G.J. STEYN
....
This study provides a comparative survey of the books of LXX Esther,
Judith and Susanna. It utilizes primarily narrative criticism, keeping in
mind that the narratives should be examined as literature, investigating
each narrative as a whole. It is hoped that in this comparative
investigation we will arrive at a better understanding of the extent of the
similarities between the narratives of these three women, as well as
exploring some possible origins for the basic narrative pattern (some
“master narrative”) from which these might have mutated. The concept of
these characters as the main protagonists is challenged with the suspicion
that we still encounter here male-dominated stories in which these women
are possibly portrayed merely as role models of submission, obedience
and self-sacrifice.
INTRODUCING THE THREE WOMEN
Attention has already been drawn to the commonalities between Esther, Judith
(Kottsieper 1998:135-136; Berg 1979:149-150; Enslin & Zeitlin 1972:2)1 and
Susanna (Brenner 2004:11). The most striking commonalities might be
summarised as follows: (a) they are narratives about Jewish women
protagonists who seem to share similar qualities, (b) the plot of the narratives
show striking similarities where they are situated in an environment of foreign
powers; (c) their LXX versions date from approximately the same time, i.e. the
second to the first century BC, thus all indicating a relatively late date (d) they
probably originated outside the territorial boundaries of ancient “Israel”, and (e)
Kottsieper found a surprising parallel between the Prayer of Esther and her
appearance before the king with Judith 9-11. Cf. also Enslin & Zeitlin: “The stories in
the books of Esther and Judith are similar in plot”.
A comparison of LXX Esther, Judith and Susanna
at least two distinctive and quite different Greek forms are found among their
surviving manuscripts (Jobes & Silva 2000:45). A statement such as “the story
of Judith … shares with Esther a heroine and a Jewish massacre of enemies, but
the resemblance ends there” (Rogerson & Davies 1989:230) is thus in my
opinion an oversimplification.
There seem to be uncertainty as to which method of literary analysis should
be used in studying these documents (Doran 1986:305; Berg 1979:14-18). This
study will follow the more obvious route of narrative criticism, keeping in mind
that the narratives should be examined as literature and each be treated as a
whole. More important, though, will be the comparative nature of this
investigation. It is hoped that such a comparative study will assist, not only in
understanding the extent of the similarities between these three women, but also
in searching for some possible origins for a basic narrative pattern.
Doran (1986:303) reckons particularly with regard to Judith that the
“exploration of this traditional narrative quality (of wisdom, GJS) would be of
great help and may illuminate the connections between Judith and Miriam
(Exodus 15), Deborah and Jael (Judges 4-5) and other wise and warlike
heroines of the Bible”.
Six interpolations or additions are found in a longer LXX version of Esther that
are lacking in comparison with the Hebrew. They consist mainly of decrees and
prayers. A shorter Greek version exists, however, formerly known as the
“Lucianic” and now as the “Alpha Text”, which is closer to the Hebrew (Beal
2004:109; De Troyer 1997; Jobes 1996; Jellicoe 1989:295). Due to the
arrangement by Jerome, the additions were presented in the Old Latin at the end
of the canonical Esther as six additional chapters, and some think that this might
actually represent a text form that is older than those of the LXX or the Alpha
Text (Dines 2004:18). Traditionally, those sections were seen in scholarship to
G.J. Steyn
actually form part of the consecutive history of the canonical Esther – as
indicated before by Swete (1914:257-258),2 Charles (1971:667) and others (e.g.
LXX 11:2-12:6 = Addition A. This unit precedes Esther 1 and
introduces the story by describing the events which led to the first
advancement of Mordecai at the court of Ahasuerus/Artaxerxes. It is a
double of Esth 2:21-23.
LXX 13:1-7 + 16:1-24 = Additions B + E. The first of these passages
(B) follows Esth 3:13, expands 3:8-13 and show striking similarities
with 3 Macc 3:12-29 (DeSilva 2002:118). It professes to give copies of
the letters of Artaxerxes referred to in those verses. The second (E)
follows 8:12 and deals with the king’s second Edict in favour of the
LXX 13:8 – 14:19 + 15:4-19/1-16 = Additions C + D. These sections
should follow Esth 4:17 and 5:1-2, containing the prayers of Mordecai
and Esther as well as a description of Esther’s approach to the king.
Some striking parallels between these Additions and Judith 9-11 have
been noted (Kottsieper 1998:135-136).
LXX 10:4 – 11:1/5 = Addition F. This part follows after 10:3 and is an
interpretation of Mordecai’s dream. It is an epilogue and completes the
story by relating the institution of the feast of Purim.
Kaiser (2004:45) pointed out that “it becomes apparent that the additions trace
back to two different circles of tradition, of which, the older, Egyptian tradition
underscored the loyalty between the foreign king and the Jews while the
younger, Palestinian tradition aimed at a transparent theologization”. The book
was probably brought to Egypt during the second century BC (Flint 2001:54;
Gruen 1998:161; West 1981:469; How 1932:304),3 particularly in the year 114
On clustering these additions as “Issues”, see Kaiser (2004:45-47).
