¹sn In the English Bible Esther appears adjacent to Ezra-Nehemiah and with the historical books, but in the Hebrew Bible it is one of five short books (the so-called Megillot) that appear toward the end of the biblical writings. The canonicity of the book was questioned by some in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. It is one of five OT books that were at one time regarded as antilegomena (i.e., books “spoken against”). The problem with Esther was the absence of any direct mention of God. Some questioned whether a book that did not mention God could be considered sacred scripture. Attempts to resolve this by discovering the tetragrammaton (YHWH) encoded in the Hebrew text (e.g., in the initial letters of four consecutive words in the Hebrew text of Esth 5:4) are unconvincing, although they do illustrate how keenly the problem was felt by some. Martin Luther also questioned the canonicity of this book, objecting to certain parts of its content (see Table Talk, ch. 24). Although no copy of Esther was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, this does not necessarily mean that the Qumran community did not regard it as canonical. It is possible that the absence of Esther from what has survived at Qumran is merely a coincidence. Although the book does not directly mention God, it would be difficult to read it without sensing the providence of God working in powerful, though at times subtle, ways to rescue his people from danger and possible extermination. The absence of mention of the name of God may be a deliberate part of the literary strategy of the writer
²tn Heb “it came about.”
³tn Where the Hebrew text has “Ahasuerus,” in this book the LXX has “Artaxerxes.” The ruler mentioned in the Hebrew text is Xerxes I (ca. 486-465 B.C.).
⁴sn The geographical extension of the Persian empire was vast. The division of Xerxes’ empire into 127 smaller provinces was apparently done for purposes of administrative efficiency.
⁵tn Heb “Cush,” referring to the region of the upper Nile in Africa. India and Cush (i.e., Ethiopia) are both mentioned in a tablet taken from the foundation of Xerxes’ palace in Persepolis that describes the extent of this empire. See ANET, 316-17.
⁶sn Heb “Shushan.” The city of Susa served as one of several capitals of Persia during this time; the other locations were Ecbatana, Babylon, and Persepolis. Partly due to the extreme heat of its summers, Susa was a place where Persian kings stayed mainly in the winter months. Strabo indicates that reptiles attempting to cross roads at mid-day died from the extreme heat (Geography 15.3.10-11).
⁷tn The Hebrew word hr*yB! (birah) can refer to a castle or palace or temple. Here it seems to have in mind that fortified part of the city that might be called an acropolis or citadel.
⁸sn The third year of Xerxes’ reign would be ca. 483 b.c.
⁹tc Due to the large numbers of people implied, some scholars suggest that the original text may have been “leaders of the army.” However, there is no textual evidence for this emendation, and the large numbers are not necessarily improbable.
¹⁰sn Unlike the Book of Daniel, the usual order for this expression in Esther is “Persia and Media” (cf. vv. 14, 18, 19). In Daniel the order is “Media and Persia,” indicating a time in their history when Media was in the ascendancy.
¹¹sn The size of the banquet described here, the number of its invited guests, and the length of its duration, although certainly immense by any standard, are not without precedent in the ancient world. C. A. Moore documents a Persian banquet for 15,000 people and an Assyrian celebration with 69,574 guests (Esther [AB], 6).
¹²tn Heb “many days.”
¹³tn The words “to be exact!” are not in the Hebrew text but have been supplied in the translation for clarity.
¹⁴tc The Hebrew text does not indicate why this elaborate show of wealth and power was undertaken. According to the LXX these were “the days of the wedding” (aiJ hJmevrai tou' gavmou, Jai Jhmerai tou gamou), presumably the king’s wedding. However, a number of scholars have called attention to the fact that this celebration takes place just shortly before Xerxes’ invasion of Greece. It is possible that the banquet was a rallying for the up-coming military effort. See Herodotus, Histories 7.8.
¹⁵tc The LXX has hex (“six”) instead of “seven.”
¹⁶tn Heb “were found.”
¹⁷tn Heb “from the great and unto the small.”
¹⁸sn The finest linen was byssus, a fine, costly, white fabric made in Egypt, Palestine, and Edom, and imported into Persia (BDB 101; HALOT 1:115-16).
