addition B provides details of the Persian king’s authorization of a pogrom against Jews, in which he singles out his Jewish inhabitants as contrary to “every nation.” The king argues in his edict: “We understand that this people, and it alone, stands constantly in opposition to every nation, perversely following a strange manner of life and laws … doing all the harm they can so that our kingdom may not attain stability” (13:5). Thus he unleashes a horrific edict in which he orders the killing of all men, women, and children in a single day (13:6–7). Expanding the content of the royal decree in the MT deepens the need for divine intervention in Greek Esther.
Divine deliverance comes about only after the petitions from Mordecai and Esther for God to avert the annihilation of their people (addition C). Pious protagonists offer a paradigm for people living under hostile authority. Given that the book is named after Esther, her actions in particular come under scrutiny. The book of Greek Esther accentuates her piety, assures her adherence to orthodox Jewish practice, and asserts her sole reliance on the deity for deliverance. These qualities Esther exhibits in this version are noticeably absent in the MT.
Esther’s prayer describes dire circumstances in which enemies cause them to undergo “bitter slavery” (14:8). Dissatisfied with the humiliation of their enslavement, Esther laments, they desire also to destroy them completely (14:8–9). Her supplication reinforces the cruelty of the royal decree with its order to destroy all Jews “without pity or restraint” (14:6). These additions evince the fragility of subjected peoples under imperial domination.
After her prayer, Esther exhibits great sangfroid, initially, when she appears before the Persian king in addition D. Her courage lapses at the sight of an angry king who is annoyed by her presence. Esther therefore faints and collapses right before him out of fear. The narrative of Greek Esther at this point reveals the limits of human initiative. Esther cannot achieve a successful outcome all by herself. She needs divine intervention desperately. God comes to her aid by altering “the spirit of the king to gentleness” (15:8). The added details of the MT not only heighten the suspense of the narrative but also underscore the need for divine action in the lives of the people.
Greek Esther affirms that God hears and responds to the needs of the Jewish people. Because God intervenes, the people are saved and addition E notes the reversal of the king’s genocidal edict. In this decree, the writer of Greek Esther has the king himself declare God as sovereign, as one who rules over all things (16:17, 21), as one “who always sees everything” (16:4) and directs the kingdom for the Persians “in the most excellent order” (16:15).
Addition F, a colophon, notes the fulfillment of Mordecai’s dream and identifies the symbolic elements of his earlier dream. This notice serves to confirm the efficacious nature of the strategy Mordecai and Esther took in their situation.
Although the story takes place in Susa, a city of the Persian Empire, it describes conditions relevant to any imperial context. Esther’s deportment then serves as model for subsequent generations to follow as they straddled commitments to their religious heritage with those obligations demanded by the nation imposing its rule on them.
Greek Esther is often dated to the second to first centuries BCE, a precarious time for its Jewish audience. This period saw the heinous xenophobic acts of Antiochus IV (ruled 175–164 BCE), who outlawed Judaism and enforced Hellenism. According to one historian, his measures marked the beginning of Judaism as a persecuted religion (Scheindlin 1998). The story of Greek Esther, then, would resonate well with people experiencing the harshness of foreign domination, especially during this time in Jewish history. Esther describes complete abhorrence to courtly life even though she reigns as queen. She detests all the trappings of royalty and caustically remarks on having to adorn her head with the crown (14:16). Her life, she mourns, has existed without joy since she arrived at the Persian court. The Hebrew version of the story appears to be updated to intensify Esther’s condition and uphold her as an exemplar of piety and orthodoxy. She offers a paradigm for how others could manage to live under hostile authority.
The story of Greek Esther befits the genre of literature called novella or short story (Harrington). It has similarities with apocryphal/deuterocanonical books like Tobit and Judith, whose compositions have the didactic purpose of communicating values and ideas that their composers deem important. Tobit, Judith, and Greek Esther all narrate the experience of Jewish characters that must navigate living under foreign rule and peril.
