56

IntroductionWhen a perceptive reader engages theHebrew book of Esther, an interpretiveweight necessarily falls heavily upon heror his shoulders. A masterfully told storythough it is, one cannot escape facing thereading decisions that exist as a result ofwhat the author said, alluded to, or didnot say in the pages of the narrative. In-terestingly enough, gaps in understand-ing abide in all three of these situations.Concerning this phenomenon, M.Sternberg writes,

Biblical narratives are notorious fortheir sparsity of detail….And the re-sultant gaps have been left open pre-cisely at key points, central to thediscourse as a dramatic progressionas well as a structure of meaning andvalue. Hence their filling in here isnot automatic but requires consid-erable attention to the nuances of thetext, both at the level of the repre-sented events and at the level of lan-guage; far from a luxury or option,closure becomes a necessity for anyreader trying to understand thestory even in the simplest terms ofwhat happens and why.1

This narrative situation and resultantinterpretive task certainly apply to theambiguous aspects of morality in the Scrollof Esther. Since the book was not composedas an ethical treatise, much of its(im)morality is unspoken, not specificallyaddressed, or only implied at best. Themotives and (in)actions of Vashti, Esther,

and Mordecai in the narrative exhibit in-triguing “moral gaps” that have been openhistorically to varied and wide-ranginginterpretation. Yet not all of this past expli-cation has been equally satisfying.

Therefore, in this study I shall seek pri-marily to pinpoint these lacunae via ex-egetical analysis, and, when possible,attempt cautiously to suggest some pos-sible ways in which the material might beunderstood within its various contexts,both near and far. To be sure, I will neitherbe able to eliminate all of the narrative’sambiguities, nor do I intend to fill in all ofthe gaps pointed out in these episodes;Sternberg’s “closure” is not always easilyachieved. Rather, a more descriptive andinterrogative process will follow, one witha view to an interaction with and appre-hension of the moral complexion of thebook of Esther in its Hebrew form.2

VashtiRefusal to Appear when Summoned (1:10-12)

Queen Vashti declined the king’s re-quest! No one could have foreseen howmonumental this simply reported “no”would be. For a character who remainedalmost exclusively in the background of asmall portion of the narrative, it is intrigu-ing that Vashti’s refusal threatened to turnthe kingdom upside-down (at least in theeyes of some men). Indeed, the queen’ssnub sent shock waves throughout boththe story and the far-reaching history of

Charles D. Harvey is a PhD candi-

date at New College, Universit y of

Edinburgh. This article is adapted from

his dissertation, which is tentatively en-

titled “Finding Morality in Exile? (Extra)

Ordinary Ethics in the Book of Esther.”

This is his first scholarly publication.

Probing Moral Ambiguity:Grappling with Ethical Portraits in

the Hebrew Story of EstherCharles D. Harvey

57

interpretation that has been fascinated byher and her decision. Yet precisely why

Vashti refused is not stated.3

Concerning her character the text isparsimonious in terms of description andexplanation. It tersely informs the readerthat when the summons of the king ar-rived, the queen refused to come in (1:12).What could have motivated this behav-ior? The author reports that the merryking was noticeably affected by drinkingat the time of his request (1:10). The choiceof words here suggests both that the king’smood was good and that he was intoxi-cated to some measure. These descriptionswere likely related and might havesketched a negative picture of the king’spresent state in the mind of the queen. Thelikelihood of impaired judgment mighthave sent warning signals to Vashti be-cause of the king’s desire to “show off”his queen’s “beauty” to the people.4 Un-doubtedly, for a woman, pretentiousnessand inebriation are not a comforting com-bination in a man.

But it is not at all clear that the king’sprobable instability had anything to dowith Vashti’s decision not to appear at theeunuchs’ beckoning. Indeed, there is nosteady inference to be drawn in that man-ner. Neither can one firmly decide fromthe text that the queen refused the king’scall out of a notion of dignified proto-femi-nist principle; information on Vashti’sthought processes are simply not given.Despite L. B. Paton’s argument that theauthor takes the queen’s actions to bewhimsical because no good reason for herrefusal can be found,5 it appears thatVashti’s unknown motivations are neitherof great consequence to the author nor ofmuch concern to the other characters whowere present at the revelrous seven-daybanquet.6 The story moves quickly on to

the question of how the court should nowhandle the insubordinate queen, spendinglittle time on the components that relatedthe act of disobedience itself. Because ofthis strategy, it is the reader alone who isleft to wrestle with the moral ambiguitysurrounding the queen’s inaction, for asatisfying appraisal of her moral charac-ter on the basis of the text does not ap-pear to be forthcoming.

It has been suggested that for the au-thor the silence of the narrative concern-ing Vashti’s grounds for refusal “effects asort of closure, limiting the attention thereader will give this character.”7 Yet what-ever the author’s possible intentions, sub-sequent readers’ fascination with thequeen’s motives has been far from con-tained. Indeed, Vashti’s silence has led tointerpreters’ verbosity; depending on hisor her mindset and contexts, the ethicalverdicts on Vashti have been (and will con-tinue to be) widely varied.8 At the veryleast, Vashti’s brief presence in the story hasserved to heighten narrative tension,9 andto set up a literary comparison with a laterqueen who would manage her behaviorand office in a different fashion. In thislight, Vashti’s behavior could be viewed“positively” even though no particularmoral assessment is attainable. But, to besure, this explanation is a practical one.10

EstherConcealment of Jewishness in Obedience to

Mordecai (2:10, 20)The act of concealing one’s identity is

not uncommon in the Old Testament. A fewexamples include the account of Jacobdressing in kids’ skins and wearing Esau’sclothes in order to obtain Isaac’s blessing(Ge 27:1-29) and the story of Tamar disguis-ing herself as a prostitute to fool Judah (Ge38:11-26). Perhaps even more analogous to

58

the Esther account are the stories that re-late Abraham (on two occasions!) and Isaacinstructing their beautiful wives to pose astheir sisters so that the patriarchs mightavoid what they feared to be certain deathat the hands of foreign kings (Abraham—Ge 12:10-20, 20:1-18; Isaac—Ge 26:7-11).Whereas these texts display an active con-cealment that could be characterized asdeception, the information related inEsther, though not altogether dissimilar, ismore ambiguous. In the Esther account,inaction circumscribed the heroine’s action

— “Esther did not make known her peopleor her descent” (2:10) — as she carried outthe unexplained wishes of Mordecai in hernew palace environment. It should benoted that the reason(s) for Mordecai’s re-quest was/were not stated, but it is notlikely that the author merely desired toshow Mordecai’s patriarchal dominanceover Esther at this and other points.11 Fur-ther, there is no hint of prejudice or selec-tivity in the general call for the empire’swomen of marriageable age (2:2). In otherwords, we simply do not know from thetext that Esther would have been disquali-fied because she was Jewish,12 althoughsome sort of apprehension seems to be inplace.13 It could be assumed that the Jewswere in servitude to some degree in Persiaduring this time causing Esther’s socialclass to preclude her, but this assumptionwould not be based on any firm evidence.In the face of all the possible scenarios andsuppositions, the narrative remains silent.

According to J. D. Levenson, the pointhere is clear: Esther did not “break faith”with Mordecai even after she had sur-passed him in all aspects of civic rank.Even though it is practically questionablehow the queen managed to conceal hernationality, the main plot of the story (i.e.,Haman’s plot of genocide) is dependent

upon the fact that she did just that.14 Yetthe question of the manner in whichEsther went about her concealing appearsnot to be a great point of interest for theauthor. Similar to the handling of theVashti account, the narrative leaves manydetails to the reader’s curiosity and imagi-nation. What seems clear, nevertheless, isthat in the midst of Esther’s obedience,concealment was certain, although decep-tion is not necessarily implied. In the end,it seems that we need not know why orhow Esther conceals her people and de-scent, just that she does conceal them—andvery well.

Actively Winning the Favor and Love of the

King (2:17a)In the cover of the concealment plan

Esther was gathered along with a vastgroup of eligible young women andplaced under the care of Hegai (2:8). It isclear from the narrative that her presencein the court brought about extremely posi-tive feelings from all persons with whomshe came in contact (2:15). Yet it is inter-esting to note that these sentiments of fa-vor were likely the result of an active

manner on the part of the young Jewess.In other words, Esther appears to havetaken it upon herself to ensure that shewas well pleasing before Hegai, and con-sequently, the king. To be sure, the actualextent of Esther’s activity is unknown;nevertheless, the different ways in whichthe author chose to relate the favor thatEsther receives within the book testifiesto a clear distinction in the posture of theyoung woman in different situations.

Yet if Esther can be said to have beenactive in these cases, does this then raisethe reader’s curiosity concerning the na-ture of her actions at these times? If it ispossible that Esther was not a passive,

59

helpless damsel in the hands of a power-hungry, manipulative king in 2:17a, whatare we to think of a young woman whosuccessfully won the kingdom-widebeauty pageant?15 It is most likely thatEsther was (to some degree) aware of thenature of the situation in which she foundherself, and that she actively sought to bethe one whom the king finally came tolove. To be clear, the argument here is notfor an exclusively (or even mostly) activeEsther whose passivity is nowhere to befound in this scene. Exactly what this ac-tivity entailed behaviorally is not stated inthe text, but it is plausible that Esther acted

persuasively in her encounters with theking — a persuasion that appears to havebrought about his love for her.

