“Beautiful but tough”. A Comparison Of LXX Esther, Judith and Susanna



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

Queen Esther's King Could Not Be Xerxes

Xerxes was clearly modelled on King Sennacherib,
as Emmet Sweeney proves when he writes:



…

In Ramessides, Medes and Persians I outlined detailed reasons for identifying Tiglath-Pileser III with Cyrus, Shalmaneser V with Cambyses, and Sargon II with Darius I. The striking correspondences in the lives of all of these, repeated generation for generation in parallel sequence, made it increasingly unlikely that the identifications could be mistaken. Yet even one striking mismatch could potentially invalidate the whole scheme. I then came to the next “pairing” – Sennacherib with Xerxes. Would these two also show clear-cut and convincing correspondences?

A random search of the internet produces the following for Xerxes and Sennacherib: “Like the Persian Xerxes, he [Sennacherib] was weak and vainglorious, cowardly under reverse, and cruel and boastful in success.”

(WebBible Encyclopedia at www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/sennacherib.html).

The writer of these words did not suspect any connection between the two kings, much less that they were the same person. Nevertheless, the similarities between them were so compelling that one apparently brought the other to mind.

The writer’s instincts, I shall argue, did not betray him. The lives and careers of Xerxes and Sennacherib were so similar that were the thesis presented in these pages not proffered, scholars must wonder at the astounding parallels between the two.

One of Xerxes’ first actions as king was an invasion of Egypt, which had thrown off the Persian yoke shortly after Darius’ defeat at the hands of the Greeks. This reconquest of Egypt was said to have taken place in Xerxes’ second year. Similarly, one of the first actions of Sennacherib was a campaign against Egypt and her Palestinian and Syrian allies. This war against Egypt took place in Sennacherib’s third year. The Assyrian inscriptions inform us how Hezekiah of Judah had rebelled and sought the assistance of

the kings of Egypt (and) the bowmen, the chariot (-corps) and the cavalry of the king of Ethiopia (Meluhha), an army beyond counting — and they (actually) had come to their assistance. In the plain of Eltekeh (Al-ta-qu-u), their battle lines were drawn up against me and they sharpened their weapons.… I fought with them and inflicted a defeat upon them. In the melee of the battle, I personally captured alive the Egyptian charioteers with the(ir) princes and (also) the charioteers of the king of Ethiopia. (J. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton, 1950) pp. 287-8).

Hezekiah was besieged, but not captured. Nevertheless, the outcome of this campaign was a complete victory for Sennacherib. Hezekiah sent tribute to the Great King:

Hezekiah himself, whom the terror-inspiring glamour of my lordship had overwhelmed and whose irregular and elite troops which he had brought into Jerusalem, his royal residence, in order to strengthen (it), had deserted him, did send me, later, to Nineveh, my lordly city, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, precious stones, antimony, large cuts of red stone … all kinds of valuable treasures, his (own) daughters, concubines, male and female musicians. In order to deliver the tribute and to do obeisance as a slave he sent his (personal) messenger.

Hezekiah would scarcely have sent this tribute to Sennacherib had his Egyptian allies not been totally defeated, a circumstance which has made many scholars suspect that he actually entered Egypt after his defeat of its army on the plain of Eltekeh. (See eg. A. T. Olmstead, History of Assyria (1923) pp. 308-9). This supposition is supported by the fact that Sennacherib described himself as “King of the Four Quarters,” a term which, as stated above, traditionally implied authority over Magan and Meluhha (Egypt), regarded as the western-most “quarter” or edge of the world. It is also supported by both classical and Hebrew tradition. Thus Herodotus spoke of Sennacherib advancing against Egypt with a mighty army and camping at Pelusium, near the north-eastern frontier (Herodotus, iii, 141), whilst Berossus, who wrote a history of Chaldea, said that Sennacherib had conducted an expedition against “all Asia and Egypt.” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities X, i,4). Jewish tradition goes further and tells of the conquest of Egypt by the king and of his march towards Ethiopia. “Sennacherib was forced to stop his campaign against Hezekiah for a short time, as he had to move hurriedly against Ethiopia. Having conquered this ‘pearl of all countries’ he returned to Judea.” (L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1920) Vol. VI p. 365). Talmudic sources also relate that after conquering Egypt, Sennacherib carried away from there the throne of Solomon. (Ibid. Vol. IV, p. 160)

Sennacherib’s second campaign against Egypt, not recorded in the Assyrian inscriptions, had, as is well-known, a much less favorable outcome for the Great King.

The greatest event of Xerxes’ reign was of course his momentous defeat in Greece. The story of his invasion is recorded in detail by the Greek authors, most particularly by Herodotus, and it is clear that Xerxes’ failure to overcome the Hellenes represented the great watershed in Achaemenid history. From that point on the Persian Empire entered a period of prolonged decline.

Strange then that of all the wars waged by Sennacherib, the only opponents who are said to have come near to defeating him were the Ionian Greeks. In one well-known passage Berossus tells of a fierce battle between Sennacherib and the Ionians of Cilicia. (H. R. Hall, The Ancient History of the Near East (London, 1913) p. 487). The Greeks, he says, were routed after a hard-fought hand-to-hand struggle.

The most important event of Xerxes’ latter years was without doubt his defeat of yet another Babylonian rebellion. Although our sources are somewhat vague, it would appear that there were in fact two rebellions in Babylon during the time of Xerxes, the first of which occurred in his second year, and was led by Bel-shimanni, and the second some time later led by Shamash-eriba.

How peculiar then that Sennacherib too should face two major rebellions in Babylon, the first of which came within three years or so of his succession, and was led by Bel-ibni. (C. H. W. Johns, Ancient Babylonia (London, 1913) p. 120). Rebellion number two came some years later and was led by Mushezib-Marduk. This second rebellion, one might guess, was one of the consequences of the Persian defeat in Greece, and there seems little doubt that Mushezib-Marduk of the Assyrian records and monuments is Shamash-eriba of the Persian.

Both Xerxes and Sennacherib were relatively mild in their treatment of the Babylonians after the first rebellion. However, after the second insurrection both kings subjected the city to massive destruction. But the parallels do not end there. Xerxes’ terrible punishment of Babylon was partly in revenge for the Babylonians’ murder of his satrap. (Brian Dicks, The Ancient Persians: How they Lived and Worked (1979) p. 46).

Similarly, Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon after the second insurrection was largely in vengeance for the Babylonians’ kidnap and murder of his brother Ashur-nadin-shum, whom he had made viceroy of the city. (C. H. W. Johns, op cit. pp. 121-2). Xerxes tore down the walls of Babylon, massacred its citizens, destroyed its temples, and seized the sacred golden statue of Bel. (Brian Dicks, op cit). In the same way, Sennacherib razed the city walls and temples, massacred the people, and carried off the sacred statue of Marduk. (C. H. W. Johns, op cit. p. 122). Bel and Marduk were one and the same; and the name was often written Bel-Marduk. In memory of the awful destruction wrought by Sennacherib, the Babylonian Chronicle and the Ptolemaic Canon define the eight years that followed as “kingless.” The city, it is held, suffered no such catastrophe again until the time of Xerxes, supposedly two centuries later.