According to How (1932:304), “The book can hardly be earlier than the latter part
A comparison of LXX Esther, Judith and Susanna
BC – according to an attached note within the last of these Greek additions – if
the reference is understood to be the fourth year of Philometor (Charles
1971:665; Gruen 1998:178). This does not mean necessarily, however, that all
six these additions were written at this time. It is difficult to determine whether
the additions to Esther are based on Semitic originals or directly composed into
Greek (Dines 2004:18), but they were probably “additions in the interests of
piety” (DeSilva 2002:121; Jellicoe 1989:295; How 1932:304) as these additions
in the Greek “add the explicitly religious elements missing from the Hebrew” –
a notorious version that lacks any mention of God (Jobes & Silva 2002:99).
Some of these additions show strong sentiments against the non-Jews. Gruen
aptly summarises the unique perspective of the Additions to Esther, saying that
they “reinstate Yahweh, bring religion back to Mordecai and Esther, turn
Haman into a raging anti-Semite, and convert what had been a personal conflict
between Mordecai and Haman into a fundamental and implacable struggle
between Jews and Gentiles on an international level” (Gruen 1998:179).
The genre of the “Greek Esther has been likened to the romantic ‘novels’
which were popular in the Hellenistic period” (Dines 2004:18; Würthwein
1969:167).4 It could be seen as an “imaginative” or “popular” romance (How
1932:304) and its style has been described as “a distinctive comic-hyperbolic
style” (Niditch 2004:29), with particularly the ironies in Esther that attracted
attention (e.g. Goldman 1990:15-31). Gruen even refers to the additions to
Esther (along with those to Daniel) as “entertaining tales” (Gruen 1998:296).
The historicity of the Persian queen Esther, a Jewess, has thus been doubted by
scholars (Fox 2001:11; West 1981:468; Berg 1979:14) and some have regarded
it “merely as a transformed pagan myth” (How 1932:303). It was probably
written specifically to explain the origin of the late winter Purim Feast which
of the 2nd century B.C.”
4
Würthwein says: “Diese Novelle ist mit hoher Meisterschaft geschrieben”
(1969:167).
G.J. Steyn
commemorated the Jews in Persia from Xerxes (Esth 9:19 – with the expansion
in the LXX). Evidence of Esther amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls has never been
The story of Judith had been described, amongst others, as “a historical
romance” (Coleman 1932:58; Swete 1914:272), “historical fiction” (DeSilva
2002:94; Ferguson 1993:417; Charles 1971:246)6 or “Greek, oriental, and
Jewish-Hellenistic novel” (Zenger 1981:437). One should cautiously take note
of the opinion that its style is associated with that of LXX Daniel (Dines
2004:18).7 Due to the fact that Clement of Rome knew the story and that
Holophernes is probably a softened form for Orophernes, a Cappadocian king, it
might be dated between 158 BC-96 AD (Kaiser 2004:39,42-43; Flint 2001:54;
Ferguson 1993:417; Jellicoe 1989:295). Swete (1914:272) was of the opinion
that “The religious attitude of the author of Judith is that of the devout
Pharisee…, and the work may have been a fruit of the patriotic feeling called
forth by the Maccabean wars” (similarly also Coleman 1932:59). Also Jellicoe
(1989:295) dates this work “shortly after the Maccabean revolt” and Lamparter
(1972:137) “in der Makkabäerzeit”. The Maccabean calender places it under the
Hanukkah Feast. It was probably originally composed in a now lost Semitic
(Aramaic?) original (Jobes & Silva 2002:32; Ferguson 1993:417; Doran
1986:302; Zenger 1981:430-431; Enslin & Zeitlin 1972:40), but known in a
Greek translation prior to Clement of Rome. Three main text groups can be
identified: the LXX, so-called Lucianic, and Old Latin-Syriac. The manuscript
traditions usually place Judith alongside Esther who is similar in character
See Flint (2001:71) on some possible reasons for this.
Enslin & Zeitlin (1972:1) call it “Jewish fiction”.
7
The connection with Daniel was also made by Nuñes Carreira (1973:215-230) and
Delcor (1967:174-179). Doran (1986:304) finds it less convincing.
A comparison of LXX Esther, Judith and Susanna
(Coleman 1932:58). Judith was probably a fictitious character. The name of the
book (“Jewess, or the feminine counterpart of Judas the Maccabee”)8 points in
the direction of a paraenetic story on an ideal figure that was written to
encourage prayer and strengthen faith. The description of Jerusalem as the
virgin daughter of Zion and the character of Esther probably contributed to the
figure of Judith (Coleman 1932:59).