Apprehension about Transgressing the Law

(4:11)At this point in the narrative Esther has

become queen and the genocidal plot ofHaman has been firmly established. Thisthreat caused confusion in Shushan (3:15)and prompted Mordecai to cry out bitterlyin sackcloth and ashes (4:1), which causedEsther the deepest distress16 even thoughshe was not aware initially of the reasonsfor Mordecai’s posture.17 Only in 4:8-9 didEsther find out the reason for Mordecai’sgrief when Hatach brought back to her acopy of Haman’s edict. Interestingly, nofurther reaction of distress from the queenis recorded upon hearing this news. Onewould suppose that the deep anguish of4:4 would be exacerbated by the clarifica-tion of Mordecai’s and the Jews’ plight,yet the text displays no such emotion.

It is also the case in verses 8-9 thatMordecai commanded the queen to go theking on behalf of her people. It is here thatwe encounter Esther’s apprehensive re-sponse, a response that is possibly shaped

by the reality of her high position in thecourt and her disconnected proximity tothe “Jewish problem” of that time. QueenEsther diplomatically related a messageback to Mordecai informing him that theking’s decree prohibited her from enter-ing into his presence unless she has beensummoned, and she has not been calledfor thirty days. To do so unbidden meantcertain death, that is, unless the king ex-tended his golden scepter (4:11). At thisjuncture, the queen seems interested injeopardizing neither her life nor her loftyposition for anyone, and it would appearthat she does not even count herselfamong the threatened Jews. Might therebe an explanation for this?

Esther’s apprehension in this scenecould be attributed to a “convenient” com-mitment to decrees of the king. It is doubt-ful that the queen possessed a firmconviction that the king’s laws were infal-lible and altogether insuperable in light ofboth the golden scepter loophole and herlater decision to enter into the king’s pres-ence uncalled (4:16-5:1). Instead, it is morelikely that the queen’s uneasiness stemmedfrom her feeling of disconnectedness fromthe larger Jewish community.18 In otherwords, she might have considered herselfsafe from the threat of Haman’s edict at thispoint, and thus might not have desired torisk her life and position unnecessarily.19

To be sure, these emotions are possible andshould be able to be understood at least,even if not condoned. But the lack of anexplicit reaction at the news of the geno-cidal plot, when it had only taken a men-tioning that Mordecai was in sackcloth andashes to bring about deep distress, height-ens one’s curiosity concerning Esther’sthoughts and motivations as she dweltcomfortably in the Persian court. For thefact of the queen’s apprehension is clear,

60

even though a perceptible rationalizationof it is not expressly stated. Tacitly, though,Esther’s misgivings come into clearerview—misgivings that she must face in thecoming message exchanges with Mordecai.

Apprehension Not Fully Reversed: An

Unoptimistic Submission? (4:16)What is encountered in the material be-

tween 4:11 and the end of the chapter iscertainly remarkable, yet it is probably notquite as outstanding as most readers wouldsuppose. The persuasive rhetorical tech-niques of the queen’s father figure,Mordecai, should not go unnoticed, forthey are undoubtedly effective. Yet as faras Mordecai’s words go in promptingEsther forward in the cause for her con-demned people, the queen likely remainedsomewhat unoptimistic concerning herchances before the king. Whereas tradition-ally readers have imagined a brave, confi-dent, and unwavering Esther at the closeof chapter four, the text leaves the dooropen for a slightly different portrait of thequeen. In other words, the change in theattitude of the queen from 4:11 to 4:16 hasnot been a complete reversal.

An informed reading of the oft com-mented upon interpretation of 4:14a isintegral to a fuller understanding ofEsther’s mindset in 4:16, for dependingon how 4:14a is rendered, the possibilityof at least two scenarios emerge in 4:16.In short, the translation of 4:14a is key indetermining just what kind of decisionconfronts Esther in the pivotal sixteenthverse. In the past, the first portion of 4:14has been read as “a conditional statement,with one protasis and two apodoses.”20

Its usual translation follows: “For if youcertainly keep silent at this time, (then)relief and deliverance will arise for theJews from another place, and [then] you

and the house of your father will be de-stroyed.”21 J. M. Wiebe notes the interpre-tive consequences of such a translation:

Taken in this way, this text seems toaffirm that if Esther does not takeaction to help save the Jews, theywould still be delivered by someother unnamed agent. Moreover, herreluctance to act would result in theelimination not only of herself, butof her entire family as well.22

Yet this conventional rendering of theHebrew also has its problems. Wiebepoints out two of the most glaring in ques-tion form:

1. How is the mysterious phrase “an-other place” to be handled?

2. How might one explain the con-demned fate of Esther and herfamily if she does not act, leavingthe destiny of the Jews to the un-certainty of an unnamed deliv-erer?23

Concerning the first difficulty, it is notlikely that the narrator utilized “place” asa surrogate reference to God, even thoughthis was a common veiling technique inlater Jewish literature.24 If surrogacy werethe case, one would have to account forthe inclusion of “another” in the phrase,which produces the theologically prob-lematic translation—“from another place[i.e., another god].” Thus, concerning theimplications of this thinking, P. R.Ackroyd contends that the Jews’ salvationmust arise from “some other source” andnot directly from God at all.25 Suggestionsas to what this other source might be vary.Could it be another high ranking Jew? Orperhaps it would be in the form of a popu-lar revolt of the Jews or even sympatheticPersians?26 Maybe the other source is an

61

outside political power that will rescue theJews and is not mentioned in the story atall?27 In light of all of these suggestions,however, Wiebe remarks that the text “no-where even hints at the source of such ahope.”28 Thus, the difficulty in under-standing the phrase “another place” is inno real way eased. The verse leaves largegaps in the reader’s understanding andquestions as to its meaning and reference.Yet it could well be that these gaps andquestions are necessary and purposefultechniques of the often-subtle narrative.

The second difficulty that Wiebe seesstems from the first. If the traditional trans-lation and interpretation of 4:14a is fol-lowed, the second apodosis presents aproblem, Esther and her family aredoomed to destruction if she does not actand the unnamed agent delivers the Jews,but the reasons for this fate are not clear.Clines has argued that God himself wouldpunish the queen and her family if she didnot act.29 Yet Clines’ proposal envisionsGod explicitly entering a story in which heis, at best, only implicitly present and work-ing. Fitting in better with the human-ori-ented action of the narrative, other scholarsimagine that Esther and her family wouldnot be spared because the Jews would lookupon them as perfidious and act in retri-bution.30 In the end, however, the proposedsolutions to the two difficulties are prob-lematic enough to encourage another ren-dering of 4:14a. For this, we will continueto observe the work of J. M. Wiebe.

Wiebe’s proposal centers on the render-ing of the first apodosis, which he believesto be “an interrogative apodosis.”31 Read inthis way, the suggestion is that this inter-rogative apodosis asks a rhetorical ques-tion that expects a negative response.32

Thus, his translation reads as follows: “Forif you certainly keep silent at this time,

will relief and deliverance arise for theJews from another place? Then you andthe house of your father will be de-stroyed.”33 On this reading, Mordecai wasstating pointedly that Esther is the only

possible hope for her people; indeed, thereis no mystery deliverance by “anotherplace” at all.34 His strategy, then, was tomotivate the queen to appear before theking not out of threat, but out of a senseof familial and national loyalty. If she doesnot act, the elimination of all of the Jews,including Esther and her family, wouldresult from Haman’s genocidal edict.Upon this rendering, Wiebe submits thatthe aforementioned problems that arisefrom the traditional translation and inter-pretation vanish,35 allowing 4:14a to fitmuch better into the overall context of thepresent scene and book as a whole.36

If 4:14a is taken traditionally, the sce-nario that faces the queen in 4:16 presup-poses a choice with two options. Esthereither can choose to go before the kingherself and take her chances, or she canattempt to remove herself from the situa-tion altogether and hope that liberationwill indeed come from some other source.Yet if she prefers to put her faith in an-other deliverer, the chances for survival,oddly enough, look slim according to thesecond apodosis.37 If Wiebe’s rendering isfollowed, however, the scenario that con-fronts Esther still presents a choice, al-though there is only one viable option inview. The interrogative apodosis limitspossible deliverers to one, the queen her-self. This is all part of Mordecai’s persua-sive technique employed by the writer inthe service of Jewish deliverance.

In light of the translation/interpreta-tion discussion above, the queen’s di-lemma in 4:16 comes into clearer view.Wiebe’s suggestions concerning 4:14a

62

slightly alter the portrait of Esther in hergreatest narrative moment thus far, whichis the instance when the queen assumedthe leadership of the Jewish cause and re-solved to place her people’s survival overthe decree of the king. Soon Esther willgo into the king, doing that which is notaccording to the law, and risk (lay down?)her life for her kindred.

Despite an undeniable display of cour-age, the queen’s resolve is likely under-lined by an unoptimistic submission to hertask. In her most famous words, “andwhen I perish, I perish,” Esther has sub-mitted to the likelihood that her life willnot continue. Yet since she was the onlyhope for her people, perhaps her effortswould in some way to expose how hei-nous (that is, in Jewish eyes) the edictsealed by the king really was—so vile that,at the very least, he stood to lose his be-loved queen if something was not done.

The keys to this interpretation lie in theadopted reading of 4:14a and the under-standing of “and when” in Esther’s fa-mous phrase of brave submission citedabove. Against the traditional rendering,the interpretation espoused here under-stands Mordecai’s challenge in 4:14a to besingularly focused in that Esther stood asthe only hope for the Jewish people at thattime. His rhetorical interrogative, “Will

relief and deliverance arise for the Jewsfrom another place?” demands a negativeresponse as expresses the desperate needfor Esther’s advocacy. Accordingly, thequeen called on all the Jews of Shushanto fast for three days while she and hermaidens did likewise (4:16a). The serious-ness of the time is evidenced by these ac-tions, for the survival of the Jewish peoplelay in the balance. Then, in a moment ofhigh dramatic tension, Esther decided torelinquish her life for her people by break-

ing the civil law, an offense punishable byimmediate death.