Xerxes’ despoliation of Babylon is generally believed to have been accompanied by his suppression of the Babylonian gods, and it is assumed that his famous inscription recording the outlawing of the daevas, or foreign gods, in favor of Ahura Mazda, was part of the general response to the second Babylonian uprising:

And among these countries (in rebellion) there was one where, previously, daevas had been worshipped. Afterward, through Ahura Mazda’s favor, I destroyed this sanctuary of daevas and proclaimed. “Let daevas not be worshipped!” There, where daevas had been worshipped before, I worshipped Ahura Mazda.

How peculiar then that Sennacherib too should be accused of outlawing the Babylonian gods, especially Marduk, in favor of Ashur as part of his response to a second Babylonian rebellion? “A political-theological propaganda campaign was launched to explain to the people that what had taken place [the destruction of Babylon and despoliation of Bel-Marduk’s shrine] was in accord with the wish of most of the gods. A story was written in which Marduk, because of a transgression, was captured and brought before a tribunal. Only a part of the commentary to this botched piece of literature is extant.” (http://www.chn-net.com/timeline/assyria_study.html). Nevertheless, it is clear that Sennacherib tried to “depose” or even “outlaw” Marduk. Thus we find that, “Even the great poem of the creation of the world, the Enuma elish, was altered: the god Marduk was replaced by the god Ashur.” (Ibid.)

To summarize, then, consider the following:

SENNACHERIB	XERXES
Made war on Egypt in his third year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks shortly thereafter.	Made war on Egypt in his second year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks shortly thereafter.
Suppressed two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his second year, was led by Bel-Shimanni. The second, years later, was led by Shamash-eriba.	Suppressed two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his third year, was led by Bel-ibni. The second, years later, was led by Mushezib-Marduk.
The Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Sennacherib’s viceroy, his own brother Ashur-nadin-shum.	The Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Xerxes’ satrap.
After the second rebellion, Sennacherib massacred the inhabitants, razed the city walls and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Marduk. Thereafter the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ashur, who was made the supreme deity.	After the second rebellion, Xerxes massacred the inhabitants, razed the city walls and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Bel-Marduk. Thereafter the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ahura-Mazda, who was made the supreme deity.

 

The parallels between Xerxes and Sennacherib are thus among the closest between an Achaemenid and a Neo-Assyrian. Yet even now we are not finished. There is yet one more striking comparison between the two monarchs, a comparison so compelling and so identical in the details that this one alone, even without the others, would be enough to demand an identification.

Xerxes died after a reign of 21 years (compare with Sennacherib’s 22) in dramatic circumstances, murdered in a palace conspiracy apparently involving at least one of his sons. Popular tradition has it that the real murderer of Xerxes was Artabanus, the captain of his guard, and that this man then put the blame on Darius, eldest son of the murdered king. Whatever the truth, it is clear that Artaxerxes, the crown prince, pointed the finger at Darius, who was immediately arrested and executed. (Percy Sykes, A History of Ancient Persia Vol. 1 (London, 1930) pp. 213-4). It is said that Artabanus then plotted to murder Artaxerxes, but that the conspiracy was uncovered by Megabyzus. No sooner had Artabanus been removed than Hystaspes, another elder brother of Artaxerxes, rose in rebellion. The young king then led his forces into Bactria and defeated the rebel in two battles. (Ibid., p. 124)

Of the above information, one feature is most unusual: the eldest son, Darius, who was not the crown prince, was accused of the murder by the crown prince Artaxerxes, who then had him hunted down and killed.

The death of Sennacherib compares very well with that of Xerxes. He too was murdered in a palace conspiracy involving some of his sons. But as with the death of Xerxes, there has always been much rumor and myth, though little solid fact, in evidence. The biblical Book of Kings names Adrammelech and Sharezer, two of Sennacherib’s sons, as the killers (2 Kings 19:37). An inscription of Esarhaddon, the crown prince at the time, clearly puts the blame on his eldest brother, whom he hunted down and killed. Two other brothers are also named in complicity. (A. T. Olmstead, A History of Assyria (1923) p. 338).

In spite of Esarhaddon’s clear statement, there has always been much confusion about the details — so much so that some have even implicated Esarhaddon himself in the deed. In view of such a level of confusion, the detailed discussion of the question by Professor Simo Parpola, in 1980, was sorely needed and long overdue. Employing commendable reasoning, Parpola demonstrated how a little-understood Babylonian text revealed the identity of the culprit, Arad-Ninlil. (R. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, Vol. XI (Chicago, 1911) No. 1091). A sentence of the document reads, “Thy son Arad-Ninlil is going to kill thee.” The latter name should properly, according to Parpola, be read as Arda-Mulissi (identical to Adrammelech of 2 Kings). Motivation for the murder, said Parpola, was not difficult to find. After the capture and probable death at the hands of the Elamites of Sennacherib’s eldest son and heir-designate, Ashur-nadin-sumi, the “second-eldest son, Arda-Mulissi, now has every reason to expect to be the next crown prince; however, he is outmaneuvered from this position in favor of Esarhaddon, another son of Sennacherib. This one is younger than Arda-Mulissi but becomes the favourite son of Sennacherib thanks to his mother Naqia … Eventually, Esarhaddon is officially proclaimed crown prince.” (Prof. Simo Parpola, “Death in Mesopotamia” XXVIeme Rencontre Assyriologique International,e ed. Prof. Bendt Alster, (Akademisk Forlag, 1980)).

We need hardly go beyond that for a motive. It is not clear whether Arda-Mulissi personally delivered the death blow; it seems that one of his captains was responsible.

Of this death then we note the same unusual feature. The king was murdered by or on the orders of his eldest son, who was not however the crown prince. The eldest son was then pursued and executed by a younger son, who was the crown prince. The parallels with the death of Xerxes are precise. In both cases also a second brother is named in complicity, as well as various other conspirators. In both cases too the murder was not actually carried out by the prince but by a fellow conspirator; in the case of Xerxes by Artabanus, commander of the guard, and in the case of Sennacherib by a man named Ashur-aha-iddin — a namesake of Esarhaddon. And this calls attention to yet one more parallel. In both the murder of Xerxes and Sennacherib, the crown prince himself has repeatedly been named as a suspect. Thus the Encyclopedia Britannica has Artaxerxes I placed on the throne by Xerxes’ murderer, Artabanus, (Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 1 (15th ed.) p. 598) whilst Parpola refers to the common suspicion that Esarhaddon had a part in his father’s death.

Such striking similarities, when placed along with the multitude of other parallels between the two kings’ lives, leave little doubt that we are on the right track.

Last modified on Monday, 09 May 2011 12:16 

....