The “discrete story” (Jobes & Silva 2002:81) of Susanna is placed at the
beginning of Daniel where it precedes Dan 1:1 in the great uncials of
Theodotion’s version and has a much longer text there than in the LXX (Swete
1914:260,262). The LXX and Vulgate, in turn, place the story at the end of
Daniel, namely as Daniel chapter 13. There are considerable differences
between the text versions of Theodotion and the LXX,9 although the plot
remains essentially the same (Doran 1986:300). Susanna probably existed in an
“Aramaic or new-Hebrew original” (Kaiser 2004:50-51), was possibly
circulated separately, and does not form a suitable prologue to Daniel 1 (Swete
1914:260-261).10 Its attachment to Daniel, though, gave it particular authority
within the LXX (Charles 1971:644). The “folktale character” of Susanna has
been accepted, and it is claimed that “religious considerations permeate the
story, a Jewish reworking of pagan folklore in order to place God in the center
and advance the theological concerns of Judaism” (Gruen 1998:175, who refers
to MacKenzie 1957:211-218; Pfeiffer 1949:454).11 Summarised in the words of
Doran (1986:304) cautions, however, against reading Judith in an allegorical
manner.
9
For a discussion on the complex tradition history of Susanna, cf. Koenen (1998:1-
13).
10
See Kaiser (2004:48-52) for a range of different theses on the possible connections
between Daniel and its Additions.
11
This viewpoint was proposed particularly by Baumgartner (1926:279-280;
1929:187-188).
G.J. Steyn
“Erzählend,
argumentierend, trägt der Verfasser seine hoffnungsvolle Überzeugung vor, daß
JHWH Israel-Juda, sein Volk, retten kann und wird, auch wenn die eigenen
gegenwärtigen Macht- und Gewalthaber dabei sind, es unter dem Schein der
Legalität zu vergewaltigen und zu ruinieren”. Two motifs that were identified
are the innocent woman who is falsely accused and the clever young judge
(Doran 1986:300). The date of the composition is probably around the turn of
the second century (Doran 1986:301) in devout Palestinian circles (Kaiser
THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN FIRST CENTURY BC JEWISH
COMMUNITIES
Much has been made by scholarship, particularly in socio-historical
investigations, to point out that women played a minute role in second temple
Judaism. The situation is, however, more complex when one keeps in mind the
description of the Therapeutrides of whom Philo of Alexandria wrote in his De
Vita Contemplativa. Crawford (2003:140) has also pointed out that even
amongst the descriptions of the Dead Sea Scrolls “women had particular roles to
play in the governance of community life, and could attain special honored
positions” and that “although the hierarchy of the community was male-
dominated and the viewpoint of the Scrolls androcentric, there is nothing in the
Scrolls themselves that indicates that women were deliberately excluded or that
this was a male-only community”.12 Also Ferguson (1993:71) pointed out that
“Jewish women were not as restricted in public appearance as Greek women but
did not have the freedom of first-century Roman women”. The Jewess, Judith,
Also on the role of “women in the religious system of Qumran”, see Gruber
(2001:173-196).
A comparison of LXX Esther, Judith and Susanna
stands out amongst our three women with behaviour that “contravenes
convention at a number of points”, but is “indeed domesticated again at the end
of the story” (DeSilva 2002:105). Women were seen as subordinate to men “and
most voices within Rabbinic Judaism agree that women are best kept separate
from centres of communal governance, holiness, and learning” (Baskin
2001:194). This makes the narratives of Esther, Judith and Susanna interesting
literature against these male dominated societies. But it also raises a sense of
suspicion. Why do these stories show so many similarities and are these women
indeed the main heroic characters?
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE THREE NARRATIVES
A comparison of the books of Judith, Esther and Susanna makes it clear that
both the three characters themselves, as well as the narrative structure of each of
their stories, are showing some striking similarities. If this basic narrative
pattern, in combination with the qualities of the three characters, is studied
against the backdrop of the position that women held in early Judaism and
against the mythological world of a Hellenistic environment, then it becomes
obvious that these narratives of Jewish women might have been influenced by
their Hellensitic context. This possibility is supported by the fact that a number
of historical detail in the book of Judith is wrong and that the book was not
intended to be history but rather as a narrative with a moral and religious
message (Van der Watt & Tolmie 2005:63). We will now identify some striking
characteristics that are shared within the story patterns of Judith, Esther and
THE MAIN CHARACTERS, THEIR NAMES AND IDENTITIES
Esther is an adopted orphan and a young unmarried woman. She is also
G.J. Steyn
called “Hadassah” (2:7) once in the beginning of the book, but this
name does not occur in the LXX version. The name of Esther appears in
the list of Heroes in Ecclesiasticus / Wisdom of Jesus Sirach (c. 180
Judith is a widow. Her name means “Jewess” and leads to speculation
that this is the feminine counterpart of Judas the Maccabee. Extending
back for sixteen generations, the genealogy of Judith is one of the
longest in the OT and indicates her importance (Freedman 1992:1114).
Levine (2004:208) calls Judith a “peripatetic heroine”.