Thus, the well-known declaration ofthe queen was neither one of careless-ness38 nor one of unwavering confidence;instead, it was one of cognizant, and per-haps despairing, submission39 to her prob-able death.40 Indeed, she alone was in aposition to undertake the challenge of theuninviting court of the king; there was noother potential deliverer waiting in thewings (cf. 4:14a). It was to this task thatshe ultimately submitted,41 likely withhope, but, at best, with uncertainty con-cerning even the chances of her own sur-vival.42 In light of all this, it would be fairto suppose that the queen’s apprehensionso evident in 4:11 has not been fully re-versed in 4:16.43

Tact at the Second Banquet (7:1-8)Ever since Esther had come to terms

with her unique role in the fight for Jew-ish deliverance (4:16), and when she hadsuccessfully negotiated her first approachbefore the king (5:1-2), the queen’s resolveseemed to strengthen and her skills as ashrewd negotiator were displayed. Onceshe was given a voice (5:4), Esther re-quested one banquet (5:6) at which shesuccessfully asked for the presence of theking and Haman at a further one (5:8).Esther’s rhetorical skill in these petitionswas evident, and her plan was perfectlyexecuted. It is evident that we are nolonger dealing here with the youngwoman under the hovering care ofMordecai. Now, it is Queen Esther who wasactive, keen, and conscientiously deter-mined in her efforts to save herpeople.NRSVVerse “John 3:16”

We come at this time to the crucial sceneof the second banquet, which showcasedthe queen’s craft par excellence (7:1-8). This

63

episode clearly displays a unity of com-position, but for the purposes of presen-tation, it will be analyzed in two parts(verses 1-4 and 5-8). In the leading section,the observant reader will notice thequeen’s cunning tact and rhetorical gifts,44

while in the latter division the fruits ofEsther’s labor are harvested as she putsthe finishing touches on Haman’s demise.

In verses 1-2 the king and Haman satdown to drink with the queen at her sec-ond banquet (6:14-7:2). At this point theking reiterated his longing to knowEsther’s wish (request) and her desire.Apparently the timing was now right forthe Jewess to put her plan into action asshe exclaimed, “Let my life be given to meas my wish and my people as my desire”(7:3b). The king’s curiosity would certainlyhave been heightened at these words. ButEsther did not stop there. In the words thatfollow, the queen tactfully constructed abrilliant line of reasoning that carried withit the Jews’ greatest hope for survival. Ev-erything hung upon Esther’s persuasivetechniques at this moment.

Likely playing upon her knowledge ofthe offered blood money to be given inexchange for the annihilation of the Jews(3:9), Esther explained to the king that sheand her people had been “sold…to be ex-terminated, killed and destroyed.”45 Be-cause of this impending doom, the present“leader” of the Jewish people resolved toact and inform the king. Yet while thereader might suppose that this informa-tion would be enough to compel the kingto react and do something to save his be-loved queen and her people, Esther pre-empted any reaction of the king withfurther inducement: “If we had been soldfor male and female slaves I would havekept silent, for the calamity is not compa-rable with the annoyance to the king.”46

With this, the queen had successfully, andconscientiously, whet the king’s appetiteto know who has caused all of thistrouble.47 The answer was close at hand.

Her plan unfolded quickly in theheightened suspense of verses 5-8. Be-cause of Esther’s skill in the presentationof the Jews’ dilemma, the agitated kingeven had trouble formulating a coherentquestion as he now sought to know whowas responsible for the threat against hiswife’s people.48 His desire came acrossclearly enough, however, and the queenwas quick and ready to oblige him by call-ing out, “A man, an enemy and a foe—this evil Haman!” (7:6a).49

This disturbing news affected the twomen in the room in quite different ways. Theking was clearly enraged, but found him-self at a loss for words, so he stormed fromthe banquet into the garden to ponder whatactions he might take (7:7).50 Haman’s reac-tion to Esther’s pronouncement displayeditself in a sense of terror,51 and he remainedin the presence of the queen when the kingdeparted to the garden so that he couldplead for his life. The second in commandsensed that the king’s anger was directedtowards him, and it was only a matter oftime before his majesty would return andexecute his judgment (7:7).52

Upon his return, it is not knownwhether or not the fate of Haman hadbeen decided. But if he had not made uphis mind as he strode in the garden, theposture of his vizier greatly assisted hisdecision-making process. By his appear-

ance Haman had signed his own deathwarrant. What exactly he was doing as hefell upon the queen’s couch is unknown,and for all narrative purposes it does notmatter. Although Esther is the centralcharacter of this episode and was activethroughout it, the narrative is silent con-

64

cerning what part she played in thepresent scene other than to mention, inpassing, that she was upon her couch (7:8).It is likely, however, that between thequick judgment of the returning king andthe self-destructive appearances (or ac-tions) of his vizier, no further persuasivework was needed.

The Vengeful Queen (9:13)Although most scholarly attention has

focused upon the behavior of an anony-mous group of Jews in the book of Esther,there is sufficient reason to take a brieflook at the queen herself concerning thissubject. At best, Esther’s ethical complex-ion is questionable in her dealings withher enemies. But can she fairly be called“a sophisticated Jael”?53

Ever since 8:9, Mordecai has returnedas the lead actor of the two Jewish heroesin the book. He is the one who wrote thecounter decree (8:9-10). Mordecai alonewent out from the house of the king in royalattire to the delight of the citadel ofShushan (8:15). It was he who was great inthe house of the king, the figure whommany people feared (9:3), the one whosefame spread throughout the land as hegrew more and more powerful (9:4), andthe Jew who will occupy the stage solelyat the end of the story (10:2-3). Yet, how-ever small it is, Esther is not entirely with-out a voice in the narrative’s latter portions.

On 13th Adar, after the Jews had com-pleted their first day of battle with theirenemies, the word concerning the casual-ties in Shushan came to the king (9:11).After receiving this information, the kingturned to his queen and related that fivehundred men and the ten sons of Hamanhad died that day. He then inquired of herwhat the Jews had done in the rest of theprovinces, and formulaically restated that

whatever wishes and requests she hadwould be done (9:12). Instead of answer-ing the king’s question concerning theactivities of the Jews in the wider king-dom, Esther skipped right to her requestsas she spoke these words: “If unto the kingit is pleasing, let it be granted also tomor-row to the Jews who [are] in Shushan todo according to the law (decree) of to-day—and the ten sons of Haman, let themhang upon the tree” (9:13).

One should notice in this particular textthat the queen carefully kept all her peti-tions within the realm of the law. Her firstrequest was that the king would approvethe decree of 13th Adar for the Susian Jewsthe next day. The reason for this particularrequest for a punishing massacre is un-known, and hence, puzzling. Could it havebeen that the enemies of the Jews were stilla threat in Susa? According to the edict thatonly gave them a mandate to attack on 13th

Adar, they should not have been. In lightof this probability, the suspicion concern-ing Esther’s motives is heightened a bit.Further, it seems clear that the victory ofthe Jews on 13th Adar was nothing short ofcomprehensive.54 In a comment that goesbeyond suspicion to conclusion, Paton callsthe queen’s request “horrible” and seesonly a “malignant spirit of revenge”present in it.55 But is the picture different ifthe queen’s petition at this point is “puni-tive and precautionary” so as to eliminatefurther threat as Fox has suggested?56 IsEsther’s request then excusable, necessary,or even laudatory? To be sure, the text doesnot entertain explicitly any of our questions(if they are even relevant at all). It only re-ports the ensuing results of the altercationson 14th Adar (9:15).

Esther’s second request was for thepublic humiliation of the sons of Hamanwho had already been killed in 9:10. Fol-

65

lowing the majority of commentators, thispetition was not a repeated call forHaman’s sons’ death, so it constitutes evi-dence for other source material.57 Thispractice, likely for the purposes of publicdisgrace, is attested both in biblical andnon-biblical sources.58 But unlike the simi-lar “hanging” cases of the king of Ai andthe five kings of the Amorites (Jos 8:29,10:26), God is neither (explicitly) com-manding nor directing this battle.

It would be difficult to comment con-clusively upon Esther’s attitude towardthe Jews’ enemies. Yet it is clear that thetext depicts Esther as the impetus behindthe call for more bloodshed on 14th Adar.59

In the words of Fox, “Esther seems vin-dictive” at this point in light of the factthat “the Jews are in no presentdanger…they have massacred theirenemies....Even if Esther’s request is for aprecautionary massacre, it is, literally,overkill.”60 However, in Fox’s view, theunderlying seriousness of Esther’s actionsis lessened somewhat by literary-culticexplanations concerning the celebrationdays of Purim.61 Yet the gravity of thenarrative’s words might not be so easilyundercut or explained away.62 It mightwell be appropriate that the moral con-cern of Esther’s petition in 9:13 overrides,or at least rivals in seriousness, the estab-lishment or explanation of the festivalschedule.63 Thus, to suggest that Estherresembles “a sophisticated Jael” might notbe so forced after all.64 At the very least,she is “determined and inflexible.”65

MordecaiLoyalty to the King (2:21-23)

Aside from his introduction in 2:5-7and a further descriptive mention (2:10-11), the first appearance of Mordecaishows him exhibiting the traits of an ex-

emplary official and subject of the king(2:21-23).66 For present purposes, knowl-edge of the exact nature of his official rolewithin the court of the king is not vital.67

Instead, this analysis will center onMordecai’s upstanding and conscientious“legal” actions in the service of the king.It is here that we observe the initial Jew-ish interaction with the whimsically un-systematic, and curiously unalterable,Persian law. As has previously been ob-served in the actions of Esther’s neglectof the decree of the king that forbade anunbidden entrance into his presence (4:16-5:1), the attitude of the Jews concerningthe civil law was not entirely consistent.Whereas Persian legal inconsistencieslikely stemmed from a sense of personalinterest and insecurity, Jewish behaviorregarding (or disregarding) the Persianlaw presumably was governed by a senseof national interest and security.