Taken from: http://www.emmetsweeney.net/article-directory/item/58-xerxes-and-sennacherib.html

Scroll of Esther shaped as reversible version of Jezebel cycle



 

Some very interesting points made here, taken from:
http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/Zlotnick.htm

Helena ZLOTNICK

Biblica 82 (2001) 477-495

 

 

From Jezebel to Esther:
Fashioning Images of Queenship in the Hebrew Bible

 

 

Whatever else had inspired the recording of the translation of a chaste and beautiful Jewish woman from her cousin’s home to the harem of a gentile king, the fact remains that there were few biblical antecedents to chart Esther’s progress through a palatial phase. Much has been written about the stereotype of the Jewish courtier in a foreign court but the image of Joseph constitutes a poor source of inspiration for that of a Jewish queen attempting to exert power from a royal bedchamber. There are, in fact, few narratives in the HB that focus on the critical activities generated in the intimacy of royal marriage. Of these, the episodes centering on Jezebel and Ahab provide comprehensive glimpses at a royal bedroom and at its intricacies¹.
At the heart of this study stands the hypothesis that the story of Esther and Ahasuerus must be read as a rehabilitative narrative of the tale of Jezebel and Ahab. To be exact, the narrative of Esther, if read sensibly and sensitively, bears unmistakable allusions to that of Jezebel. Both share an ideological kinship that aspires to define the desired characteristics and behavior of Israelite/Jewish queens.
An investigation into the use of Jezebel as a shadowy foil to Esther highlights biblical (redactional) ideas regarding queenly images, queenly spheres of influence and the molding of ‘Israelite’/Jewish queens². Underlying both narratives, ultimately, is a condemnation of Israelite/Jewish monarchy. Such a theory can also account, in part, for some of the striking omissions of the ‘exilic’ Esther narrative, not the least the absence of prophets and the failure to refer explicitly to God. To illustrate these points in full I will also institute comparisons with

_____________________
478

early Roman queens. Cross-cultural parallels of this sort have the potential of contributing to fuller understanding of Jewish (and Roman) reconstructions of the monarchic past as a tissue of familial narratives focusing on the reputation or notoriety of female protagonists.

I. The Royal Wife: Queens as Protagonists

Jezebel is remembered, above all, for her role in the famed episode of the vineyard of Naboth (1 Kgs 21)³. The story begins with direct negotiations between two men, a king and his subject, Ahab and Naboth, over the legal acquisition of a plot of land adjacent to a royal residence. The exchange is terminated with Naboth’s insistence on the inalienable character of his property. His refusal to comply with the king’s desire leaves Ahab with two options: he can abandon his rosy visions of a palatial garden (21,2) or he can exert his authority to prevail, by hook and by crook, over the scruples and the objections of Naboth. The king chooses neither. Returning home from his unprofitable dialogue with Naboth he retires to his bedchamber in a foul mood and plunges into a fast⁴.
As the scene shifts from the outside with its vineyards and hypothetical gardens to the royal bedroom the queen enters the picture. Her ‘credentials’ had already been established. Readers had been familiarized with this Sidonian princess as the moving spirit behind her husband’s devotion to the Baal (16,31), and as the mortal enemy of YHWH’s prophets (18,4.13)⁵. The fact that Ahab’s marriage with her

_____________________
479

also signaled the acceptance of the Omrides by their neighbors was deemed irrelevant by the biblical redactor. Yet, with the exception of Solomon, only Ahab achieved the kind of ‘international’ status that made him a desirable match in the eyes of neighboring kings.
Jezebel’s intrusion into Ahab’s self-imposed solitude re-enacts the tale of the vineyard verbally and in the intimacy of the royal bedroom. Within this familial context Jezebel emerges as the king’s solicitous spouse rather than as a bearer of idolatry. Her question, ‘What is the matter with you and why are you not eating’ (1 Kgs 21,5), supports this image. Ahab replies with a distorted version of the words exchanged with Naboth. According to his presentation Naboth was guilty of obstinacy if not of disobedience through an unreasonable refusal of complying with the king’s seemingly reasonable request.
On the surface, this brief and rare glimpse into a royal marriage reveals a model of spousal relations and an inordinate degree of marital harmony and trust⁶. Ahab admits his weakness to a sympathetic wife expecting, presumably, support and understanding. She expresses perhaps indignation perhaps surprise and promises the fulfillment of his desires. He refrains from probing her promise. Even before this bedroom snapshot the text refers to the couple’s closeness and her status, in spite of Ahab’s other wives. He shares with her not only her gods but also information about the management of the kingdom, including the difficulties attendant on the maintenance of correct relations with YHWH’s prophet, Elijah (1 Kgs 19,1). She issues a death threat to Elijah that effectively undermines Ahab’s conciliatory politics and demonstrates her standing at the court.
How extraordinary was the association of an ‘Israelite’ queen, even of foreign descent, with unlimited accessibility to the king can be fully appreciated through the fashioning of royal intimacy in the scroll of Esther⁷. Only three royal couples in the HB, Jezebel and Ahab, Esther and Ahasuerus, David and Bathsheba, are seen, or rather heard in direct verbal communication. But the nature of Bathsheba’s intercession is dictated by motherly and not by wifely concerns. Her

_____________________
480

appearance in the king’s bedroom, where another woman had been occupying the king’s bed, is carefully orchestrated by a prophet. She is neither Jezebel nor Esther.
Like Jezebel, Esther is one of many royal consorts. Unlike Jezebel, when Esther approaches her royal husband she is not only afraid of the consequences of appearing without summons but she also behaves as a humble petitioner rather than a royal consort (Esth 4,11). Even in the privacy of her own rooms Esther has to tread carefully. After obtaining permission to stage a private banquet for the king and a favorite minister (Haman) she dares not bring up her grievance before plying Ahasuerus with drinks (Esth 7,1.2.7). And even then she waits till Ahasuerus seeks enlightenment regarding the identity of the author of the anti-Jewish measures in his kingdom.
When Esther exposes Haman Ahasuerus, like Ahab, retires in anger not to his bedroom but rather to an adjacent garden. That the scroll conjures up for the king’s inflamed spirit the exact same soothing landscape that Ahab had desired to create out of Naboth’s vineyard seems hardly a coincidence. Ahasuerus’ brief stroll in the queen’s garden is staged as a prelude to the climax of the plot and marks the end of Haman’s career. Ahab’s urge to enlarge the palace’s garden sets in motion a series of crimes and signals the demise of his dynasty.
Both the Dtr historian (= the redactor of 1 Kgs 21) and the author of the scroll cloth with mockery the marriages they delineate. The former casts the king’s bedroom as a launching pad for queenly crimes; the latter places the queen in bed with her enemy rather than with her lawful consort. In both narratives communications between king and queen, although direct, are marked by evasions and half-truths. Ahab and Jezebel communicate through deceptions. He provides an edited version of his dealings with Naboth while she avoids further delving into both his statements and her own strategies. Esther hides her true identity from Ahasuerus when she joins the harem. She also conceals her true intention from him when she solicits permission to hold a private banquet for Haman. If Ahasuerus believed his beautiful wife, a rather doubtful proposition, he elected to humor her by pretending ignorance.
An interplay between the words and the actions of the protagonists further reveals parallels between the tales of Jezebel and Esther. Jezebel reminds Ahab of his royal status only to undermine her own assertion by assuming kingly power. Mordechai, ostensibly a caring