Susanna is a married woman from a prominent household and a Jewess
(h9 0Ioudai/a, Sus 1:22). Her name means “lily” and she is a “daughter
QUALITIES OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS
In Esther the search is on for a “beautiful young virgin” (Es 2:2, 3) and
the young woman, Esther, was lovely and beautiful: kai\ h]n to\
kora/sion kalo\n tw~| e1dei (Es 2:7).
Judith: kai\ h]n kalh\ tw~| ei1dei kai\ w9rai/a th=| o1yei sfo/dra, Jud 8:7.
See also Jud 10:7, 14, 19.
Susanna is described as “a very fair woman” (kalh\ sfo/dra, Sus 1:2),
“a very delicate woman, and beauteous to behold” (h9 de\ Susanna h]n
trufera\ sfo/dra kai\ kalh\ tw=| ei1dei, Sus 1:31).
RELIGIOUS/PIOUS
Esther: The book reports about Esther’s devotion to God: ou#twj ga\r
e0ntetei/lato Mordoxai=oj fobei=sqai to\n qeo\n kai\ poiei=n ta\
prosta/gmata au0tou= ... kai\ Esqhr ou0 meth/llacen th\n a0gwgh\n
au0th=j (Es 2:20).
Judith: Also Judith had a deep devotion to God: e0fobei=to to\n qeo\n
A comparison of LXX Esther, Judith and Susanna
sfo/dra (Jud 8:8). Apart from the statement being made that Judith was
a pious woman, chapter nine describes her prayer and supplication to
the Lord to help her. Judith prayed to God, even as she chopped off
Holofernes’ head (Jud 13:7) (Freedman 1992:1122).
Susanna: “one that feared the Lord” (foboume/nh ton\ ku/rion, 1:2).
Esther: Although there are no explicit references to Esther or Mordecai
as being wise, their cunning behaviour shows some well thought-
through wisdom. But it is particularly the schemes and actions of
Mordecai that ultimately lead to the rescue of the Jews – with Esther
actually being simply a pawn in his game.
The speech of Judith in chapter 8 displays a lot of insight and wisdom –
which is confirmed by Ussiah when he said to her “Today is not the
first time that we can see your wisdom” (o3ti ou0k e0n th=| sh/meron h9
sofi/a sou pro/dhlo/j e0stin, Jud 8:29). So also Holofernes and all his
servants marvelled at the wisdom of Judith, astonished that there is no
woman like she – so beautiful and so wise (kai\ e0qau/masan e0pi\ th=|
sofi/a| au0th=j ... ou0k e1stin toiau/th gunh\ ... e0n kalw=| prosw/pw| kai\
sune/sei lo/gwn, Jud 11:20-21). According to Nickelsburg (1981:107),
“Judith uses precisely the wisdom of the traditional narrative heroine”.
There is also no clear or explicit reference to Susanna or Daniel being
wise. Daniel, however, challenges the Jews about their judicial
procedure and calls them “fools” (mwroi/, Sus 1:48) – the opposite of
being wise – who held their case “without knowledge of the truth”
(ou0de\ to\ safe\j e0pigno/ntej, Sus 1:48). His wisdom is implied and
acknowledged by the elders with the words: “God has given you the
‘eldership’” (o3ti soi\ de/dwken o9 qeo\j to\ presbei=on, Sus 1:50). He
makes the clever decision to review the testimony of the two judges by
questioning them individually (1:51). Russell (1987:53) is probably
G.J. Steyn
correct in stating that “the qualities of the man Daniel reflect those very
qualities most highly prized in the community from which the author
came and indicate the concerns prevalent at that time”. He highlights
the qualities of courage, wisdom and vision.
BEHAVIOUR AND ACTIONS OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS
LEADERSHIP “AT A TIME LIKE THIS”
Esther: There are no explicit references to Mordecai or Esther as
leaders, but both took the initiative at crucial times. Mordecai first
arrange that Esther be included amongst the “beautiful virgins” and then
summons her later not to think only of herself “in a time like this” (e0n
tou/tw| tw=| kairw=| and ei0j to\n kairo\n tou=ton, 4:14 bis).
Judith: There are also no explicit references to Judith as a leader, but
she took the initiative to save her people. Levine (2004:215) pointed out
that Judith functions in such roles as judge, prophet, ambassador and
priest. Judith 8:10 describe how Judith has sent her woman slave to call
the city magistrates Ussiah, Gabris and Garmis to come to her. She
delivers her speech to them (8:11-27) and challenges them: “Who are
they to think that they can test God on a day as today (e0n th=| h9me/ra| th=|
sh/meron) and therefore showing openly that they think they are more
important than God?” (8:12). They should not surrender the city but
should wait until God saves them (8:17). Judith herself enters the camp
of Holofernes and prays in her heart to the Lord God to look at this
present moment (e0n th=| w3ra| tau/th|, Jud 13:4), for “now is the time”
(o3ti nu=n kairo&j, Jud 13:5).