The episode is introduced by the tem-porally vague phrase “in those days,” giv-ing the reader the impression that the exacttime and circumstances surrounding theevent were not of first importance. Of pri-mary interest, however, was the dedicatedresponse of Mordecai to the assassinationplot that became known to him while heoccupied his place in the gate of the king.The machination of the eunuchs, Bigthanand Teresh, who guarded the threshold ofthe king, prompted Mordecai to performhis public duty and report the conspiratorsto a higher authority. For lack of a betterphrase, this action could be likened to acitizen’s arrest.68 In this case, Mordecai re-ported the evil scheme to his cousin, whoalso happened to be the queen. Esther sub-sequently informed the king of the eu-nuchs’ plot “in the name of Mordecai”(2:22). Then, in what appeared to be a quick(and possibly impromptu) inquisition,

66

Bigthan and Teresh were sentenced todeath. Finally, and for future reference,these events were recorded in the courtannals in the presence of the king (2:23).

In this instance, Mordecai’s actions arepublicly commendable in theory even ifthey did not result in any immediate pub-lic distinction.69 He conducted himself ina manner that was both for the good ofthe kingdom, as he proceeded through theappropriate and necessary judicial chan-nels, and eventually positive for his ownperson. Thus, the king’s court was stabi-lized and the standing of the Jews in thekingdom was not at all hindered. In thewider narrative scope (see 6:1-11), the Jew-ish cause was greatly aided by the loyal,“citizenry” behavior of Mordecai and hisjoint policing operation with Esther.70 Atthis point in the story, Mordecai’s loyaltyto the king was unquestionable, but, asyet, unchallenged.

Refusal to Bow before Haman (3:1-4)Mordecai’s inner struggles are left un-

stated. Even the narrative descriptions ofhim fall short of a total portrait of the manwho stands alongside the king in great-ness at the close of the narrative (cf. 10:1-3). But was the picture of Mordecai offeredin the previous section an adequate or fi-nal one? Should Mordecai be seen as abehavioral model? Consider the words ofM. V. Fox: “[M]ordecai is an ideal figure,a repository of virtues, a shining exampleof how a Jew of the diaspora should be-have.”71 But 3:1-4 puts this lofty descrip-tion to the test. Mordecai’s stance in thisepisode possibly calls into question thedepth of his virtue. At the very least, anunderstanding of the motivations ofMordecai’s inaction is desired.

The initial words of 3:1, “After thesethings,” do not tightly follow the ending

of chapter two (2:21-23). This perplexingbeginning leaves us to ponder the futureof Mordecai in the court of the king afterhe has prevented the assassination plot ofthe two door guards. One would expect toread on and find Mordecai being promotedwithin the royal government at this time.Instead, what we observe is the inexpli-cable elevation of Haman, son ofHammedatha, the Agagite, to a high posi-tion in the kingdom. What is clear, how-ever, is that this literary scenario nicely setsup the next episode in the story and movesthe plot of the narrative forward quickly.

Regardless of the issue of an unexplain-able time sequence,72 the more pressing(and more perplexing) issue of Haman’selevation in the Persian court persists. Thereason for this distinction is certainly leftunspecified in the text. But the story doesnot pause at this point. Verse two movesdirectly to the fact that everyone was“bowing down and doing obeisance” tothe new vizier at the command of theking—that is, all except Mordecai.73 Thisunyielding disobedience74 and inactionpresents a problem in the narrative, a huge

problem considering that the whole Jew-ish race was condemned to death on ac-count of Mordecai’s refusal to bow anddo obeisance to his court superior (cf. 3:6-13). Interestingly enough, the king’s ser-vants have anticipated our next questionas they asked the unyielding Mordecai:“Why [are] you violating the commandof the king?”(3:3b). Even though the ser-vants were long-suffering,75 the text re-ports that the reluctance of Mordecai wasbrought to Haman’s attention (3:4). Thenarrative adds that they did this in orderto see if Mordecai’s reason for not bow-ing would exempt him, “for he told themthat he [was] a Jew” (3:4b). Yet eventhough the reason for refusal has been

67

given, it is somewhat cryptic, and thematter is in no way resolved.

Having given this terse rationale be-hind Mordecai’s unwillingness to do obei-sance to Haman, it appears that the writerfelt no further need to explain or excusethe Jew.76 Literarily, the unknown moti-vations of Mordecai are not of prime im-portance since the stage of the conflict hasbeen set and the provocation of Hamanhas been achieved.77 Yet, the curious in-terpreter throughout the years has notbeen able to leave the matter so easily.78

For without a better, more contextual, at-tempt at an explanation, Paton’s accusa-tion that Mordecai exhibited an“inexplicable” and “unreasonable” arro-gance before Haman is as accurate as anyother.79 Upon closer inspection of the text,a plausible explanation emerges.80

It is likely that Mordecai’s non-compli-ance stems from the long-standing ethnicanimosity between the Israelites and theAmalekites.81 The genealogical lines pro-vided for Mordecai (2:5) and Haman (3:1)undoubtedly link them to the warringkings of 1 Samuel 15.82 It is these patro-nymics that would have tipped off alertreaders of the Hebrew text. For the keenand circumspect reader, it might possiblybe suggested that Mordecai’s explanationprovided ample, if not painfully over-abundant, rationalization of his refusal tobow to his ancestral and tribal archenemy,Haman the Agagite.

A better understanding of Mordecai’sreasoning for his resistance in followingthe king’s decree could complicate themoral question in this case. If, as somehave suggested, the Jew’s inaction here isdue to personal arrogance, then we arefaced with a moral problem of personalselfishness, which would cast a shadowover the “shining example” of behavior

that Fox claims for his “ideal figure” and“repository of virtues.” Yet if, as othershave posited, Mordecai’s inaction stemsfrom a commitment to Jewish solidarityand a conviction to place his community’sinterests over above any loyalties he hasto the civil government, then the questionof the disobedience is not so cut and dried.83

Though perhaps tactless,84 Mordecai dis-played a weighed allegiance, and it is evi-dent that similar persuasions can be seenin the resolve and actions of Esther in 4:16-5:1. To be sure, the assimilation of theseJews into the foreign culture and courtwas accompanied by certain reservations.

Refusal to Transgress Court Regulations (4:2)The selective nature of Mordecai’s civil

obedience evidences itself once again af-ter Haman’s genocidal edict is published(3:12-15). Upon Mordecai’s refusal to bowdown and do obeisance to him, Hamanapproached the king with a diplomaticproposition in order to rid the kingdomof an unassimilated85 and unlawfulpeople (3:8). The king complicitously ac-quiesced to this plan (3:10-11). The resultof this endorsement was confusion in thecity of Shushan (3:15), and utter despair,bitter crying, and mourning in sackclothand ashes by Mordecai and the Jews (4:1-3). Nevertheless, in the midst of this cri-sis, it is interesting that Mordecai carefullyupheld the civil law in every respect.

In 4:2 Mordecai “went as far as the faceof the gate of the king, for no one [was] togo into the gate of the king in clothes ofsackcloth.” Whether the troubled Jew wasattempting to gain Esther’s attention byhis actions,86 or whether he was merelybitterly protesting his people’s plight inthe public presence of the king87 (or both),is not known. It cannot even be said withany historical certainty that Persian law

68

prohibited persons from going into theking’s gate in sackcloth.88 Yet it appears,judging by Mordecai’s restraint, that hewas quite conscientious about observingproper public conduct at this juncture. Oneither side of his famous and controver-sial episode of civil disobedience,Mordecai showed the colors of an idealand law-abiding subject. Throughout thenarrative he seemed to be circumspect inhis legal standing, and could be char-acterised as a “wise man in action” in thisrespect.89

A Joint or Unilateral Counter Edict? (8:8-10)The events that follow Esther’s tactful

second banqueting episode (7:1-8) markonly success for the Jews. Yet aside fromthe queen’s questionable moment ofplanned vengeance (9:13) and the con-firming “second letter of Purim” (9:29-32),90 Mordecai figures almost exclusivelyas the leading Jew in the last portions ofthe narrative.91 Strangely, Esther all butdisappears in the waning segments of thestory as Mordecai’s (royal?) status both inthe king’s court and in the Jewish com-munity is described in varying degrees ofgreatness (8:15, 9:4, 10:2-3). This promi-nence climaxes in the description of thecounter decree to Haman’s genocidaledict, where Mordecai is the sole author-ity (8:8-12). The unilateral nature of thecounter edict raises some textual and in-terpretive questions.