_____________________
481

relative, reminds Esther of her position at the court solely to prompt her to use it in spite of danger to her life in obeying his order. Neither Ahab nor Esther, of course, requires the admonition. But the reminders also imply an admission of Mordechai’s own helplessness and of Ahab’s inability to deal with the situation. As the action shifts into the hands of the two queens the scroll is still careful to entrust the initial urging into the hands of a male relative, thereby ‘correcting’ the Dtr history that had cast Jezebel as the prompter and the actor.
A choice of seminal gestures and phrases in the scroll’s description of critical preliminaries appears to recall, somewhat perversely but accurately, the earlier narrative. When Esther hears that Mordechai has been seen donning mourning clothes at the gate of the palace she orders an inquiry into this seemingly inexplicable and apparently inexcusable public display (Esth 4,1-5). Jezebel addresses her grief-stricken and fasting spouse in a similar mode, likewise implying that his behavior is uncalled for. At the heart of the familial encounters on the eve of a crisis are two difficult phrases that emphasize the addressee’s status. ‘Who knows? Perhaps you have attained royalty for just such a time as this?’ (Esth 4,14)⁸. Jezebel addresses Ahab with a similarly pregnant question: ‘Do you now govern Israel?’ (1 Kgs 21,7). In both instances a rhetoric of timeliness is intended to spur the protagonists to action. Mordechai succeeds in coercing Esther to act; Jezebel becomes an actor rather than a prompter.
Structurally, the later narrative also encodes the making of Esther as a queen in a sequence that echoes Jezebel’s queenly progress. In the wake of the fateful exchange between Esther and Mordechai Esther, like Jezebel after her interchange with Ahab, appropriates control over the course of events. She issues an order to summon the Jews of Susa for a three-day fast (Esth 4,16). In the reconstructed order of events in 1 Kgs 21 Jezebel acts along precisely the same lines: she summons the council of the elders in Naboth’s town and calls for a fast (21,9). In both cases the queen effectively transfers the gestures (fasting; mourning) that launch fatal encounters between kin (Ahab/Jezebel; Mordechai/Esther) to a wider circle of the public, thereby opening the door to an outbreak or a resolution of a crisis.

_____________________
482

Lest, however, these close analogies inspire unwary readers with either sympathy towards Jezebel or hostility to Esther, the latter narrator carefully parts the ways of the two queens. Jezebel disappears, physically, from subsequent proceedings. Her invisible presence, however, is constantly referred to in the text. By contrast, Esther appears in all her regal splendor in the inner palace court as she implements the first part of her plan to save the Jews from extinction. She is fully visible, unlike Jezebel, but her intentions are concealed from the beholder. Esther is also beautiful, a familiar attribute of matriarchs in the HB. Jezebel lacks a face and a figure, as though she is made of an evil spirit alone. Moreover, readers are aware of Jezebel’s aim from the start as she sets out to fulfil her husband’s wish. Her method of achieving it soon becomes apparent. In the scroll neither husband nor its readers are familiarized with Esther’s schemes to deliver her promise.

II. The Two Faces of Queenship

Casting an Esther as a Jezebel carried, potentially, dangerous connotations. The hostility of biblical narrators to queens who, like Jezebel, usurp the role of kings in a manner that highlights the limitations of kingly power and the breakdown of male authority within the home is undisguised. It finds an amplified echo in the annals of the early Roman monarchy (6^th century BCE) which chart the career of two queens, Tanaquil and Tullia, who bear curious similarities to the biblical female monarchs. Because Roman authors are considerably more expansive than biblical narrators they provide valuable insights into the process that molded queenly images in antiquity.
In the hindsight of several centuries, the history of early Rome emerges in the pages of the historian Livy (57-14 BCE) as a family narrative dominated by the ambitions of its female members and punctuated by their sense of honor and shame⁹. Of these, Tullia, like Jezebel, is a daughter of a king (Servius Tullius). Her husband, Tarquinius (Superbus), is likewise a son of a monarch (Tarquinius Priscus) who, however, had designated another man, a non-relative, as his successor. To win the stakes in the complicated game of succession

_____________________
483

the couple embarks on a career of crimes, including the murder of their first respective spouses and the killing of Tullia’s father, the reigning ruler. Although apparently a match made in heaven, Livy shows no hesitation in casting Tullia as the moving spirit behind the rocky ride to the throne of Rome.
Echoing what Jezebel might have said to Ahab, had the text been recorded and transmitted in full, Tullia addresses her husband as follows:
If you are the man I thought I was marrying, then show yourself to be a man and a king. If not ... you have compounded a crime with cowardice. What is the matter with you? You are not from Corinth or from Tarquinii, like your father, nor is it necessary for you to make yourself a king in a foreign land. The gods of your family, your ancestors, the image of your father, the royal palace, its throne and the very name Tarquinius make and proclaim you king. Why else, if your spirit is too mean to (undertake) this, do you deceive the city? Why do you allow yourself to be looked upon as a prince? Depart to Taquinii or Corinth where you can sink once more into oblivion...¹⁰.
Focusing on the interaction between the family and the state as two social entities Livy shows how the privileging of the family interest at the expense of public duty generates chaos¹¹. Tullia and Tarquinius base their claim to the kingship on kinship alone, thus reversing and subverting the principle of merit and of inclusion on which the Roman royal succession had been established from the start. Jezebel ‘vindicates’ the king who is also her husband, thereby undermining the foundations of the royal system of dispensing justice.
In Livy’s landscape of early Rome the palace is the focus and the symbol of the couple’s unbridled ambitions. From the seclusion of their domestic space Tullia and Tarquinius launch their criminal activities. When Tarquinius appears in the curia (= senate house) with an armed bodyguard, Tullia burst on the scene and hails him as king. Her action and gesture constitute a double transgression. Not only does she violate the physical boundaries of males’ space by intruding into male business in the forum, but she also crosses the frontiers of male authority by being the first to confer royalty on a man in public.
Responding to censure, not the least from her own husband, Tullia

_____________________
484

defends herself by appealing to another queenly model. She regards herself as a faithful imitator, if not an improved version of Tanaquil, her mother-in-law who had been instrumental in helping her own husband (Tarquinius Priscus) to become a king at Rome, and who had ensured the smooth transfer of power to a successor she herself had chosen (Servius Tullius, Tullia’s father).
Livy’s presentation of Tanaquil is ambiguous. In his words, she is ‘a woman of the most exalted birth and not of a character lightly to endure a humbler rank in her new [Roman] environment than the one she had enjoyed by birth’¹². To save the monarchy Tanaquil alters the deliberative process reserved for the senate and the people of Rome. When her husband falls victim to an assassination plot, she encourages Servius to take the reigns into his hands:
To you, Servius, if you are a man, belongs this kingdom, not to those who by the hands of others have committed a dastardly crime. Arouse yourself and follow the guidance of the gods ... Now is the time ... Rise up to the occasion. We, too, although foreigners, ruled over Rome. Consider who you are and not where you were born. If your judgement is numb in so sudden a crisis then follow my council ¹³.
The fact that Livy leaves the ultimate tribute to Tanaquil in Tullia’s hands reflects a deep-seated uneasiness with the assumption of male power by women, laudable as their intentions and ultimate results might have been. Although Tanaquil’s resourcefulness saves the dynasty that she had created she also violates male norms by claiming a higher authority than the traditional mos maiorum (custom) would have allowed any woman, queens included. By setting herself and her late husband as models for Tullius to be imitated, Tanaquil also paves the way to Tullia.
As the biblical narrative recreates Jewish queenship in the scroll of Esther, the leading female character undergoes the same kind of transformation that underlies the Tanaquil-to-Tullia process, but in reverse. To begin with, Esther is not only Jewish but a woman with impeccable royal (Jewish) blood in her veins. Jezebel is constantly branded a foreigner in a manner that reflects not only her ethnicity but also her proclivities¹⁴. In the redactional history of the Hebrew Bible