In the story of Susanna, she “cried out with a loud voice to God” who
“heard her voice” (Sus 1:42-44). It is the young man Daniel, however,
whose spirit is moved by God and who took the initiative to declare that
she is innocent and that he “is clear from the blood of this woman” (Sus
A comparison of LXX Esther, Judith and Susanna
1:45-46). This causes “all the people to turn around in haste” (kai\
a0ne/streyen pa=j o9 lao\j meta\ spoudh=j, Sus 1:50).
FEARLESS IN THE FACE OF DEATH
Esther requests that her people fast and pray three days and nights for
her and then she will approach the king without being summoned by
him – which is against the royal custom. If she then dies, she dies
(4:16). Esther then uses her mightiest weapon, her beauty, as an
instrument to save her people.
Judith took a similar decision as Esther by going voluntarily into the
presence of the very man who seeks to destroy her people. She went
forth, out of the city gates and down the mountain (10:9-10). Her beauty
gave her entry past the soldiers (10:14, 19, 23), right into the tent of
Holofernes, the chief captain of the Assyrian army (10:17, 20-21). She
stays three days in the camp (12:7) and beheaded Holofernes the fourth
night, passing again by the Assyrian soldiers.
Susanna knows very well that whatever her decision would be, she is
destined to die (Sus 1:22). She “sighed” (a0neste/nacen, Sus 1:22) and
“cried with a loud voice” (kai\ a0nebo/hsen fwnh=| mega/lh, Sus 1:24).
She chose to turn down the advances of the two elders rather “than to
sin in the sight of the Lord” (h2 a9martei=n e0nw/pion kuri/ou, Sus 1:23).
TRUST IN GOD AND PRAYER
Esther approached God in her moments of fear and anxiety and expressed her
trust in God. This becomes clear from the contents of her prayer in LXX
Addition C (14:1-19): “… she prayed to the Lord God of Israel, and said: O my
Lord, you alone are our King. Help me in desolation – not having a helper, but
you. For my danger is in my hand (e0dei=to kuri/ou qeou= Israhl kai\ ei]pen Ku/rie/
mou o9 basileu\j h9mw=n, su ei] mo/noj, boh/qhso/n moi th=| mo/nh| kai\ mh\ e0xou/sh|
bohqo\n ei0 mh\ se/, o3ti ki/nduno/j mou e0n xeiri/ mou, 14:3-4); “You are righteous,
G.J. Steyn
O Lord!” (di/kaioj ei], ku/rie, 14:7); “O King of the gods and of all powers”
(basileu= tw=n qew=n kai\ pa/shj a0rxh=j e0pikratw=n, 14:12).
Judith confesses her trust in the Lord when she spoke to the elders of the
city: h9mei=j de\ e3teron qeo\n ou0k e1gnwmen plh\n au0tou=, o3qen e0lpi/zomen o3ti
ou0x u9pero/yetai h9ma=j ou0d 0 a0po\ tou= ge/nouj h9mw=n (Jud 8:20). Her trust in
God surfaces again in her prayer: su\ ei] ku/rioj suntri/bwn pole/mouj. Ku/rioj
o1noma/ soi (Jud 9:7-8).
Susanna too, approached God in her moment of fear on her way to be
executed. She prays to the “everlasting God” ( 9O qeo\j o9 ai0wnioj, Sus 1:42)
/
who knows all secrets and who knows the false witness that was borne against
In Esther, none of the antagonists in the narrative are Jews – whereas
the protagonists, Mordecai and Esther who save the king and the Jews,
are Jews. The antagonists are Persians and connected to the king’s own
household: Vashti is disobedient to the king (Es 1:12); Bigthan and
Teresh plotted to kill king Ahasuerus (Es 2:21) and Haman planned to
kill Mordecai and all the Jews (Es 3:6). Mordecai and Haman are
pictured as the two dragons in the LXX additions to Esther (Add Es
In Judith, the antagonists are Nebuchadnezzar, the Assyrian king, and
Holofernes, the head of his army. The Assyrians, with the leader of
their Assyrian army, are posing a danger and a threat to the Jews of
Judea – and in this book particularly to the city of Bethulia (Jud 7).
Holofernes greatly desired the beautiful Judith since he saw her the first
time (Jud 12:16). The fact that a great portion of the book is devoted to
males who do little, are absent and lack enthusiasm, might make us
consider them also as antagonists.
A comparison of LXX Esther, Judith and Susanna
In Susanna, the two elders who were appointed as judges by the people
are the antagonists who falsely accused Susanna of adultery because she
refused to submit to their sexual desires. As they saw the beautiful
Susanna walking every day in her garden, “their lust was inflamed
toward her” and “perverting their own mind” they were “wounded with
her love” (Sus 1:8-10). The people who follow the elders blindly,
especially Joakim who does nothing, might also here be considered as
antagonists (Gruen 2003:173).