In speaking to both Esther the queenand Mordecai the Jew in 8:8, the king spe-cifically declared, “You (pl.) yourselveswrite to the Jews as is good in your (pl.)eyes.” It is expressly implied92 that whatthey decided and wrote, sealed in theking’s name, would act as if it were a royaldecree.93 To be clear, however, it is un-likely that both Esther and Mordecai

would actually dictate the counter edictby taking turns speaking; one or the otherwould likely instruct the scribes. Never-theless, this singular voice should havebeen communicating the corroborativethoughts and plans of the Jewish leaderstogether. As can be seen in the subsequentnarrative, this task of formulating clearlyfalls to Mordecai.94 However, it also ap-pears that he is acting as the sole author-ity behind the edict, for the queen’s rolein the supposed joint effort is not explicit,and doubtfully implied.

To illustrate this point, a few examplesfrom the progression of the narrative from8:9-10 will be highlighted. A relevant por-tion of the text of 8:9 reads that all thatMordecai commanded the scribes was writ-ten to the entire kingdom. Then, 8:10 pro-ceeds to inform the reader that “he wrote inthe name of King Ahashverosh and he sealed[it] with the signet ring of the king and he

sent letters in the hand of the couriers….”The point being made here is not that thetext should have been written so as to ex-hibit a joint effort in authority and compo-sition in the counter edict. Rather, these casesare cited only to point out the apparent sin-gular influence of Mordecai in this process.95

If anything, one would have expected theperson in higher authority to have taken thelead in the matter if the king’s directives fora joint effort were not followed.96 Yet,Mordecai dominates the narrative actionfrom 8:9 on and emerges as the (unilateral)authority figure for the Jewish community.Thus, the responsibility for the actions thatproceed from the counter edict fall upon hisshoulders; that is, if any moral blame can bemeasured out to the Jews because of theiractions on 13th Adar the narrative wouldseem to hold Mordecai alone accountableamong the Jewish leaders.

69

The Wording of the Counter Edict (8:11)Recently, the wording of Mordecai’s

counter decree has been the subject ofmuch suspicion concerning “acceptable”moral conduct in the book of Esther. Spe-cifically, questions have arisen because ofthe traditional translation’s inclusion ofchildren and women in the number ofthose whom the Jews had authorization to“exterminate,” “kill,” and “destroy” asthey stood for their lives on 13th Adar. This,to be sure, is a modern “problem,”97 andcontemporary interpreters vary in theirhandling of Mordecai’s directives. Accord-ing to R. Gordis, the moral uncertaintiesfade away if the verse is translated andunderstood in a different manner. Such aproposition warrants investigation. Thus,for the purposes of clarity and discussion,first Gordis’ translation of 8:11, thenLevenson’s more traditional rendering ofthe verse are presented below. Then I willgive a brief analysis of this important verseand offer some thoughts on what is at stakein its interpretation. The relevant portionsof Mordecai’s counter decree translated byGordis and Levenson follow:

…the king permitted the Jews inevery city to gather and defendthemselves, to destroy, kill, and wipeout every armed force of a peopleor a province attacking “them, theirchildren and their wives, with theirgoods as booty.”98

…the king was granting the Jews inevery city the right to assemble andto fight for their lives—to destroy,slay, and annihilate the armedforces of any people or provincethat might attack them, women andchildren as well, and to take theirproperty as plunder.99

That the counter edict of Mordecai in8:11 is modelled upon the initial writingof Haman in 3:13 is not really disputed

by scholars. Instead, explanatory vari-ances have arisen concerning the under-standing of the syntax of the former whencompared with the latter. Gordis claimsthat a “radical difference” exists betweenthe two passages—a difference that in theend will clear the Jews of any hint of im-propriety on 13th Adar.100 In his reading,Gordis understands the final five wordsof the verse—“them, children andwomen, and their goods to plunder”—tobe a citation from the relevant portions ofHaman’s edict.

Further, he interprets “children andwomen” as direct objects, though they arenot normally considered direct objects.Therefore, he proposes that the edict de-scribes behavior expected of the Jews’ en-

emies and not a like permission given tothe Jews themselves.101 His interpretationenvisions the Jews repelling an enemyforce that would have killed Jewishwomen and children. He does not thinkit describes Jews exacting revenge onwomen and children. He believes thisapproach also better fits the Jews’ laterdecision not to plunder their enemies (see9:10, 15). In Gordis’ rendering, Mordecai’sletter never gave permission to plunder.

Although he thinks Gordis’ work a“valiant effort to eliminate the moral dif-ficulty” in the narrative, Fox claims that“this rendering does not (regrettably) ac-cord with the Hebrew.”102 In his opinion,for “children and women” to be the di-rect objects of “couriers” the repetition ofthird plural pronominal suffixes wouldhave to be present.103 To further this point,Bush adds that the direct object indicatorwould also be required.104

Yet even if Gordis’ reasoning were cor-rect, it is not at all clear from the narrativecontext that Mordecai requires to be mor-ally exonerated for the wording of his

70

counter edict. We must recognize that therhetoric of battle in the ancient world isincluded in the letters of 3:13 and 8:11. Thisis not necessarily to condone the intentsfound therein, but at least to contextualizethem.105 Interestingly, Mordecai’s wordsin 8:11 are reminiscent of the rules of “holywar” that governed Israel’s conquests inthe time of Joshua, the Judges, and theearly part of the monarchy.106 Still, wemust note that differences exist betweenwhat Mordecai exhorted and what wasauthorized in the internal rules of “holywar” that serve to differentiate them fromone another; this is not a comparison oflike and like. In other words, what theJews were licensed to do on 13th Adar can-not simply be equated to the “holy war”commission of the Israelites in formeryears. It is also vital to notice that the au-thor expressed no moral anxiety concern-ing either the sanctioning of the battle in8:11 or in its carrying out in chapter nine.Even among the citizens of Susa there wasno “confusion” at these words (cf. 3:15).Thus, a facile assessment of Mordecai’smoral responsibility in this instance is dif-ficult to make, if it can be fairly made atall. In its own context, however, the word-ing of the counter edict does not appearto be morally reprehensible.

Concluding SummaryFor all my probing, I have hardly

unravelled all of the moral ambiguity thatentwines the Hebrew Esther story, and itis not apparent that it is possible to do so.Thus, I shall offer a few forward-lookingsummary statements concerning the ma-terial. As I have submitted, a moral ap-praisal of Vashti from the text is not easilyachieved. The ambiguity surrounding herchoice not to come when the king calledplaces limits on what can be said, for the

extent of the gaps in the initial queen’sportrayal cloud this matter. A similar,though slightly clearer, circumstance af-fects the interpretation of the moral char-acter of the leaders of the Jews, Esther andMordecai. Their (in)action and decisionsnot only inform an assessment of theirown moral character, but they also affectthe way those whom they lead behave andare subsequently viewed. Thus, any com-ments about them should be weighedquite carefully.

Concerning Esther, quick and condemn-ing conclusions with regard to her conceal-ment, (inappropriate?) active comportment,hesitant loyalty, cunning, and suspectwishes are ill-advised. Instead, it is neces-sary to consider the context very carefullyand not merely judge her against an abstractand/or contemporary ethical criterion.107

However, neither should one necessarily sup-pose that just because she was a woman liv-ing within a male-dominated age she wastherefore justified to operate by a specialstandard.108 In the end, Queen Esther mightwell be faulted for some aspects of her be-havior, even though the matters are far fromsimply decided.

The same could be said with respect tothe character of Mordecai. Though hispotential moral blemishes are fewer, anhonest assessment of his motives and ac-tions, even within their broader contexts,is complex. To be sure, the circumstancesin which the Jewish leaders are acting arefar from ideal or static, and the resultantmoral ambiguity prevents a facile charac-ter assessment or “any simplistic construalof the ‘shalom’ at the end as a reward.”109

All of Esther, especially the texts that con-cern the Jewish people, is in the contextof dual loyalties in a diaspora existence.110

The reality and consequent lifestyle ofcommunity displacement must certainly

71

come into play in any assessment of howindividuals and people groups “live” inforeign lands.111 Needless to say, the ques-tion of how the broader implications ofthis “diaspora living” effect a sound read-ing of Esther necessitates further thoughtand study.

ENDNOTES1 M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Nar-

rative (Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ.Press, 1985) 191-92.

2 It should be pointed out that the presentstudy attempts to concentrate solely uponthe Hebrew account of the book of Estheras it is found in the fourth, revised edi-tion of BHS. Its material is selected froma broader chapter that focuses on themoral character of the MT in my ongo-ing PhD work at New College, Univer-sity of Edinburgh. This emphasis,however, is not to imply that other ver-sions of the story are not worthy of criti-cal analysis; to the contrary, the Greeknarratives (LXX and AT) play an impor-tant and interesting part in Esther stud-ies, as they do in my broader thesis.

3 E. J. Bickerman conjectures some inter-esting explanations, all of which are un-verifiable. See his Four Strange Books of

the Bible: Jonah, Daniel, Koheleth, Esther

(New York: Schocken, 1967) 185-186.4 J. D. Levenson, Esther, Old Testament Li-brary (London: SCM Press, 1997) 47.

5 L. B. Paton, The Book of Esther, Interna-tional Critical Commentary (Edinburgh:T. and T. Clark, 1908) 149-150.

6 M. V. Fox, Character and Ideology in the

Book of Esther (Columbia, SC: Univ. ofSouth Carolina Press, 1991) 165-166.