¹⁹tn The Hebrew noun hFm mitta refers to a reclining couch spread with covers, cloth and pillow for feasting and carousing (Ezek 23:41; Amos 3:12; 6:4; Esth 1:6; 7:8). See BDB 641; HALOT 2:573.
²⁰tn Heb “to cause to drink” (Hiphil infinitive construct of saqah). As the etymology of the word for “banquet” (misteh, from satah, “to drink”) hints, drinking was a prominent feature of ancient Near Eastern banquets.
²¹tn Heb “the drinking was according to law; there was no one compelling.”
²²tn Heb “every chief of his house.”
²³tn Heb “according to the desire of man and man.”
²⁴sn Vashti is the name of Xerxes’ queen according to the Book of Esther. But in the Greek histories of this period the queen’s name is given as Amestris. (e.g., Herodotus, Histories 9.108-13). The name Vashti does not seem to occur in the nonbiblical records from this period. Apparently the two women are not to be confused, but not enough is known about this period to reconcile completely the biblical and extrabiblical accounts.
²⁵tn Heb “as the heart of the king was good with the wine.” Here the proper name (King Ahasuerus) has been substituted for the title in the translation for stylistic reasons.
²⁶tn Heb “King Ahasuerus”; here the proper name has been replaced by the pronoun “him” in the translation for stylistic reasons.
²⁷tn Heb “good of appearance.”
²⁸sn Refusal to obey the king was risky even for a queen in the ancient world. It is not clear why Vashti behaved so rashly and put herself in such danger. Apparently she anticipated humiliation of some kind and was unwilling to subject herself to it, in spite of the obvious dangers. There is no justification in the biblical text for an ancient Jewish targumic tradition that the king told her to appear before his guests dressed in nothing but her royal high-turban, that is, essentially naked.
²⁹tn Heb “at the word of the king.”
³⁰tn Heb “burned.”
³¹tn Heb “judgment.”
³²tn Heb “seers of the face of the king.”
³³tn Heb “were sitting first.”
³⁴tn These words are not present in the Hebrew text, but have been supplied in the translation for clarity.
³⁵tc The location of the prepositional phrase “according to law” is a bit unusual in the Hebrew text, but not so much so as to require emendation. Some scholars suggest deleting the phrase as an instance of dittography from the final part of the immediately preceding word in v. 14. Others suggest taking the phrase with the end of v. 14 rather than with v. 15. Both proposals, however, lack adequate justification.
³⁶sn Heb “If upon the king it is good.” Deferential language was common in ancient Near Eastern court language addressing a despot; it occurs often in Esther.
³⁷sn Laws…that cannot be repealed. On the permanence of the laws of Media and Persia see also Esth 8:8 and Dan 6:8, 12, 15.
³⁸sn Previously in this chapter the word “queen” accompanies Vashti’s name (cf. vv. 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17). But here, in anticipation of her demotion, the title is dropped.
³⁹tn Heb “her neighbor.”
⁴⁰tn Heb “who is better than she.” The reference is apparently to worthiness of the royal position as demonstrated by compliance with the king’s wishes, although the word tob (‘good”) can also be used of physical beauty.
⁴¹tn Heb “heard.”
⁴²tc The phrase “vast though it is” is not included in the LXX.
⁴³sn For purposes of diplomacy and governmental communication throughout the far-flung regions of the Persian empire the Aramaic language was normally used. Educated people throughout the kingdom could be expected to have competence in this language. But in the situation described in v. 22 a variety of local languages are to be used, and not just Aramaic, so as to make the king’s edict understandable to the largest possible number of people.
⁴⁴tn Heb “in his house.”
⁴⁵tc The final prepositional phrase is not included in the LXX. Some scholars suggest the phrase may be the result of dittography from the earlier phrase “to each people according to its language,” but this is not a necessary conclusion. The edict was apparently intended to reassert male prerogative with regard to two things (and not just one): sovereign and unquestioned leadership within the family unit, and the right of deciding which language was to be used in the home when a bilingual situation existed.