_____________________
485

the Deuteronomist antipathy to foreigners, and particularly to foreign queens, has been associated with a deep-seated fear of idolatry through contamination¹⁵. The elevation of foreigners to Rome’s throne, by contrast, reflects Rome’s greatness and her openness to strangers, while Tullia’s urging of her husband to seize the throne on the ground of his ‘nativeness’ is clearly misplaced.
The scroll depicts the decree of Ahasuerus-Haman ordering the elimination of the Jews as a writ of national emergency. The clash between Ahab and Naboth appears, at first, as carrying little import beyond the king’s petty desire to expand to plant vegetables. Yet behind the issue of the vineyard versus royal garden lurks the larger question of the legitimate scope of monarchical actions vis-à-vis the king’s subjects¹⁶. In the Esther scroll the queen reacts to a patriarchal call to action and only exercises her potential royal power to save her people, as Tanaquil does to save Rome from revolution. Jezebel, like Tullia, acts on her own initiative, subverting male standards of royal behavior.
Just how perilously close to each other are, nevertheless, constructs of royal women like Tanaquil and Tullia on the one hand, and Jezebel and Esther on the other, can be further gauged from the attitude of all the texts to the public appearance of queens. Roman and Jewish authors are unanimous in banning women from the public eye. Jezebel and Esther never appear in public. Tanaquil makes a single public appearance when there is no one else who can save the dynasty. Even then she remains standing at a window in the palace, shielded by its walls. Tullia’s venturing into the forum invokes censure by her husband, and by the historian Livy. But Tanaquil’s position near a top window, although emphasizing Tullia’s boldness in venturing outdoors, also signifies the female usurpation of male authority at home. Ultimately, both women embark on a course of action that contradicts male expectations of female royalty. Nevertheless Tanaquil garners praise while Tullia is condemned.
Jezebel’s sole ‘public’ appearance is made as a spectator standing at the window of the palace that another king is about to possess. Observing the approach of Jehu, she stands at the window as a visual

_____________________
486

reminder of the legitimacy of her royal position and of his usurpation. Her words reinforce the image that her presence conveys: ‘Is it peace, Zimri, murderer of his master?’ (2 Kgs 9,30). Her words, like Tanaquil’s to Tullius, are filtered through space and the conventions of official language as she faces the successor of her dynasty and her ultimate executioner¹⁷.
Esther is never seen or heard addressing directly any man besides her husband and cousin/father. In fact, no biblical narrator or redactor ventured to place either queen, Jezebel or Esther, outside the confines of the palace itself. Both women use messengers to gather information and agents to convey their commands and their threats. Yet, like Tanaquil and Tullia, the two biblical queens were destined for vastly disparate ‘after-life’. In collective memory Jezebel became a stereotype of shrewish and detestable queens¹⁸. Esther’s adventures are still celebrated.

III. Naboth’s Trial: Jezebel the Persecutor

Underlying Jezebel’s assumption of royal authority in the case of Naboth is the pitting of her patron-god, the Baal, with the national Israelite divinity, YHWH. Within this context the queen’s uncompromising loyalty to her husband, in itself a commendable wifely trait, is completely obscured. Esther is not even expected to display spousal loyalty to her royal husband but rather a commitment to her own community of origin. Her dilemma as a wife and a queen is staged as a predicament of the Jewish people as a whole. Ahab’s reflects the king’s own pettiness.
In the name of Ahab Jezebel communicates the king’s alleged commands to the local authorities in Naboth’s hometown. The redacted story does not explain whether she had been empowered to do so. It implies that she abused, rather than used the king’s implicit trust in her¹⁹. In the scroll of Esther not a single person, wife or otherwise,

_____________________
487

is allowed to issue royal commands without the king’s explicit seal of approval. Jezebel acts on her own initiative and without the prompting of a male relative. In her eyes she is embarking on a just vindication of the injured royal dignity.
The theme of writing on behalf of the king, with or without explicit permission, and of using the royal seal to convey the legality of the message dominates both the Jezebel and the Esther accounts²⁰. 1 Kgs 21,8 depicts Jezebel as writing a royal letter to Naboth’s peers by herself but in Ahab’s name, and using his seal. She is thus engaged in a pursuit that is not only unacceptable when undertaken by men without duly conferred authority but is the height of impropriety when practiced by a woman. Yet, according to 1 Kgs 21,9 the letter merely contained a call for a local fast although the redacted sequence of the events strongly suggests that it also contained instructions regarding the staging of the whole affair.
Esther’s sojourn at the court is marked from the very start by directions incorporated in written commands. She is joined to the harem upon the publication and dissemination of a royal order to gather beauties from all over the kingdom (Esth 2,8). Ahasuerus endorses Haman’s request to eliminate the Jews with his own seal (= ring) (Esth 3,10) and the royal scribes articulate the command in a series of letters that they distribute (Esth 3,12-13). The fact that such orders had been issued in the name of the king and not of his minister is tacitly ignored by Esther when she pleads in front of Ahasuerus (Esth 7,4-6). The king’s implicit or explicit permission is precisely the aspect that the redactor of the Naboth affair never lets the readers forget when he insists on the concealed authorship of Jezebel. Finally, to illustrate the changing fortunes of Haman, Ahasuerus allows Esther and Mordechai to issue in his name and with his seal commands relating to the fate of their enemies (Esth 8,8). According to the scroll’s redactor, such royal orders, albeit not a royal initiative, nevertheless possess full legal validity and are irreversible (Esth 8,8).
In Livy’s depictions of early Rome queens never resort to the use or the abuse of their proximity to the source of power through the issuance of written documents. Both Tanaquil and Tullia address the public directly and orally, without mediation. Livy evidently did not deem it necessary to clothe Tullia’s illegal deeds with legitimacy

_____________________
488

through the power of the written royal word. Her truly offensive transgression in Livy’s eyes resided in the crossing of gender boundaries in public and not in secrecy. Casting Jezebel as a usurper of the king’s authority through stealth reflects both the real limits of queenly power and the redactor’s own biases. To rehabilitate this queenly image the scroll carefully invests Esther with direct royal authority to issue empire-wide commands in the king’s name.
Without, evidently, Ahab’s knowledge or permission Jezebel bids the leading men in Naboth’s town to announce a public fast and to appoint Naboth to head this solemn occasion. No reason is given to account for the fast, nor is objection offered²¹. Perhaps the drought that had marked Ahab’s reign provided the pretext. Unlike Naboth, his peers obey the royal desire without demure or protest²². The fast, as in other biblical narratives, serves as a preliminary to a critical public occasion. In Neh 9,1 a fast precedes the ceremony of the renewal of the ancient covenant between YHWH and the exilic community in Yehud. In 1 Kgs 21 the fast is concluded with a judicial murder that signals the demise of the Omride dynasty. Throughout Persia the news of the decree ordering the execution of the Jews prompts a general fast (Esth 4,4). Like Jezebel, Esther calls for a fast as she prepares herself for what can become a fatal encounter with the king (Esth 4,16).
In the midst of the public fasting ceremony in Jezreel two unnamed men accuse Naboth of blaspheming God and king²³. The text makes no reference to the source of the accusation nor does it explicitly connect Jezebel with the two men. Their identity remains concealed. Yet, had they been non-entities their incriminating evidence may not have been accepted as promptly as it was. Jezebel’s complicity is implied throughout. The charge of blasphemy is interesting. Lev 24