7 Fox, Character and Ideology, 167.8 In rabbinic literature, Vashti was dispar-aged, which could have been in order todistinguish her from Esther, the true

heroine of the book (see L. L. Bronner,“Esther Revisited: An Aggadic Ap-proach,” in A. Brenner, ed., A Feminist

Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna,

Feminist Commentary on the Bible 7[Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1995] 188; and K. P. Darr, Far More Pre-

cious than Jewels: Perspectives on Biblical

Women [Louisville: Westminster/JohnKnox Press, 1991] 169). This viewpointcontinues into the medieval period. SeeB. D. Walfish, Esther in Medieval Garb

(Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993) 195-196. Yet in more contemporary thoughtthe deposed queen’s image has beenresurrected. She has even been deemed“a moral exemplar of the highest or-der” (J. M. Cohen, “Vashti—An Un-sung Heroine,” Jewish Biblical Quarterly

24 [1996] 106).9 J. G. Baldwin, Esther, Tyndale Old Tes-tament Commentary (Leicester:InterVarsity Press, 1984) 60.

10Fox, Character and Ideology, 169.11Contra the notion of B. Wyler who be-

lieves that the concealment theme’smain purpose is to indicate that Estherwas subordinate both when she wasunder Mordecai’s care and after shebecame queen. See “Esther: The Incom-plete Emancipation of a Queen,” in A.Brenner, ed., A Feminist Companion to

Esther, Judith and Susanna, FCB 7(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1995) 114.

12Contra Paton, who claims that Estherknew that she would be the subject ofill treatment if she disclosed her race.Paton’s beliefs stem from his generalnotion of anti-Semitism that follows theJews wherever they have lived becauseof “their pride and exclusive habits”(The Book of Esther, 175). For a similarlypessimistic reading of the Jews’ stand-

72

ing in foreign contexts, see P.Cassell, An Explanatory Commentary

on Esther, trans. A. Bernstein(Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1888)63-66. M. V. Fox, in a more nuancedreading, also holds that fear of anti-Semitic treatment lay behind theevents of Esther’s concealment. YetFox’s view does not envision ubiq-uitous anti-Semitic hostility asPaton’s does; instead, he posits thatthe danger faced is “a manifestationof an ever-present—but not univer-sal—hostility, for which one mustalways be prepared” (Character and

Ideology, 32). For Fox, a kingdom-wide anti-Semitism is not consonantwith the text; instead, the ambigu-ously identified group, “enemies ofthe Jews,” are the constant threat(33). While Fox’s suggestion is plau-sible concerning the text as a whole,it is still unclear that Esther wouldhave been aware of this unpredict-able threat. Even if Mordecai was soaware, he might not have informedEsther. The simple silence of the textgives the reader no guidance here.

13M. V. Fox, The Redaction of the Books

of Esther: On Reading Composite Texts,Society of Biblical Literature Mono-graph Series 40 (Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1991) 113.

14Levenson, Esther, 61.15The opinion that Esther displayed

any activity whatsoever in thisscene argues against Fox, who pic-tures Esther as exclusively passive,even docile, at this point in the nar-rative (Character and Ideology, 37;197-198). Interestingly, Fox believesthat “[A]lmost every word stressesEsther’s passivity in all this” (37).L. Day also characterizes Esther as

“more passive in attaining her fa-vored status,” yet she does ac-knowledge that Esther “activelyattains the favor” of Hegai. Con-cerning her time with the king, how-ever, Day only comments on the“emotional response” of the king“over which she [Esther] would nothave had much control” that de-cides the recipient of the queenlycrown (Three Faces of a Queen, Jour-nal for the Study of the Old Testa-ment, Supplement Series 186[Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress, 1995] 45).

16Moore suggests this form of “per-plexed” (Esther, 48). However,Moore’s decision tends to soften theexcruciating emotional content ofthe queen’s reaction. G. Gerlemanpoints to the Akkadian and Ugariticparallels and argues for a strongerexpression here, one likened to “das

schmerzliche Stöhnen und Schreien der

gebärenden Frau” (“the painfulgroaning and crying out of awoman giving birth”) (Esther,Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testa-ment 21 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-kirchener Verlag, 19822] 105). In asimilar vein, Bush refers to Job 15:20and Jeremiah 23:19 which connotean active physical reaction “occa-sioned by the shock of calamity orpain.” In this verse, however, themeaning is figurative sense of theverb is preferred—“to be deeplydistressed” (Ruth, Esther, 390).

17In 4:4, the text reads that when theeunuchs came and related whatMordecai was doing, “the queenwas deeply distressed” (followingF. W. Bush’s suggestion [Ruth,

Esther, 390]). It is not until the next

verse that Esther actually sendsHatach to inquire as to the reasonwhy Mordecai has assumed such aposition.

18Note Levenson’s overall picture ofEsther ’s transformation from a“self-styled Persian to a reconnectedJew” in chapter four (Esther, 80).

19Fox agrees. He calls Esther’s mo-tives “self-centered, although shehas been informed of the massivedanger facing the people.” Contra

Gerleman, who holds that Esther’shesitancy should be likened to thestalling actions of Moses in takingon God’s task in Exodus 3:11, 4:10,13, and 6:12 and 30 (Esther, 105-106),Fox believes that the queen’s behav-ior in this case attests to her concernfor her own personal well-being(Character and Ideology, 61-62). D. J.A. Clines might be correct not to at-tribute Esther’s hesitancy to cow-ardice in this case, but it is mostlikely that some less-than-heroicpersonality trait is driving the char-acter of Esther at this particularpoint. See Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,

New Century Bible Commentary(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984)301.

20J. M. Wiebe, “Esther 4.14: ‘Will Re-lief and Deliverance Arise for theJews from Another Place?’” Catho-

lic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991) 410.21This reading follows Wiebe’s trans-

lation, 410.22Wiebe, “Esther 4.14,” 410.23Wiebe, “Esther 4.14,” 410-412.24R. Gordis, “Religion, Wisdom and

History in the Book of Esther—ANew Solution to an Ancient Crux,”Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981)360 n. 6.

73

25P. R. Ackroyd, “Two HebrewNotes,” Annual of the Swedish Theo-

logical Institute 5 (1967) 82.Ackroyd’s conclusions are followedby Fox who supposes “another hu-man as a source of deliverance”(Character and Ideology, 63).

26For the first two suggestions, seeClines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 302;and The Esther Scroll: The Story of the

Story, JSOTSup 30 (Sheffield: JSOTPress, 1984) 42-43.

27For this proposal, note the works ofPaton (Esther, 223); Moore (Esther,

50); and other sources listed byWiebe (“Esther 4.14,” 412 n. 14).

28Wiebe, “Esther 4.14,” 412.29Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 302;

and The Esther Scroll, 35-36. See Fox,Character and Ideology, 62; andWiebe, “Esther 4.14,” 412 n. 15 forother like sources.

30Concerning this position, Wiebe(“Esther 4.14,” 412 n. 16) cites L.H. Brockington, Ezra, Nehemiah

and Esther, Century Bible (London:Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1969) 235;Moore, Esther, 53; and S. B. Berg,The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes

and Structure, Society of BiblicalLiterature Dissertation Series 44(Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,1979) 76, 90 n. 71.

31Wiebe, “Esther 4.14,” 413 (italics his).32On positive rhetorical questions that

make negative statements, see G. R.Driver, “Affirmation by Exclama-tory Negation,” Journal of the Ancient

Near Eastern Society 5 (1973) 107-113;and esp. R. T. Hyman, “Questionsand the Book of Ruth,” Hebrew Stud-

ies 24 (1983) 17-25.33Wiebe, “Esther 4.14,” 413 (italics his).34Contra J. G. McConville who states

that “the Jews will be saved whetheror not she meets the call of the mo-ment” (Ezra, Nehemiah & Esther,Daily Study Bible [Edinburgh: TheSaint Andrew Press, 1985] 171.)

35Wiebe, “Esther 4.14,” 413.36Wiebe, “Esther 4.14,” 415.37Notice also the words of Mordecai

in 4:13: “Do not imagine, of all theJews, to escape the house of the kingwith your life.”

38Levenson is not sure whether Estherhas merely resigned to death at thispoint or willingly accepted her roleas the hope of the Jews. What hedoes admit, however, is that thereis a sense of reluctance as he com-pares Esther’s plight to that of Jacobin Genesis 43:14 (Esther, 82). Moreboldly, Clines posits a “courageousdetermination” involved in both theEsther and Jacob instances (Ezra,

Nehemiah, Esther, 303).39Ringgren thinks Esther was aware of

the danger that lay before her (cf. 4:11,13-14), and she likely possessed “eine

verzweifelte Entschlossenheit” (“a de-spairing determination”) in the face ofit (H. Ringgren, Das Buch Esther, 3rded., Das Alte Testament Deutsch16/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1981) 407; see also Bardtke,Das Buch Esther, 335. With this in mind,my view of Esther’s submission is incontrast with the sense of “passive res-ignation” that Day supposes (Three

Faces of a Queen, 57). Instead, it comescloser to the idea of “self-sacrifice” of-fered by C. V. Dorothy (The Books of

Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual In-

tegrity, JSOTSup 187 [Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1997] 245),and W. Dommershausen’s notion ofEsther’s “Opfers des Gehorsams und der

Liebe” (“sacrifice of obedience andlove”) (Ester, 3rd ed. [Stuttgart: EchterVerlag, 1995] 26; also, Die Estherrolle,

74.40This understanding is supported by

the reading in BDB, 455.41This is submission not necessarily

to the wishes of Mordecai, but to thetask that lay before her. In light ofthis, it can be said that Esther dis-plays a measure of initiative inde-pendent of Mordecai and is notsolely acting out of fear or respectfor her father-figure. Esther is agenuine heroine in her own right,even morphologically despite theopinion of E. Fuchs, “Status andRole of Female Heroines in the Bib-lical Narrative,” Mankind Quarterly

23 (1982) 154.42Paton, Berg, and Day believe that

Esther possessed little hope, if any,as she prepared to go into the king.Paton likens the queen’s anticipa-tion to one who is submitting to anoperation “because there is a chanceof escaping death in that way” (The

Book of Esther, 226). Berg believesthat the queen’s decision is made“in spite of the utter helplessness ofthe situation and the presumed fu-tility of her actions” (The Book of

Esther, 120 n. 55). Day states, “[I]tappears here that Esther alreadyaccepts her death as a foregone con-clusion to her decision to go in tothe king. She appears even lesshopeful of escaping death thanPaton suggests” (Three Faces of a

Queen, 58). These opinions are incontrast with those of Fox, who isnot sure that Esther believes thatdeath would accompany her refusalto go in to the king. Instead, Fox sees

74

the queen as one who is “coming togrips” with the danger of the situa-tion; one who realizes that shemight fail, but “expresses thehope—though not certainty—ofsuccess” (Character and Ideology, 64).In terms of the extent of Esther’shope in the present situation, I agreewith Fox.

