Introduction
Thisbookisaboutthebiblicalbookof Esther anditsreceptionin Islamicculture,asubjectthatstraddlesthetwo fieldsofbiblicaland Islamicstudies(and,indirectly,other fields).Thispresentsboth problemsandopportunities.
Amongsttheproblemsistherealitythatitisnighimpossibleto strikeareasonablebalancebetweenpresupposingofthereadertoo muchortoolittleknowledgeofeach field.Theformerrisksalienating biblicistswhentheycometoIslamicmaterials,andIslamicistswhen theycometobiblicalones,whereasthelatterrisksalienatingall readers,forwhomtheresultingtoneandcontentsmightbetaken tobecondescendingorsimplyboring.1
Asecondproblemconcernsnotthepotentialreader’slackof expertisebutrathermyown.The fieldof Esther-studiesisenormous, withliterallythousandsofbooksandarticlesdevotedtothisshortyet surprisinglycomplexbiblicalstory.Addtothisthefactthatalreadyin ancienttimes Esther wastranslatedintomoreGreekandAramaic versionsthananyotherbookoftheBible,andwasthesubjectofmore Jewishextra-biblicalelaborations(hereafter: midrashim,sing. midrash)2
1 Bearinginmindthatmostreaderswillbenewtoatleastonehalfofthisbook’ s contents,Ihavetriedtoprovideprimarysourcetextswhererelevant(usingexisting translationsormyown)ratherthanreferringreaderstosourcesinthefootnotes.The resultisthatinsomeplacesthecontentsmayseemlikeaheavilyannotatedsourcebookoflittle-known Esther-relatedtexts.
2 Inthebroadestofstrokes,theterm “midrash” referstoagenreofancientrabbinic writingsthatservedtointerpretandsupplementtheinformationprovidedinbiblical texts.Thesewritingsincludedbothlegal/halakhicandhomiletical/aggadicnarratives. The “aggadic” portionsdealtwith(andwerebasedon)non-legalmaterialsofmany sorts,includingmythsandlegendsabsorbedfromlocal(non-Jewish)cultures.Itis thislattergroupofwritingstowhichwereferwhenusingtheterm “midrash” inthis book.On “midrash” seeC.Bakhos,s.v. “Midrash”,in EncyclopediaJudaica,2nd
thanalmostanyotherbiblicalstory,anditclearthatthis fieldis unwieldlyforasingleperson.
BringingIslamicstudiesintothemixisnolessproblematic.Over thepast c.1400years,Muslimshavecontributedtoarichlyvaried arrayofcultures,producingworksinnumerouslanguages,onnearly everytopic,andinnearlyeverygenreimaginable.Combingallof thesematerialsforattitudesto Esther isanimpossibletask,and knowingwhattodowithwhatevermaterialsI have managedto findissimilarlydaunting.Aswillbecomeclearinthefollowing chapters,Ihavenotlimitedmyselftothe “usual” genreswithin Islamicstudiesonwhichauthorsofcomparativestudiesofthissort havetendedtodraw namely “Qur’ānic” studiesand Isrā’īliyyāt (roughly,biblicalmaterialsinIslamicsourcesthatoftenclosely resembleJewish midrashim intheirform,aims,andcontents).3 The followingchaptersmakeuseof “Islamic” sourcesinArabic,Persian, andTurkish,writtenbySunniandShiaMuslims(aswellasothers who,itwillbeargued,wereculturally “Islamic”),coveringmaterials asdiverseastheQur’ānanditsexegesis,inter-religiouspolemical works,historicalchronicles,biographicaldictionaries,orallytransmittedpopularstories,poetry,andinternetblogs.
Whatthismeansisthatareaderlookingforweaknesses,shortcomings,faults,anddeficienciesofwhatevernaturewillprobably havenoproblem findingtheminthisbook.Ihaveknowinglybitten offmoreoftheNearEasternpiethanonepersoncanreasonablybe expectedtochew.Bethatasitmay,itismyviewthatacomparative studyofthissort particularlyoneconcerning Esther andIslamic culture(s) hasbeenlongoverdue.4 Suchastudyoffersbiblicistsand
edition,ed.F.Skolnik,Detroit:Macmillan,2007;andBakhos, “ScripturalInterpretation”,inA.SilversteinandG.Stroumsa(eds), TheOxfordHandbookofthe AbrahamicReligions,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2015,pp.226–53.
3 Onthe Isrā’īliyyāt,withparticularreferencetotheJewishandChristianexegetical traditions,seeG.Newby, “TafsīrIsrā’īliyyāt:TheDevelopmentofQur’ānCommentary inEarlyIslaminitsRelationshiptoJudeo-ChristianTraditionsofScripturalCommentary” , JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion 47iv(1980),pp.685–97;and R.Tottoli, “OriginandUseoftheTermIsrā’īliyyātinMuslimLiterature” , Arabica 46 (1999),pp.193–210.