PLOT OF THE NARRATIVES - AN UNEXPECTED TURN IN THE
EVENTS
Esther: The development of the events leads to the occupation of
strategic positions by the Jews, Esther and Mordecai, at the palace of
the Persian king. The shrewdness of Haman boomerangs in the story.
He is not honoured by the king and dies ironically by the very same
gallows that he constructed for Mordecai – who is honoured instead and
lives. The truth is finally revealed. The desperation of the Jews is
unexpectedly turned around and they are saved. All of this because of
Esther’s courage and beauty that made the king change his decree.
Niditch identified four major plot moves in Esther: (1) the story of
Vasthi’s banishment, (2) the story of Esther’s becoming queen, (3) the
brief story of Mordecai’s saving the king, (4) the most important story
of Esther’s saving Mordecai and her people (Niditch 2004:32).
Judith: The reign of terror of the Assyrian general Holofernes and king
Nebucadnezzar poses a life threat to the people of Betulua. Holofernes
is eliminated due to the courage and beauty of the Jewish woman,
Judith, who entered the camp of the enemy by enticing him and
chopped off his head. The desperation of the Jews is unexpectedly
turned around and they are saved when Judith arrived back in Betulua
G.J. Steyn
with the head of the army leader.
Susanna: The two judges bear false witness by accusing Susanna of
adultery. After initially being sentenced to death, the truth is revealed
due to the intervention of Daniel. The desperation of Susanna is
unexpectedly turned around and she is saved. According to Doran
(1986:300), the “narrative structure shows that the plot functions
primarily to highlight the success of the young man”. Daniel is thus the
hero of the story, and not Susanna. One obvious difference between the
story of Susanna and the stories of Esther and Judith is that the
confrontation in the latter two is between Jew and non-Jew. In Susanna,
however, the confrontation is between Jew and Jew (Collins et.al.
RESULT AND MESSAGE
The narratives show clear signs of a mixture between beauty and love, on the
one hand, and toughness and war, on the other hand, as combined
characteristics to be found in each of these three women characters. Such
characteristics point to mythological undertones and to the possible sharing of
these elements from existing mythological women figures. Such an “inter-
textual” merging of mythological features was no strange phenomenon as was
pointed out by Creuzer in his discussion on the situation in Ephesus.13
No one doubts Judith’s cleverness or courage. But many have
questioned her character and conduct. To be sure, she prayed
constantly and fasted frequently (8:4–8); she ate only kosher foods
even in the crises of life (12:1–2, 19); she honored the memory of
her deceased husband by never remarrying; and she did all the
“Es vereinigen sich im Ephesischen Gottesdienste augenscheinlich Medisch-
Persische, Aegyptische, Libysche, Scythische und Cretensische Elemente” (Creuzer
1973:517).
A comparison of LXX Esther, Judith and Susanna
proper things right before she died (16:22–24). But in her dealings
with Holofernes she was a shameless flatterer (11:7–8), a bold-
faced liar (11:12–14, 18–19), and a ruthless assassin (13:7–8; “a
clever and resourceful assassin” (Nickelsburg 1981:106; cf. also
Freedman 1996:1122).
AN EXISTING COMMON AND RECURRING PATTERN?
The narrative structure of Esther,14 Judith and Susanna display some striking
common elements. Especially the narrative patterns of Esther and Judith, where
the conflict is between Jew and non-Jew, are very similar. The “narrow escape
from oppressors in exile is a favorite, indeed central, Israelite literary typos”
(Niditch 2004:45, following Gerleman 1966:10-28; 1973:11-23). Even the
narrative pattern of Susanna, where the conflict is between Jew and Jew, is very
similar to the other two. The elements of the narrative are present, though in a
different order and with the male, Daniel – and not the female, Susanna – as the
saviour character. These elements can be illustrated as follows:
Esther
Persian king,
Ahasuerus, at
Susa
Vasthi does not
obey his order
Niditch identified a pattern of “problem-plan-resolution” in each of the story lines
of the fall of Vasthi, rise of Esther, Mordecai who saves the king, and the saving of
Mordecai and the Jews (2004:33-41).
G.J. Steyn
Esther
Condemnation
of Vasthi,
appointment of
new queen
Mordecai
Haman
Esther
Enter the
king’s court
without his
request. Plea to
change the
proclamation
Esther’s prayer
before taking
the risk
Haman dies by
his own
gallows
Jews may
defend
themselves and
A comparison of LXX Esther, Judith and Susanna
Esther
win the battle
The city of
Sushan
rejoiced and
was glad
(8:15)
The intention is not to force the narrative pattern here – especially with regard
to Susanna – but to indicate the similarities. The narrative patterns of some of
the Persian (Ishtar), Egyptian (Isis) and Greek (Aphrodite) mythological stories
show similar traces. Neither space nor time allows us to pursue those here.