_____________________
489

provides a precedent for the public stoning of a man who blasphemes God. However, the Pentateuchal tale focuses on a blasphemer who is half Israelite, half Egyptian, leaving open the question of the fate of a fully-fledged Israelite. There are no rules relating to procedure in the case of blaspheming a king²⁴. Nor is it clear if the charge against Naboth involved a public or private manifestation of disrespect. The two knaves testify that he had done so presumably within earshot.
What the redactional recording of the Jezreel proceedings leaves in no doubt is its ‘reading’ of the entire affair as a blasphemy. In this interpretative fashion the tale is launched with Naboth’s (futile) appeal to YHWH. It continues with Ahab’s (fruitful) entrusting the queen with a resolution, and ends with a fatal accusation of blasphemy. In the process, Jezebel, already cast as the persecutor of YHWH’s prophets, is characterized as a prosecutor of YHWH’s innocent worshipper²⁵.
The transformation of a private grievance (between Naboth and Ahab), through Jezebel, into a public charge becomes the dominant motif behind the scroll’s recreation of the events that led to a ‘judgement’ (without trial) of the Jews of Persia. Originating as an encounter between two individuals, Haman and Mordechai, a private feud is turned into a public affair when Haman approaches Ahasuerus with accusations regarding the Jewish community of the Persian empire. Like Jezebel, Haman cannot broach the real object of his impeachment speech and, like her once more, he concocts a general charge that depicts the Jews as a subversive element in the kingdom. Presenting them as people who ‘do not abide by the royal laws’ (Esth 3,8) Haman, like Jezebel, initiates a legitimate action against an appointed victim. And once more like the queen who promises the delivery of Naboth’s vineyard into Ahab’s hands, Haman assures the king of substantial material rewards as a result of the anti-Jewish law.

_____________________
490

While the Dtr historian has no interest in the effect of Jezebel’s actions on the community of Naboth, Esther’s author-redactor expands on the reactions of Jews and non-Jews to the publication of the king’s commands. The only person who remains blissfully ignorant of the impeding fate of the Jews is Esther herself, like Ahab who is also seemingly unaware of his wife’s plans. When Elijah clarifies the situation for the king’s benefit Ahab plunges into mourning (1 Kgs 21,27) in a manner recaptured by the scroll as it describes the general lamentation over the royal command (Esth 4,3). Ahab’s remorseful fasting is sufficient to appease God, at least for the time being (1 Kgs 21,28) but does not prevent the ultimate demise of his dynasty. Ahasuerus’ remorse brings fatality to Haman and salvation to his intended victims.
Now, the twin themes of fasting and feasting underlie both narratives²⁶. As Ahab starts a fast over his failure to acquire Naboth’s property Jezebel encourages him to eat. But she herself, a generous provider of nourishment to hundreds of Baalistic prophets (1 Kgs 18,19), is destined to be eaten as food for dogs. Upon Elijah’s disclosures of Naboth’s execution Ahab expresses his repentance through another fast. Jezebel is never accredited with remorse. When Ahab dies on the battlefield (in royal terms an honorable death), a victim of his own ruse, his blood provides a drink to stray dogs. Ironically, then, the royal couple ends by feeding animals, she with her body and he with his blood. They remain united in infamy even after death.
Throughout Esther feasting and fasting highlight the changing conditions of individuals and of collectivities. The general merriment and banqueting that characterize the beginning of the story turn into a Jewish fast and mourning. Esther prepares a banquet in the midst of her own fast. Jewish salvation is celebrated through large quantities of food and drink. What do the protagonists aim to achieve through self-imposed fasting or through feasting? Ahab’s initial fast prompts the (‘criminal’) action of his wife; his second fast rekindles God’s mercy. For all intents and purposes, then, fasting is a powerful weapon of achieving personal purposes. Mordechai’s fast at the gate of the palace

_____________________
491

upon learning of Haman’s decree constitutes a transgression of the law of the land and reinforces the image of Jewish recalcitrance that Haman had portrayed. The general Jewish fast following the Ahasuerus-Haman decree seems equally incapable of averting doom. Only Esther appears to use the period of fasting as a preparation for a difficult task ahead. The irony is palpable. To approach a monarch whose main claim to fame is the celebration of lavish banquets Esther and her people have to experience the opposite of a royal lifestyle.
In a series of intriguing and intricate inversions the Esther scroll adopts and adapts actions and protagonists of the Jezebel story to convey, ultimately, a similar message. Just as Naboth’s real murderers are doomed to perdition Haman’s plans are destined to lead to his own undoing. Beyond such simplistic similarities lies, however, a complex ideology. Because of the origins of the Israelite monarchy the power of kings must remain limited. In a post-exilic existence, such as the scroll of Esther depicts, there is in fact no room at all for a Jewish king. The only viable royalty is that of a gentile monarch. In this context a Jewish queen is born, or rather created, not as a consort of a Jewish king but as an instrument to save her people in a moment of exigency.

IV. Conclusion: Jezebel the ‘sorceress’ and Elijah the ‘magician’

In the encounter between Elijah and Ahab over the royal appropriation of private property, Naboth’s death is described as a ‘murder’ (1 Kgs 21,19)²⁷. There is, however, no murderer in the plain and direct sense of the word. Kings or queens need not resort to bloodying their hands. The punishment to which Ahab and Jezebel are subjected as a result of Naboth’s death makes, therefore, little sense. In the annals of the Israelite monarchy a similarly motivated murder, notably that of Uriah by David (2 Sam 11), is cast as an act of impiety against God²⁸. And although the prophet Nathan pronounces a twofold punishment, neither David himself nor his dynasty are destined to immediate extinction as Ahab’s is. Furthermore, Ahab

_____________________
492

meets his death through a ruse, precisely the same type of stratagem that his wife had employed to secure his happiness.
In Deuteronomistic narratives when kings commit crimes they are reprimanded by prophets, retract, and are duly punished by YHWH. But when the agent of the ‘crime’ is a woman, a foreigner, and a queen the story gains a twist. The king appears to lose his will and to recede into inactivity. The queen adopts royal tactics and commands the scene. Like David, Jezebel entrusts visibility to trusted brokers. Unlike David, she is never confronted directly either by YHWH or by a prophet. Such privileged mode of communication is solely the right of impious kings.
To justify in full the elimination of a legitimate monarch (Ahab) and of his legitimate queen the Dtr narrative(s) compound(s) Jezebel’s guilt in the Naboth case with other charges. In a deadly encounter between Jehoram of Israel, Ahazia of Judaea and Jehu, the latter newly anointed by Elisha, Jezebel is accused of sorcery and prostitution (2 Kgs 9,22b). The allegation is puzzling. At redactional level it denotes the full enormity of her impiety. A comparison with Tanaquil, however, hints at a different possibility.
‘Expert in the interpretation of celestial signs like most Etruscans’ Tanaquil reinforces her husband’s ambitions and plans by relating tidings from the gods²⁹. Tanaquil’s supernatural gifts, the result of her particular brand of Etruscan religiosity, contribute to her exceptional standing in the palace. The gods communicate their wishes through her interpretative skills, enabling her to serve both the family and the state. Conversely, Jezebel’s ‘magical’ powers emphasize the queen’s blatant violation of Yahwist piety and royal (Dtr) ideology. What Livy construed in Tanaquil’s case as an inordinate and positive brand of religiosity is condemned in the biblical narrative as female ‘sorcery’ and ‘prostitution’³⁰.
The negative hue firmly attached to Jezebel’s ‘sorcery’, in itself a trait that is never quite demonstrated in the narrative, is best explained within the context of her rivalry with Elijah³¹. In the Elijah sagathe prophet constantly engages in ‘sorcery’ or in miraculous demonstration