The fervent prayer that Esther offers in the book of Greek Esther encapsulates the pedagogical purpose of the work to show Jews how to live devoutly in unfavorable circumstances. In a few verses, Esther conveys her piety, her loyal observance to Jewish practice, and her complete reliance on the deity to prevent the obliteration of her people. This addition along with all the others that make up Greek Esther enhance its religious character by providing an ideal model for people to emulate as they attempted to maintain their religious convictions in adverse times.
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
Greek Esther stands in the interpretive tradition of the book of Esther. It appears to be based on the Hebrew version appearing in the Masoretic Text (MT). Noticeably absent in the Hebrew story is the mention of God, and Greek Esther reinterprets the earlier narrative to give it a distinct theological emphasis.
In the Hebrew version of the book of Esther, the deity does not have an overt role in the narrative. Rather, the characters appear to achieve desired ends by their own human agency. Esther appears in this text as a Jewish woman who assimilates fairly well into Persian culture. Although she has strong ties with the Jewish community, especially Mordecai, she works within the system to achieve a favorable outcome for Jews in the Persian Diaspora. When the story of Esther is rewritten in Greek Esther, it resolves troublesome issues that the Hebrew version left open-ended. Did Esther, for example, abide by Jewish dietary restrictions? Did she have marital relations with the Persian king? Did she relish the lavish lifestyle of the Persian court? Esther’s prayer addresses each of these concerns. She emphatically proclaims that she has kept kashrut and denies having eaten any food or consumed any libation at royal dining events (14:17). Her prayer suggests that she did assume marital sexual obligations with the Persian king, but states categorically that she detested it (14:15). As for her attitude toward living among Persia’s most privileged citizens, she decries: “I hate the splendor of the wicked” (14:15).
Greek Esther also clarifies any ambiguity concerning the source of the deliverance. Saving activity lay in the divine realm. God, for example, “changes the spirit of the king to gentleness” (15:8) when Esther approaches the king unbidden to persuade him to revoke the lethal decree. Esther proclaims in her prayer that she has no one to help her but God and that he has been her only source of joy since she was brought to the Persian court (14:14, 18). At the prayer’s end, she pleads for God to save her people from the impending threat (14:19).
While the basic story line remains the same, Greek Esther has in fact created a new narrative, where, as one scholar writes, “the scribal manipulation of the base text is so extensive that a recognizably new work is created” (Crawford, 14). Greek Esther takes the detail of the Hebrew story not including any mention of God as its springboard for a strong theological emphasis: Greek Esther mentions the deity more than fifty times. Although the name for the deity, “God” or “Lord,” clusters in the additions, Greek Esther also includes the deity several times outside of the additions, integrating them into the main body of the story (2:20; 4:8; 6:1, 13). By rewriting the Hebrew version, Greek Esther does not leave open the possibility that the deliverance of the Jewish population in Persia derived from human ingenuity. Rather, it heightens the role of God and claims unequivocally that their deliverance depends on divine action (e.g., 13:15–17; 14:3, 5–6, 14, 19; 15:8; 6:1).
Greek Esther also reinterprets the story to explain and eradicate any objectionable content of the story. The seemingly unorthodox view of Esther becomes clearly orthodox, and while she may have had intercourse with the Persian king, she hated it. Thereby, her image as an assimilated Jew is recast as a Jewish woman who holds her traditions in the highest regard and observes her customs to the greatest extent possible in a threatening situation.
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
As shown above, Greek Esther and the Hebrew version proffer different views of the story of Esther. Recent discussions on Greek Esther center on the relationship of this narrative to the MT and the AT. One commentator, for example, focuses on all three versions in order to demonstrate their points of similarity and divergence with regard to Esther’s character (Day). Another scholar isolates one issue of the narrative, namely, the notice of Esther’s keeping her identity secret, to offer a diachronic reading of how each story addresses concerns of the Jewish Diaspora (Halverson-Taylor). Both of these scholars argue that the AT plays a significant part in illuminating Jewish Diaspora issues.