4 MichaelG.Wechsleristheonescholarwhohasmadeenormouscontributionsto thestudyofJudeo-Arabicversionsof,orcommentarieson, Esther,whichemanate fromIslamiclands.Wechsler’scontributionsare,inmyview,ofthehighestcalibre. Thatsaid,thetexts(bothRabbaniteandQaraite)thathehaspublishedandanalysed are “Jewish”,notonlyintheirauthorshipandintendedreadership(theyareArabic
Islamicistsfreshperspectivesontheirrespective fields,insomecases evenprovidingsolutionstolong-standingcruces.Threeprinciples underpinmyresearch,eachofwhichhasbeenconfirmedbythe findingspresentedhere.
First,forvariousreasons(largelyhistorical),Islamicsourceshave preservedmaterialsthatwereproducedbypre-Islamicculturesbut didnotalwaysendurewithintheir “native” communities.Asweshall seerepeatedlyinthisbook,ancientinterpretationsof Esther belongto thiscategoryoflost(mostly “Jewish”)materialsthatcanbesalvaged onlybyturningtoIslamicones.
Second,thereisconsiderablemeritinadoptingacomparative approachtoNearEasternstudiesingeneral drawingonsources andmaterialsfromacrossawidespectrumofcultures,languages,and religioustraditions,ratherthancarvingupthe fieldalonggeographical,linguistic,orreligiouslines,intodiscreteandlargelyindependent areasofresearch.Thebroad,comparativeapproachenvisagedhere wasinstinctivetoOrientalistsinthenineteenthcentury(forinstance) butisnolongercommon,formostlypracticalreasons.Taking Esther asacasestudy,Iwillattempttodemonstratethewaysinwhich adoptingsuchacomparativeapproachtoabiblicalstorycanyield uniqueandimportantresults.
Third,MiddleEastern,andparticularly “Persian” traditionsconcerning Esther areofespecialimportancetothe fieldof Esther studies forthesimplereasonthat Esther isinmanywaysa “Persian” story:It issetinancientIran,isrepletewithPersianwordsandconcepts,and imploresitsreaderstoseekconfirmationforthestory’scontentsin “theChroniclesofthePersianandMediankings” (Esther 10:2).In thisbook(amongstotherthings)Ishalldojustthat.
Theimportanceof Esther toPersiancultureisinevidenceeven todayinbothJewishandMuslimcommunities.AmongstJews, Esther’sassociationwiththePersian-Jewishcommunityissoclose thatarecenthistoricaloverviewofthiscommunitywastitled Esther’ s Children,whileananthologyofJudeo-Persianliteraturewascalled textswrittenintheHebrewalphabetandwerethusgenerallyinaccessibletoMuslims), butalso,forthemostpart,intheircontentsandsources.Theseworkscanbesaidto demonstratethevariouswaysinwhichpre-IslamicJewishmaterialscontinuedtobe usedamongstJewsevenaftertheriseofIslamandthetransitiontoArabicculture.By contrast,thematerialsusedinthisbook(includingthosewrittenbyJews)are identifiablyproductsof “Islamic” culture.
4 VeilingEsther,UnveilingHerStory
InQueenEsther’sGarden. 5 Perhapsrelatedtothisisthefactthat the “TombofEstherandMordecai” isapopularpilgrimagesitein Hamadan,Iran.6
In2008,theIraniangovernmentpromotedthetombtothestatus ofanationalheritagesite.ForsomeIranianMuslimsthiswasan unpopularmove:Inearly2011,againstthebackdropofclashesover thesiteoftheal-Aqs . ā MosqueinJerusalem(basedonrumoursthat theIsraeligovernmentintendedtoharmitinsomeway),therewere demonstrationsinHamadaninwhichthreatsweremadeagainstthe “TombofEstherandMordecai”,andacallwasmadetodowngrade thesitefromitsstatusasanofficialIranianpilgrimagesite(ziyāratgāh). Interestingly,asthedemonstratorsmarchedthroughthetown,they sharedtheir(unfavourable)takeonthe Esther story,displayingabanner withthewords “Holocaust(‘hūlūkāst’)of77,000Iranians” andillustratedwithalargeStarofDavid.7 Itiscertainlypossibletoarguewiththe details:TheMasoreticText(hereafter:MT)of Esther enumerates75,810 non-Jewishvictims,andtheGreekversions moreonwhichbelow have15,800(theSeptuagint,hereafterLXX)and70,810(theAlphaText, hereafter:AT)victims,respectively.8 Andyet,thenotionthat Esther isoverlyconcernedwithJewishviolenceagainst(Iranian)non-Jewsis butonelegitimateinterpretationofthebookamongstmany,onethat wasnotuncommonamongstChristianreadersofthestoryoverthe
5 H.Sarshar, Esther’sChildren:APortraitofIranianJews,Philadelphia:TheJewish PublicationSociety,2005;andV.B.Moreen, InQueenEsther’sGarden:AnAnthology ofJudeo-PersianLiterature,NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2000.Notealso Agnon’sdescriptionofJewsfromMuslimlandsasbeing “fromthelandofQueen Esther” (inS.Y.Agnon, Shira,trans.Z.Shapiro,NewYork:SchockenBooks,1989, p.85).