_____________________
493

of his Yahwist attachment. His brand of magic is a sure sign of his being ‘a man of God(s)’ (1 Kgs 17,24) and of YHWH being the only one and true God (1 Kgs 18,39). While Jezebel’s ‘magic’ secures the succession of her son in spite of prophetic doom, Elijah’s parallel powers require constant attestation³². In the greatest magic show Elijah disappears out of human purview. Jezebel, unaided by the Baal or by witchcraft, is torn asunder and her blood drenches the earth. Yet, it is precisely Elijah’s heroic proportion that serves to magnify Jezebel’s sorcery.
The charge of prostitution, as has been often remarked, appears calculated to invoke Jezebel’s apostasy and her commitment to the Baal³³. In the mouth of Jehu and in the ears of Jezebel’s son the word echoes with further irony. It reminds the audience that her betrayal of YHWH and of his prophets (= prostitution) had been as vigorous and disastrous as her loyalty to her husband and to her god. Such an interpretation receives support from the fact that the scene between Jezebel’s son and her destined murderer (Jehu) is carefully placed in Jezreel, on Naboth’s former plot (2 Kgs 9,21).
Jezebel, the ‘prostitute’ and the ‘witch’, violates norms of kingly behavior and weakens the precarious balance of power between kings and YHWH’s prophets³⁴. Her promotion of the Baal undermines YHWH’s sphere of influence. Impious, sacrilegious, and a transgressor of the boundaries of women and of queens, Jezebel is cast as the antithesis of what a Jewish queen ought to be. To remedy the damage that she had inflicted on the delicate balance between YHWH and Israel Esther is created in her reversed image.
By shadowing Jezebel through Esther the scroll also provides a

_____________________
494

commentary on the desirability of a kingship in general and on the character and activities of queens in particular. Clothing the tale of Jezebel and Ahab in an exilic garb further served to remind the audience of the perils inherent in intermarriage³⁵. The absence of the habitual condemnation of intermarriage in the scroll of Esther is as striking as is the absence of YHWH. In the exilic existence that the Esther tale aspires to delineate the only acceptable Jewish queen is, strangely, one who is matched not with a Jewish king but with a gentile one. Nor are her royal functions of relevance. Esther does not bear children to the king, nor does she secure the dynasty. The absence of these critical components of all royal marriages is important. She is brought into the harem to serve a single purpose that, strictly speaking, has nothing whatsoever to do with her.
With superb irony the narrator of Esther’s and Mordechai’s vicissitudes at the court leaves both YHWH and prophets out of the story. Their absence raises the larger question of the place of YHWH in exile and outside the promised land of Israel. Although the issue of idolatry and apostasy is never raised, Haman’s words to Ahasuerus vividly illustrate the problems of the preservation of the Torah in a non-Jewish territory. Even God cannot appear in this context. At the heart of the rehabilitative narrative of the scroll lies, therefore, an unsolved problem, an end without an end. As Esther fulfils the purpose that Mordechai assigns her readers are left in the dark regarding the ‘happily ever after’. How long did the king’s affection last? If cyclical, as the beginning of the story strongly suggests, Esther’s end could have resembled Vashti’s.
Ultimately the biblical narrative excised queens altogether. In exilic redactional perspectives figures such as Jezebel remained a threat even in remote hindsight. The only viable royal woman was one whose movements were controlled by men. If the prospect of reviving the monarchy occasionally crossed the exilic horizons, the possibility of another Jezebel could never be entertained. From the very beginning kingship had been unpalatable to YHWH and to His prophets. Their aversion had been, seemingly, fully justified. Anyone who contemplates the redacted annals of the impieties of the Israelite and the Judaean kings, and the activities of their queens, must share the Deuteronomistic conviction of the futility of Jewish kingship.

_____________________
495

In Jewish history the monarchy began with Saul son of Kish, a Benjaminite. The last royal member of the house, Esther, likewise a Benjaminite and a scion of Saul, becomes a queen in a gentile court, thus concluding a period that had started with prophetic indignation against the appointment of kings (1 Sam 8) and ended with the abandonment of the Jewish people to their fate in a gentile-dominated diaspora. In a summary of the monarchical era the exilic Dtr historian accuses the Israelites of deliberately provoking the wrath of YHWH through their devotion to evil (2 Kgs 17,17). The words provide an uncanny echo of the aberration that Ahab had practiced under the influence of Jezebel³⁶. Between Saul and Esther, then, tower the figures of Jezebel and Ahab as symbols of all the evil inherent in the ideology and the very existence of an Israelite/Jewish monarchy.

Department of History The University of Kansas 3001 Wescoe Hall Lawrence, KA 66045-2130 (USA)

Helena ZLOTNICK

SUMMARY

Only three royal couples in the HB are seen in direct communication. Of these, two, namely Ahab and Jezebel, Ahasuerus and Esther, contribute unique insights into the interpretative and redactional processes that cast later narratives around themes of earlier stories, and both around the figure of a queen. In this article I explore the hypothesis that the scroll of Esther was shaped as a reversible version of the Jezebel cycle. With the aid of narratives of the early Roman monarchy, a sensitive and sensible reading of the biblical texts relating to Jezebel and Esther demonstrates the constructive process of an ideology of queenship. Underlying both constructs is a condemnation of monarchy in general.