43Although a measure of narrativesuspense has resulted from Esther’sdelay in complying with Mordecai’sdirectives, I hope to have shownthat her hesitation has not solelybeen the product of a literary moveto heighten dramatic suspense.Contra A. Meinhold, “Die Gattungder Josephsgeschichte und desEstherbuches: Diasporanovelle, II,”Zietschrift für die alttestamentliche

Wissenschaft 88 (1976) 82.44Clines, The Esther Scroll, 18.45See Baldwin, Esther, 92.46While Esther’s statement is gener-

ally clear, the specific nature of thelast clause is unclear, and thus, dis-puted. Contra Paton (The Book of

Esther, 258) and Moore (Esther, 70).47Fox analyzes Esther’s rhetorical tac-

tics (Character and Ideology, 85).48Literally, the king asked, “Who [is]

he, this (one)? and where [is] this hewho has filled his heart to do thus?”(7:5b). Here, “form and contentunite with dramatic effect” as theking’s “highly charged feelings” ofrage are expressed with staccato syl-lables. For a literary discussion ofthis (purposefully?) awkward syn-tax, consult Bush, Ruth, Esther, 426;Fox, Character and Ideology, 86; andDommershausen, Die Estherrolle, 95.

49Possibly for political or psychologi-cal reasons, Esther leaves aside the

culpability of the king in the edictcondemning the Jews (cf. 3:10). SeeBerg, The Book of Esther, 92.

50Bush notes a dramatic ellipsis here.The reader is not sure why the kingbolts from the room, or to whom hisrage is directed. The latter question isactually answered before the formerone, for Haman’s actions revealagainst whom the king is furious. Con-cerning the former question, Bush sup-poses that the king “was at a loss toknow what to do” and needed sometime to decide (Ruth, Esther, 423, 430).Clines is a bit more certain about thematter. He submits that the kingstormed into the garden to decide be-tween his publicly promoted vizierand his beautiful queen (The Esther

Scroll, 15). The text leaves the readerto use her or his imagination.

51Moore supposes that instead of be-ing afraid Haman “was dumb-founded” or “taken by surprise” bythis proclamation. He bases his ren-dering on the use of ba’at in Daniel8:17 and 1 Chronicles 21:30 (Esther,

71). If the fact that the queen wasJewish dumbfounded Haman, thenMoore’s suggestion carries someweight. Yet, contextually, the trans-lation “was terrified” fits better be-cause of Haman’s ensuing fearfulgrovelling before the queen in thesubsequent verse. In both cases thevizier knew exactly what the situa-tion was, so he acted quickly out offear (cf. BDB, 130; R. L. Harris, G. L.Archer, Jr., and B. K. Waltke, Theo-

logical Wordbook of the Old Testament

1:122; and Day, Three Faces of a

Queen, 127). This reading is widelysupported in commentaries.

52Paton, The Book of Esther, 263.

53Moore notes that this designation,which comes from Judges 4:17-22,has come from scholars because ofEsther’s inaction in 7:9 to come toHaman’s aid when wrongly ac-cused, and because of her requestsin 9:13. He comments that this kindof conclusion takes Esther’s acts inisolation with disregard to “her in-ner motives” and “without fullknowledge of the external circum-stances” (Esther, 88).

54Contra H. Gevaryahu, who submit-ted that Esther called the second dayof battle in Shushan because “therewas not a clear victory for eitherside.” See “Esther is a Story of Jew-ish Defense not a Story of JewishRevenge,” trans. G. J. Gevaryahu,JBQ 21 (1993) 9.

55Paton, The Book of Esther, 287.56Fox, Character and Ideology, 112.

Clines comments that althoughEsther’s first request “lacks any nar-rative motivation,” it could havebeen in the service of promoting“Jewish supremacy at the heart ofthe Persian empire” (The Esther

Scroll, 48; cf. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,

324).57For example, see Paton (The Book of

Esther, 287); Fox (Character and Ide-

ology, 112); Levenson (Esther, 122);and Baldwin (Esther, 106).

58Cf. Joshua 8:29, 10:26 and 1 Samuel31:10. On the practice of hanging/impalement in particular, seeHerodotus, The Histories, rev. ed.,trans. A. de Sélincourt (London:Penguin Books, 1996) 3:125 and 6:30.

59Contra J. Magonet’s developed ex-planation that the paranoid kingis the real power and impetus be-hind the call for more bloodshed.

75

See “The Liberal and the Lady:Esther Revisited,” Judaism 29 (1980)174.

60Fox, Character and Ideology, 203.61Ibid. To be fair in my use of Fox at

this point, I must also include hisviews on chapter 9 (MT) as a whole.He is not sure that this vindictivepicture of Esther is intended.

62Fox continues, “Yet whatever theauthor’s intentions, the effect of 9:13is to introduce a note of harshnessand even bellicosity into the picture”(Ibid). This is the uncomfortable tex-tual reality that has prompted mycomments in this section. Contra B.W. Jones, one does not have to be aliteralist or act as if he/she were toraise serious questions concerningthe moral actions in the book ofEsther. Even if one regards the bookas fiction and realizes the obviouscomic intent underlying much of thenarrative, that does not necessarilyimply that all moral inquiry is aban-doned. Humor can carry seriousmessages and implications (“TwoMisconceptions About the Book ofEsther,” CBQ 39 [1977] 180-81). Forcomment on the relationship of thecomic to irony and ethics, see S.Goldman, “Narrative and EthicalIronies in Esther,” JSOT 47 (1990) 30n. 18.

63Goldman’s claim is that the “ironicexploration of Jewish-Gentile rela-tionships” is foremost in theauthor’s mind here and not “an ex-planation for a minor Jewish holi-day.” He also believes that Esther’srequest in 9:13 is “a literary device”operative in a “deliberately over-drawn revenge scene” which setsforth the Jews’ “tragically ironic ex-

pansion of vengeance” (“Narrativeand Ethical Ironies,” 23).

64Knowing what we can aboutEsther’s character and the circum-stances of the Hebrew story, it mightbe unfair not to admit that thequeen’s conduct in the book is lessthan wholly upright. Perhaps thecharacter traits suggested in thissection attest to an aspect of theHebrew Esther’s true moral com-plexion, one whose apprehensiondemands a reader’s imaginationand willingness to have an openand perceptive mind.

65J. F. Craghan, “Esther, Judith, andRuth: Paradigms for Human Libera-tion,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 12(1982) 13.

66B. W. Jones thinks Mordecai’s loyaltyprogressed in line with one of themain purposes of the book—i.e., thatJews can and should work wellwithin foreign environments (“TheSo-Called Appendix to the Book ofEsther,” Semitics 6 [1978] 38).

67That Mordecai held some sort ofofficial capacity by nature of his “sit-ting in (at) the gate of the king” is acommon view. The precise charac-ter of that capacity is not fullyknown. For more detailed generaland specific studies, consult O.Loretz, “sr hmlk—‘Das Tor desKönigs’,” Die Welt des Orients 4(1967) 104-108; H. P. Rüger, “‘DasTor des Königs’—der königlicheHof,” Biblica 50 (1969) 247-250; H.Wehr, “Das Tor des Königs in BucheEsther und verwandte Ausdrücke,”Der Islam 39 (1964) 247-260; D. J. A.Clines, “In Quest of the HistoricalMordecai,” Vetus Testamentum 41(1991) 129-136; and E. M. Yamauchi,

“Mordecai, the Persepolis Tablets,and the Susa Excavations,” VT 42(1992) 272-275.

68Although the responsibilities andprivileges of citizenship are not nec-essarily in view in this context, thelegal action of a subject in the ser-vice of another (in this case, a sov-ereign) here supports the use of thisanachronistic analogy.

69It is puzzling that the king did notimmediately reward Mordecai (seeFox, Character and Ideology, 40, in hiscitation of Herodotus). But in thegreater narrative framework, thisdelay makes more sense (cf. 6:1-11).

70It is interesting to notice the rela-tional solidarity between Mordecaiand Esther as they seek to bring theconspirators to justice in 2:21-23 (cf.Clines, The Esther Scroll, 105; andDay, Three Faces of a Queen, 187-189).This collaboration on behalf of theJews is evident throughout the nar-rative, even if at certain points theaction of one hero is emphasizedover the other. In this vein, Fox com-ments on the possibility of the twoJews’ cooperative efforts in the ser-vice of promoting the “importance”of Esther within the court (Charac-

ter and Ideology, 40). In a narrativelink, Levenson notices the foreshad-owing that this partnership pro-vides for their joint foiling of “aninfinitely larger assassination plot—Haman’s attempted genocide of theJewish people” (Esther, 64).