6 Onwhichsee,forinstance,S.Souroudi, PersianLiteratureandJudeo-Persian Culture:CollectedWritingsofSorourS.Soroudi,Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversity Press,2010,pp.125–30.
7 Onthis,andforaphotographsofthedemonstration(andbanner),seehttp://www. asriran.com/fa/news/152244/
(inPersian;last accessed9May2017).ThislattersiteclaimsthatanalternativenameforthePurim festivalis īrānīkāshī, “The[festivalof]killingIranians”.ForaHebrewdescriptionofthe event,withaphotographofthebanner,see https://www.thmrsite.com/?p=1565(last accessed9May2017).
8 TheMTenumerates800killedinSusa(500in Esther 9:6;and300in9:15),aswell asthetensonsofHaman(9:7–10),and75,000throughouttherestofthekingdom (9:16).TheLXXhas800killedinSusa(500in Esther 9:6and9:12,whichincludes Haman’ssons,and300morein9:15),and15,000elsewhere(9:16).TheAThas710 killedinSusa(700in Esther 9:6=AT7:44andHaman’stensonsin9:7–10=AT7:44), aswellas70,100elsewhere(9:16=AT7:46).
centuries.9 OtherMuslimsinIranappeartosharethisattitudeto the Esther story.TwoyearsaftertheriotsinHamadan,Muhammad JawādZarīf,theForeignMinisterofIran,sentNewYearwishestothe JewishcommunityandaffirmedthehistoricityoftheNaziHolocaust. Muhammad ‘Alī Ramīn,aleadingIranianHolocaustdenier,sharply condemnedthisgesture,saying,
Mr.Zarīf,ifyoubeginyourtermbywishingtheJewsahappynewyear, lateryouwillhavetoblessthemonPurim,[whichmarks]theslaughterof yourhelpless[Persian]peoplebytheevilJews InIslamicIran,those whodonotbelieveinresistingtheaggressionoftheZionistsare unworthyofholdinganypositionorduty.10 (Emphasismine)
NotallIranianMuslimsinterpreted Esther asarecordofJewish anti-Iranianviolence.Agoodexampleofanalternativeperspective comesfromthesomewhatsurrealexchangebetweentheIsraeliPrime Minister,BenjaminNetanyahu,andtheaforementionedJawādZarīf. On3March2015,PrimeMinisterNetanyahuaddressedtheUS Congress,inanattempttodissuadeitsmembersfrombackingadeal withIranoverthelatter’spursuitofnuclearcapabilities.Hestated,
Tomorrownight,ontheJewishholidayofPurim,wewillreadthe Book ofEsther.WewillreadofapowerfulPersianviceroynamedHaman, whoplottedtodestroytheJewishpeoplesome2,500yearsago.Today, theJewishpeoplefaceanotherattemptbyyetanotherPersianpotentate todestroyus.11
9 Ingeneral,seeF.W.Bush, “TheBookofEsther: opusnongratum inthe ChristianCanon” , BulletinforBiblicalResearch 8(1998),pp.39–54,esp.pp.39–40, forChristianhostilityto Esther throughtheagesonaccountofthebook’ s “virulent hostilitytogentiles”.Forparticularexamplesofthis,see,forinstance,J.Carruthers, EstherthroughtheCenturies,Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,2008,pp.87–8(wherethe sixteenth-centuryLutheranscholarJohannesBrenzcommentedonthepleasurethat Jewsinhisdaytakeincelebratingtheanti-gentileviolencerecordedin Esther and applyingittocontemporaryenemies,whomtheycall “[H]aman”);pp.256–7(where itissuggestedthatthecentralityofthethemeofvengeancetothestoryisbehindits exclusionfromtheDeadSeaScrolls);andp.272(whereaseventeenth-century ChristiancriticizesthePurimfestivalforitsapparentreflectionofJewishanti-gentile violence).
10 Theexchangetookplaceon5–8September2013,afulltranscriptofwhichmay befoundat:https://www.memri.org/reports/criticism-iran-foreign-minister-zariftweet-claiming-iran-never-denied-holocaust(lastaccessed9May2017).