All three versions of the story provide a different understanding of what it takes to have a successful life in an imperial context. While the dating of the AT remains equivocal, it is commonly placed earlier chronologically than the Hebrew. It portrays Esther as a woman whose Jewish descent poses little problem for her Persian neighbors. In the AT edition of Esther, it appears that her ethnicity is recognized throughout the story when the king is surprised that Haman would intend to harm Mordecai, a man from the same ethnic stock as Esther (AT 6:3). This interpretation of the book of Esther could reflect Diaspora communities that sought to meld their Jewish identity with those around them. Following Esther’s example of a Jew working within the parameters of Persian policies could result, the AT suggests, in reaching high levels in the foreign government in order to effectuate positive change for Diaspora communities.
The Hebrew shares the cooperative spirit that the AT engenders. However, given that Esther has to keep her Jewish identity secret, it lacks the freedom of religious expression found in the AT (Halverson-Taylor). A touch of suspense and tension is added with this detail (2:20). Notwithstanding her having to conceal her Jewish heritage, the Hebrew portrays Esther as an assimilated Jew whose winsome qualities facilitate her advance as a high-ranking authority in the Persian government. One critic argues that the Hebrew text of the book Esther, when compared to Greek Esther and the AT, has the widest appeal to audiences of the Jewish Diaspora because of her ability to handle her role as Persian queen and a Jewish leader with skill (Day). She holds these two potentially conflicting roles in delicate balance. By adeptly traversing the arenas of Persians and Jews, she offers another model to Jewish communities to work within the dominant political structure rather than against it.
Greek Esther contrasts sharply with the earlier Alpha and Hebrew texts with its anti-gentile stance. Esther has the strongest connection with the Jewish community in this version. While the Hebrew notes that Esther has to keep her identity a secret, Greek Esther builds on this tension with an apocalyptic preface (addition A), showing the extensive nature of Jewish persecution. The need for her to mask her Jewish roots appears urgent. In an increasingly perilous environment, Greek Esther conveys the import of strict adherence to divine law over that of the imperial overlord. Juxtaposed in the verse speaking of Esther’s need to suppress her Jewish identity is the declaration that she maintained her “mode of life” by fearing God and keeping his laws (2:20). Thus, as one critic aptly asserts, the instance of Esther concealing her identity “becomes the occasion to vouch that she maintained the integrity of her identity by keeping the commandments” (Halverson-Taylor, 483).
Greek Esther escalates the sense of danger and could, as mentioned above, point to an audience experiencing persecution or discrimination at the hands of non-Jews. The model Greek Esther provides aligns with both the Hebrew and AT in that a Jew can attain high status in a foreign context and lead a successful existence. It however refocuses the attention to strict Jewish observance and dependence on God, to whom they owe their foremost allegiance.
Greek Esther does not hold canonical status in the Protestant tradition, and it is part of the deuterocanon of Catholic and Orthodox traditions. The attestation of three versions of the story of Esther assists in understanding how it could apply to different contexts of Jews grappling with living in the Diaspora. These stories could also apply to the same context but offer multiple views of how to go about negotiating one’s life in an imperial setting. The scholar Linda Day reminds us that when a book became incorporated into a canon, all versions of the book held authority and not just one textual form (Day, 233). She encourages contemporary audiences to broaden “our concept of what can be considered authoritative,” as it “opens the possibility for the two Greek versions of the book of Esther, as well as the Masoretic version, to be used by today’s faith communities” (Day, 233).
All three versions of the story of Esther deal with how one should one live under imperial rule. In each narration, some acceptance to the imposed government and culture is assumed. The three versions of Esther, however, tackle the degree to which subjects accept the prevailing laws and traditions of the dominant society. Perhaps their ruminations can serve as resources for moderns living in cultures where ethnic traditions come into conflict with those of the dominant culture.
Crawford, Sidnie White. 2008. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Day, Linda. 1995. Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Esther. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
Halverson-Taylor, Martien. 2012. “Secrets and Lies: Secrecy Notices (Esther 2:10, 20) and Diasporic Identity in the Book of Esther.” JBL 131, no. 3:467–85.
Harrington, Daniel. 1999. Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Koller, Aaron. 2014. Esther in Ancient Jewish Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scheindlin, Raymond. 1998. A Short History of the Jewish People. New York: Oxford University Press.