© 2001 Biblica

________________________________

NOTES
¹ Besides these two only 1 Kgs 1 deals with a crucial bedroom scene. But Bathsheba is first and foremost a mother and not a wife. On queen-mothers as arbiters of royal succession see H. ZLOTNICK, "Securing the Succession: Mothers and Prophets in 1 Kgs 1" (forthcoming).
² C. SMITH, " ‘Queenship’ in Israel: The cases of Bathsheba, Jezebel and Athaliah", King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. J. DAY) (JSOTSS 270; Sheffield 1998) 142-162, on the absence of the concept in the HB and on the queen-mother as the dominant female character at court. Jezebel, however, is not a queen-mother, nor is Esther. Moreover, the only child whose rights Jezebel may have advanced is a daughter rather than a son.
³ R. BOHLEN, Der Fall Naboth. Form, Hintergrund und Werdegang einer alttestamentlichen Erzählung (1 Kön 21) (TThSt 35; Trier 1978), for full analysis. On the three stages of composition/redaction (‘original’, Dtr expansion, and exilic elaboration), W.M. SCHNIEDEWIND, "History and Interpretation: The Religion of Ahab and Manasseh in the Book of Kings", CBQ 55 (1993) 649-661, esp. 655. On scholarly controversies regarding the layering of 1 Kgs 21 see R. MARTIN-ACHARD, "La vigne de Naboth (1 Rois 21) d’après des études récentes", ETR 66 (1991) 1-16, and standard commentaries, including J. GRAY, I & II Kings. A Commentary (OTL; London ²1970); G.H. JONES, 1 and 2 Kings (NCBC; Grand Rapids 1984); J.T. WALSH, 1 Kings (Berit Olam; 1996); and T.E. FRETHEIM, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville 1999).
⁴ Cf. 1 Kgs 20,43, a redactional bridging touch, which uses the same expression to describe Ahab’s reaction to YHWH’s chiding.
⁵ On the hostility of the D theologians to Jezebel and her religious affiliation, P. TRIBLE, "Exegesis for Storytellers and Other Strangers", JBL 114 (1995) 3-19, esp. 4 and passim.
⁶ Cf. Proverbs’ ideal wife (Prov 31,11-12 (trust of husband; rewarding husband with good and not with evil deeds) and 31,16-17 (plotting to obtain a field and to plant a vineyard!).
⁷ Since Jezebel’s ‘foreignness’ was clearly irrelevant in the determination of royal succession, she can be regarded as ‘Israelite’ for all intents and purposes. On Esther see my analysis in H. ZLOTNICK, Dinah’s Daughters. Gender and Judaism from the Hebrew Bible to Late Antiquity (Philadelphia 2001 [in print]).
⁸ My translation is based on J.W.H. VAN WIJK-BOS, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville 1998) but see the comments of Paton in his invaluable commentary on possible corruption and on the elusive structure and meaning of this phrase.
⁹ My comments are based on C.G. CALHOON, "Lucretia, Savior and Scapegoat: The Dynamics of Sacrifice in Livy 1.57-59", Helios 24 (1997) 151-169.
¹⁰ Titus Livius, Ab urbe condita 1.47.3-5. Trans.: Titus Livius, Opera. With an English translation by B.O. Foster et al. (LCL 114; Cambridge 1988 [¹1919]) 165, modified.
¹¹ A. FELDHERR, Spectacle and Society in Livy’s History (Berkeley 1998) 190.
¹² Titus Livius, Ab urbe 1.34.3 (Foster’s translation, modified).
¹³ Ibid., 1.41.4 (Foster’s translation, modified).
¹⁴ On the importance of the motif of Jezebel as the proverbial foreign woman, J.A. SOGGIN, "Jezabel oder die fremde Frau", Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (AOAT 212; Kevelaer 1981) 453-459.
¹⁵ G. KNOPPERS, "Sex, Religion and Politics: The Deuteronomist on Intermarriage", HAR (1994) 121-142.
¹⁶ On the king’s role of ensuring justice throughout his kingdom, H. SCHULTE, "The End of the Omride Dynasty: Social-Ethical Observations on the Subject of Power and Violence", Semeia 66 (1994) 133-148, esp. 134.
¹⁷ CALHOON, "Lucretia, Savior and Scapegoat", 158 (on Tanaquil). On the heroic quality of Jezebel’s last moments, P.D. ACKROYD, "Goddesses, Women and Jezebel", Images of Women in Antiquity (eds. A. CAMERON – A. KUHRT) (London 1983) 245-249, esp. 246.
¹⁸ Cf. J.L. NELSON, "Queens as Jezebels: The Careers of Brunhild and Balthild", SCH(L)S 1 (1978), 31-77.
¹⁹ Note the absence of the title ‘queen’ in the narrative versus its ubiquitous use in the Esther narrative (Esth 2,22; 4,4; 5,2 and passim)
²⁰ M. BAL, "Lots of Writing", Ruth and Esther (ed. A. BRENNER) (A Feminist Companion to the Bible 3; Sheffield 1999) 212-238.
²¹ A. ROFÉ, "The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the Story", VT 38 (1988) 92, on the proclamation of fasts in times of national crisis. Cf. Elijah’s summoning the people to put an end to the drought, E.K. HOLT, "‘Urged on by his Wife Jezebel...’ A literary Reading of 1 Kgs 18 in Context", SJOT 9 (1995) 85.
²² Their behavior contrasts with the resistance to submission exhibited by the ‘elders’ whom Ahab had summoned to discuss Ben Hadad’s demands (1 Kgs 20,7). On the expanding ‘circle of guilt’, J.T. WALSH, "Methods and Meanings: Multiple Studies of I Kings 21", JBL 111 (1992) 199, 201.
²³ On the legal aspects of the accusation, F.I. ANDERSEN, "Socio-Juridical Background of the Naboth Incident", JBL 85 (1966) 46-57, concluding that Naboth had actually promised to sell but reneged and that his refusal was presented at the ‘trial’ as a blasphemy justifying the forfeiture of his land by the intended buyer.
²⁴ Assuming that the text separates between God and king, although it can also be taken as a standard formula linking the two. Exod 22,27, invoked by all commentators, merely prohibits the cursing of God and of )y#&n (king?) without imposing penalty. Nor are the verbs describing the banned action in Exod the same employed to describe Naboth’s alleged crime. Supporting, indirectly, Rofé’s assumption of a late (5–4 centuries BCE) date for the redaction of 1 Kgs 21 (ROFÉ, "Vineyard", 97-101).
²⁵ Hence the seemingly irrelevant appeal of Naboth to YHWH in the initial encounter between him and Ahab for no law prohibited the alienation of ancestral property. However, as FRETHEIM, First and Second Kings, 118, correctly emphasizes, priestly law (Lev 25,23) insists that all the land belonged to YHWH and, by implication, cannot be sold for any reason or in perpetuity.
²⁶ WALSH, "Methods", 204, on fasting as a component of penitential practices and religious observances that furnishes a bond between the two parts of 1 Kgs 21 and as a clue to deciphering the tale as an attack on the stability of society that laws and religious practices guarantee. On eating and drinking as paralleling the motifs of life and death, ibid., 205, 207-208.
²⁷ A rare word, used mostly in prescriptions regarding cities of refuge and, of course, in the Decalogue. See H. ZLOTNICK, Covenant of Words. A Feminist Reading of the Ten Commandments (forthcoming).
²⁸ M. WHITE, "Naboth’s Vineyard and Jehu’s Coup: The Legitimation of a Dynastic Extermination", VT 44 (1994) 68-69, on parallels between the two tales and the casting of 1 Kgs in the mold of the David-Bathsheba-Uriah tale.
²⁹ Titus Livius, Ab urbe 1.34.9 (Foster’s translation).
³⁰ SCHULTE, "The End", 142, interprets the phrase as a reflection on Jezebel’s role as a priestess of fertility cults.
³¹ N. NA’AMAN, "Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides", Bib 78 (1997) 160, on the shaping of the negative evaluation of Ahab’s reign through their embedding in the Elijah cycle.
³² The notice in 1 Kgs 22,53, in itself an exception to the rule of recording exclusive male succession, seems to support the assumption of Jezebel’s success and status.
³³ Blood and prostitution/prostitutes constitute another underlying redactional theme, beginning with 1 Kgs 22,38 where the blood washed off Ahab’s chariot washed prostitutes in Samaria and ending with 2 Kgs 9,22b. On the former as a late insertion, I. BENZINGER, Die Bücher der Könige erklärt (KHC 9; Leipzig 1899).
³⁴ Jezebel’s sorcery or witchcraft, in other words the attribution of supernatural powers through her links with the Baal, must be contrasted with the functions of YHWH’s prophets, above all with the supernatural qualities that they possess through their faith in YHWH. On the latter see the remarks of C. GROTTANELLI, Kings and Prophets. Monarchic Power, Inspired Leadership, and Sacred Text in Biblical Narrative (New York 1998) 134-135.
³⁵ ROFÉ, "Vineyard", 102, briefly noted the text’s ‘protest against intermarriage’ that texts of the period voice. On Ezra-Nehemiah’s attitude to intermarriage see H. ZLOTNICK "The Silent Women of Yehud", JJS 51 (2000) 3-18.
³⁶ M.Z. BRETTLER, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London 1995) 122.