However, turning to the Jewish world itself, when the above narrative pattern
and its different elements are compared with the story of Deborah (Judg 4-5),
there are definitely some striking similarities to be noted here:
1. A king, the city and palace
2. Humiliation of the king
3. A plan to restore his honour
5. Military leader and threat
6. A woman: beautiful, religious and
7. The woman’s daring plan
8. The woman’s prayer
9. Execution of the military leader
G.J. Steyn
10. Joy because of salvation by the
This connection with Deborah was already noted before and one can thus not
unqualifiedly agree with Wahl that narratives such as Ruth and Judith highlight
women as protagonists for the first time (Wahl 2001:118). Kaiser (2004:42), for
instance, noted that Judith is obviously “portrayed as a second Jael and
Deborah”, but also sees numerous other Biblical motifs and features of other
prominent Biblical characters at play here. DeSilva (2002:95) too, made this
connection. Van Henten (2004:224-252), in turn, noticed some other Biblical
connections and compared Judith 7-13 with Exodus 17, Numbers 20 and
Deuteronomy 33:8-11. Gruen (1998:125) found a connection between Judith’s
prayer to God before entering the camp of Holofernes and the slaughter at
Shechem: “the Lord had delivered its inhabitants to destruction in answer to
Israelite pleas and as vengeance for the pollution of a virgin”. The fact of
recurring motifs and intertextual connections is widely supported in scholarship
and the same applies to the book of Esther (Berlin 2001:14). Berg (1979)
compared, for instance, also the story of Joseph with those of Esther and Judith.
If these narratives are novels, what prompted their origin? At a time when
men do not display the qualities they should, a young woman arises as a single
figure and display the courage, wisdom, faith and leadership – and thereby
saving not only her people (Esther & Judith) but also their religious values
(Susanna? & Judith). Justice will prevail at the end. The mood of the Purim
festival (Esther) is “the celebration of deliverance by a people faced time and
time again with the threat of extinction” and is similar to the story of Daniel
(West 1981:469). Judith “emphasizes patriotic loyalty to the law, which will
effect deliverance from foreign invaders” (Ferguson 1993:417).
Gruen’s opinion regarding these kinds of narratives is that “Jewish writers
A comparison of LXX Esther, Judith and Susanna
helped to build the confidence of their fellow Jews with a series of stories that
gave their religion, their holy books, and their special shrewdness privileged
positions within the councils of the realm”. He, furthermore, states that
Hellenistic writers “had astonishingly wide scope in manipulating biblical tales,
whether by radical amplification of received texts or liberal infusion of new
material” (Gruen 1998:187).
Baskin wrote that, “The literary documents of Rabbinic Judaism are complex
multi-stranded texts that interweave traditions, motifs, and influences from a
variety of sources, time periods, and diverse environments, reflective of the
extended duration of their composition and redaction” (Baskin 2001:177). This
can be clearly seen in the resurfacing of the motif of a beautiful, wise and
religious woman, but one who is courageous and tough too.
Probably modelled on the story of Deborah, the beautiful but tough Jewish
women characters, Esther and Judith, align themselves with pagan rulers and
thereby save their people through their beauty, intelligence (wisdom), courage
and religious convictions. At least, this is how these narratives are portrayed on
the surface level. The big question is, however, whether these women are really
portrayed as “tough”, courageous, displaying leadership roles (particularly as a
correction of male leadership) (Van Henten 2004:245) and serving as saviours
of their people at crucial moments – or, whether they are merely pictured as role
models of ultimate obedience to God and to the expectation of their people, of
submission to the men of their nation by being weapons of beauty through
whom the enemy can be destroyed by displaying a willingness of self-
sacrifice.15 Are they thus portrayed as heroes, or are they rather portrayed as
In a comparison of the Hebrew text, the LXX and the Alpha-text of Esth 2:8-18,
G.J. Steyn
ultimate objects of obedience, piety, submission and self-sacrifice? Is their
“beauty” to be found “in the eye of the beholder”? How tough are our women in
Susanna is introduced as the daughter of Hilkia and wife of Joachim and is
saved by Daniel’s intervention. Although her loud cry is in accordance with the
prescriptions of the Jewish law (cf. Deut 22:24), it sounds closer to
despondency and desperation because of her checkmate situation. Since her
accusers “were elders, men of high standing in the community, and judges, their
testimony persuaded the congregation which promptly condemned Susanna to
death” (Gruen 1998:173) – without listening to or considering her side of the
story. Glancy has pointed out, in the case of Susanna, that it is not so much the
physical well-being of Susanna herself, when she is threatened with rape and
death, but rather the honour of Joachim’s household that is at stake here. “The
tale suitably closes with Susanna’s parents and husband rejoicing, not because
Susanna is going to live, but because she is innocent of disgracing the
household” (Glancy 2004:292). Kottsieper is of a similar opinion: “…nicht das
Geschick Susannas (stand) im Mittelpunkt des Interesses, sondern die beiden
Alten und Daniel” (Steck, Kratz & Kottsieper 1998:286). Susanna becomes an
ultimate example of remaining faithful to the law of God and to her husband –
“even though that would mean losing the reputation of being chaste and even
her life” (DeSilva 2002:231).