71Fox, Character and Ideology, 185.72The common biblical idiom, “after

these things,” does not even have tohave a temporal element. It can also“join loosely together different epi-sodes in a story (e.g., Gen. 15.1).” See

76

S. P. Re’emi, “The Faithfulness ofGod: A Commentary on the Book ofEsther,” in Israel Among the Nations:

A Commentary on the Books of Nahum,

Obadiah, Esther, International Theo-logical Commentary (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1985) 121.

73The text explicitly revealsMordecai’s refusal: “but Mordecaidid not bow down and did not doobeisance.”

74E. L. Greenstein notices that the rep-etition of the negative particle in 3:2highlights Mordecai’s disobedience(“A Jewish Reading of Esther,” in J.Neusner, B. A. Levine and E. S.Frerichs, eds., Judaic Perspectives on

Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: For-tress, 1987) 233.

75This patience is made evident in theeditorial comment: “And it was intheir saying to him daily—but hewould not listen to them.” Contra B.Goodnick, the king’s servants donot appear to have become “resent-ful” of Mordecai and thus informedHaman (“The Book of Esther and itsMotifs,” JBQ 25 [1997] 102). Instead,their persistence suggests that theysought Mordecai’s welfare and sur-vival in the court.

76See Fox, Character and Ideology, 43.77Paton, The Book of Esther, 197.78For a good summary of the main

suggestions, see Fox, Character and

Ideology, 43-45.79Paton, The Book of Esther, 196-197,

213.80Clines, The Esther Scroll, 14.81Cf. Ge 36:12; Ex 17:8-16; Nu 24:7, Dt

25:17-19; 1 Sa 15. Note also the ap-parent conclusion of the Israel-Amalekite struggle in 1 Chronicles4:42-43 in the days of Hezekiah. Fox

notes that the Amalekites as a na-tion appear to disappear at thispoint, yet the possibility of anAmalekite diaspora is not out of thequestion (Character and Ideology, 42).For support for the adherence to thisposition see Bardtke, Das Buch

Esther, 316-317; Moore, Esther, 36;Berg, The Book of Esther, 67-68;Meinhold, Das Buch Esther, 42-43;Dommershausen, Ester, 20; Clines,Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 294; Bush,Ruth, Esther, 385; and Levenson,Esther, 66-67.

82Cf. A. LaCocque, “Haman in theBook of Esther,” Hebrew Annual Re-

view 11 (1987) 216.83See Berg’s discussion of Esther’s em-

phasis on loyalty to the Jewish com-munity (The Book of Esther, 98-103).

84D. J. A. Clines, “Reading EstherFrom Left to Right: ContemporaryStrategies for Reading a BiblicalText,” in Clines, S. E. Fowl, and S.E. Porter, eds., The Bible in Three Di-

mensions, JSOTSup 87 (Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1990) 44.

85See Fox (Character and Ideology, 279-280) followed by Bush (Ruth, Esther,

381) for the idea that the Pual of parád

(here the active participle) carries thesense of “being isolated, unas-similated” religiously, culturally, etc.This reading fits Haman’s argumentin that there will be no reason to denyhis request once the otherness of thisone people is established and it is re-alized that they are not integral to thekingdom (cf. Moore, Esther, 39).

86Paton offers this interpretation (The

Book of Esther, 214), as does Ringgren(Das Buch Esther, 406).

87See Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,

299; and Bush, Ruth, Esther, 394.

88Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 299.Berg argues that 4:2 suggests that theprohibition is “a Persian, not Jewish,custom” (The Book of Esther, 75, 89 n.66). There is little to support this prac-tice save the possible references inHerodotus, The Histories, 8:99 and9:24. Mordecai’s acts of mourningappear to be in line with the conven-tional Jewish rites of mourning com-monly seen in the Hebrew Bible (e.g.,Ge 37:29; 2 Sa 13:19; 2 Ki 18:37; Job2:8, 7:5; Da 9:3; et. al. That this kind ofposture and appearance was not al-lowed in certain areas of the Persiancourt is not entirely surprising (cf. thedubious reference in Herodotus, The

Histories, 3:117). But contra P. Cassel,the “historical originality” of Esthercannot be established by “this casualremark” (An Explanatory Commentary

on Esther, 145).89See S. Talmon, “‘Wisdom’ in the

Book of Esther,” VT 13 (1963) 427.Cf. W. L. Humphreys, “The Motif ofthe Wise Courtier in the Old Testa-ment,” Ph.D. diss., Union Theologi-cal Seminary, 1970.

90For a discussion of the syntactic andinterpretive issues in these verses,see S. E. Loewenstamm, “Esther9:29-32: The Genesis of a Late Ad-dition,” Hebrew Union College An-

nual 42 (1971); Bush’s excursus,which surveys past interpretationand outlines the three main difficul-ties (Ruth, Esther, 469-471); the com-prehensive and lucid treatment ofFox, Character and Ideology, 123-128;and most recently, Levenson, Esther,

125, 129-132.91Clines supposes that Mordecai was

“drawn into the king’s reply” in 8:7because he is the one who will draft

77

the counter decree (Ezra, Nehemiah,

Esther, 315).92Fox posits that “the you before the

imperative is very emphatic, sug-gesting a contrast: I have done mypart, now you go finish the job”(Character and Ideology, 95).

93Cf. Baldwin, Esther, 96; Clines, The

Esther Scroll, 18, 67; Day, Three Faces

of a Queen, 145; Gerleman, Esther,

128; and Dommershausen, Die

Estherrolle, 102-103.94Baldwin states that Mordecai “took

responsibility for drawing up theedict,” but does not comment on theimplications of this (Esther, 96).

95Believing there to be literary sym-metry here, Fox holds that Mordecaicomposes and sends the counteredict in order to provide a balancefor Haman’s composing and send-ing of his edict in 3:11-15. AlthoughEsther had received joint authorityhere, it appears that she gave thereigns over to the new vizier so thathe could countermand the oldvizier’s edict (Character and Ideology,

99). This explanation appears plau-sible, but the official status ofMordecai as vizier is only impliedat this point in the narrative. While8:15 adds further implication as toMordecai’s vizier role, it is really notuntil later that the reader can knowthat the king had “elevated”Mordecai (10:2) and that he was“second to King Ahashverosh”(10:3).

96At this point in the story, Esther isthe higher civil authority. In 8:15,however, Mordecai emerged fromthe court dressed in royal attire. It isobvious from this point on thatMordecai carries more weight in the

narrative, and possibly holds morecivil authority within the empire (see9:4, 10:2-3). Yet, in a literary move,the author might be returning to amore passive portrait of Esther likethe one with which he began the nar-rative. These beginning and endingmanifestations of passivity mightform something of an inclusioaround the active Esther of 4:16-8:6.

97Levenson aptly relates that the kill-ing of children and women is “of-fensive to any decent moralsensibility today” (Esther, 110).However, the ancient versions andTargums of the book fail to shyaway from the fact that children andwomen were included in the scopeof the Jews’ “battle jurisdiction” on13th Adar. Indeed, only T2 adds anyelement to the gist of 8:11. It in-cludes the enemies’ slaves in thegroup (Grossfeld, The Two Targums

of Esther, 185). This inclusion is likelyto express the sense of total devas-tation that the Jews were to inflicton their enemies.

98Gordis, “Studies in the Esther Nar-rative,” 51-52.

99Levenson, Esther, 109.100Gordis, “Studies in the Esther Nar-

rative,” 50.101My understanding of Gordis’ po-

sition is aided by Bush’s work (Ruth,

Esther, 447).102Fox, Character and Ideology, 99-100.103Ibid., 284. Cf. Paton, The Book of

Esther, 274.104Bush, Ruth, Esther, 447.105To aid this endeavor, consult the

appendix concerning Ancient NearEastern international law found inJ. Barton, Amos’s Oracles against the

Nations (Cambridge: Cambridge

Univ. Press, 1980) 51-61. Far fromhaving in place the systemization ofthe Geneva Convention, it appearsthat at least we are able to discernto some extent what might havebeen “acceptable” and “unaccept-able” in ANE warfare.

106Cf. Dt 20:13-18 (cited in Fox, Char-

acter and Ideology, 100).107We cannot afford to make the same

mistake as many of the rabbis didin their day. In so desiring Esther tobe the ideal Jewish woman, they at-tributed to her the traits and moti-vations of pious orthodoxy andreinterpreted her behavior in an ex-emplary manner (cf. Darr, Far More

Precious than Jewels, 187). Magonetsubmits that Esther is placed withinthe realms of power for a specialtime, and “to judge her behavior inabstract moral terms is to misunder-stand the choices that she has tomake” (“The Liberal and the Lady,”174). Yet the more this contextualapproach nears a criteria of relativeethics, the less satisfying it becomes.

108Contra White’s supposition (“Esther:A Feminine Model for JewishDiaspora,” 168); cf. Fuchs’ view (“Sta-tus and Role of Female Heroines,”157).

109Webb, “Reading Esther as HolyScripture,” 34.

110 Concerning how “dual loyalties”enter into the ethical picture of theScroll, see Greenstein, “A JewishReading of Esther,” 234, 237.

111 See W. L. Humphreys, “A Life-Stylefor Diaspora: A Study of the Talesof Esther and Daniel,” JBL 92 (1973)211-223.