The LXX Esther is introduced as the daughter of Aminadab and she is
guided all the way by means of the wisdom and advice of her uncle Mordecai.16
One might argue that Mordecai used Esther (in return for the favour that he
raised her as an orphan?) as an instrument to save the Jewish people by giving
her as a wife to the uncircumcised Persian king. He even threatens her that if
Kristin De Troyer concluded that particularly the Hebrew and Alpha-texts have clearly
been written by men for men (2004:70).
16
So, similarly argued in the history of recent research. Cf. Wahl (2001:118-119).
A comparison of LXX Esther, Judith and Susanna
she does not intervene for the Jewish people “at a time like this”, that someone
else will do so and that her family will be killed anyway (Es 3:14). Esther’s
terrified, depressing and fatalistic statement, “If I die, I die”, probably resonates
more the tone of desperation and a point of no return, than that of a brave,
courageous, tough leader. Esther Fuchs (1982:149-160) argued along similar
lines. Her viewpoint is summarised (but also criticised) by Fox (2001:205-206):
Fuchs believes that the Esther story undergirds the assumption of
patriarchal ideology by showing that a woman should be obedient
and submissive, by teaching that women can become national
heroines only by fulfilling their assigned roles as wives and
mothers, and by showing that women get their way through
deceptive and circuitous means.
Even in the case of one of the much earlier possible “mother” versions of this
narrative, Deborah is introduced as wife of Lappidoth, and Jael is introduced as
the wife of Heber the Kenite. It is ultimately the army of Barak that is
instrumental in winning the physical battle and Sisera is the only escapee.
Nevertheless, at least in the case of Judith the situation seems to be different and
she has been contrasted with Esther.17 Or is it the case? According to DeSilva
(2002:94-95), Judith was written to entertain and to instruct. Furthermore,
Judith is, from beginning to end, a moral tale, reinforcing for its
hearers the basic theology of the Deuteronomistic History,
presenting Judith as a model of piety and rigorous observance of
God’s covenant, affirming the efficacy of prayer coupled with
faithful action, and encouraging confidence in the God of Israel
and in the ability of the Torah-observant Jew to become a vehicle
through which God may benefit God’s people (DeSilva 2001:85).
Enslin & Zeitlin argued that “Judith was written to neutralize the book of Esther”
(1972:14).
G.J. Steyn
In this sense, Judith seems to be “an inspirational example of piety, dedication
to God, and courage” (DeSilva 2001:95; cf. also Moore 1985:62; Enslin &
Zeitlin 1972:14). Maybe much more research is needed, not only investigating
the purpose behind the origins of the narratives of Esther, Judith and Susanna,
but also the psychology of the cultural context within which the narratives
originated as well as their implied persuasive function meant for the
communities to whom they were directed.
Finally, it can only be agreed with Rogerson and Davies (1989:230):
“Narrative is a form that knows no boundaries either of form or imagination, of
length, scope, or style. … Narrative is, in fact, the predominant mode of Old
Testament literature, and the vehicle for most of its philosophy, theology, and
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baskin, J R 2001. Woman as other in rabbinic literature, in Neusner, Vol 2, Part 3,
2001:177-196.
Baumgartner, W 1926. Susanna: Die Geschichte einer Legende, ARW 24:259–290.
[Also in idem, 1959. Zum Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt: Ausgewählte
Aufsätze. Leiden: Brill].
_______ 1929. Der Weise Knabe und die des Ehebruches Beschuldigte Frau, ARW
27:187-188.
Beal, T K 2004. Tracing Esther’s beginnings, in Brenner 2004:87-110.
Berg, S B 1979. The Book of Esther: motifs, themes, and structure. SBL Diss Ser 44.
Missoula: Scholars Press.
Berlin, A 2001. The book of Esther and ancient storytelling, JBL 120:3-14.
Brenner, A (ed.) 2004. A feminist companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna. London: T
& T Clark.
Charles, R H 1971. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Volume
1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Coleman, ND 1932. Judith, in Gore 1932:58-62.
Collins, J J, Cross, F M & Collins, A Y 1993. Daniel: A commentary on the book of
Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Crawford, S W 2003. Not according to rule: women, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran,
in Paul 2003:127-150.
Creuzer, G F 1973. Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Völker, besonders der Griechen.
....
Taken from:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:kQk-_mrwDVUJ:repository.up.ac.za/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2263/8985/Steyn_Beautiful(2008).pdf%3Fsequence%3D1+&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgHkyUmuYUwvNU-ubT1sUQS-iVv4SYAGQHjmDPwLjLdDh5S28550wFYCj5_s7i8Nft3zpHYQDDF7i6qsVk1LU2_uqMAd7_pVoHvC5iXIRcvbzU7anyOnYGa2UcO4xHzXBpRJeAZ&sig=AHIEtbRLWscJZaWVzbou-UBVml34wY10zA