11 Thehighlypublicizedexchangewaswidelyreportedonatthetime.Forbutone coverageofthisexchangeamongstmanyseehttp://www.lapidomedia.com/analysisnetanyahu-speech-purim-esther(lastaccessed9May2017).
TothisstatementForeignMinisterZarīfreplied,
OnceagainBenjaminNetanyahunotonlydistortstherealitiesof today,butalsodistortsthepast includingJewishScripture.Itis trulyregrettablethatbigotrygetstothepointofmakingallegations againstanentirenationthathassavedtheJewsthreetimesinits history.The BookofEsther tellsofhowXerxesIsavedJewsfromaplot hatchedbyHamantheAgagite,whichismarkedonthisveryday. Again,duringthetimeofCyrustheGreat,anIraniankingsavedthe Jews thistimefromcaptivityinBabylon;andduringtheSecond WorldWar,whenJewswerebeingslaughteredinEurope,Irangladly tookthemin.
Thisinterpretationof Esther wasretweetedbyForeignMinisterZarīf on12May2017,andonthesamedaythespeakeroftheIranian Parliament, ‘Alī Lārījānī,addedasimilarstatementofhisown:
ItisnecessarytodiscusstwopointsabouttheleaderoftheZionist regime[Israel].First,hehasdistortedthehistoryofpre-IslamicIran, andhehasreversedtheevents.Apparently,heknowsneitherhistory norhashereadtheTorah.Ofcourse,morecannotbeexpectedfroma nefariousZionisttospreadlieslikethis.12
ItisacuriousfactthatancientJewishcommentatorsarelikelyto haveagreedwithJaw ādZ ar ī f ’ sinterpretationof Esther ratherthan Netanyahu’ s:NotonlydoestheMTversionofthestorydescribea Jewasrisingtothepositionof “ vizier ”,andaJewesstotheposition ofqueen,butwewillseethattheGreek “Additions ” to Esther (followedbythe first-century CE Josephus)stressthatHamanwas not ethnicallyaPersian,anideathatresurfacedmorerecently,ina Judeo-Persiansummaryofthestory.Accordingtothistakeonthe story, Esther tellsusthatJewscameto fl ourishunderanIranianking whiletheevilcharacterwasnotIranianatall.Thesesources,and manyotherslikethem,willbesurveyed,analysed,andcontextualizedinthisbook.
WhatisclearfromthispublicdebateamongstIsraeliandIranian politiciansaboutthemessageof Esther isthatamongnon-JewishIranians,aswellasJewishones,the Esther storywasknownandunderstood. EvenforthoseIranianswhodemonstratedoutsideoftheTombof EstherandMordecaithe Esther storyispartofIranianhistory(even
12 Forthis,seehttp://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iranian-speaker-rebuffs-Netanyahufor-Purim-comparison-Study-the-Torah-483968(lastaccessed20March2018).
ifitisanegativepartofthathistory).13 Unsurprisingly,amongst non-IranianMuslims, Esther isgenerallyfarlesswellknown.This iscapturedinabizarrespeechmadeonEgyptiantelevisionon 29January2009bythepreacherSafwatHegāzī (b.1963),inwhich heimploredMuslimstoboycotttheStarbucksCoffeechainforan unexpectedreason:
ThisisthelogoofStarbucks.Hasanyofyoueverwonderedwhothis womanwithacrownonherheadis?WhydoweboycottStarbucks? Iwilltellyou,soyouwillknowwhyyoushouldboycottthiscompany, andwhatthislogostandsfor ... ThegirlontheStarbuckslogoisQueen Esther.DoyouknowwhoQueenEstherwasandwhatthecrownonher headmeans?Thiscrownonherhead,thisisthecrownofthePersian Kingdom.ThisqueenisthequeenoftheJews.TheBookofEstheris foundintheTorah,intheOldTestament;thegirlyouseeisEsther,the queenoftheJewsinPersia.Theking[ofthestory]gaveanorderthat thesevenmostbeautifulgirlsinthekingdombebroughttohim,sothey infactheldcontestsandauditions,andselectedthesevenmostbeautifulvirgins,oneofwhomwastheJewessEsther.Heruncle actually,it washercousin’sbrother Mordecai,hewasadespicableman,andheis theonewhoorganizedthisplot.Estherwasoneofthesevengirlsbrought tothepalace,totheKingAhashwerosh.WhenKingAhashweroshsaw Esther,whowasofexceedingbeauty,shecapturedhisheartandtheking choseEsthertobehisqueen.Heplacedacrownonherhead,andthe crownyouseehereisthecrownofthekingdomofAhashwerosh,andthis isEsther,whobecameQueenofPersiainsteadofQueenVashti.Canyou imaginethatinMecca,Medina,Cairo,Damascus,Kuwait,andallover theIslamicworld,theyhangthepictureofbeautifulQueenEstherwitha crownonherhead,andwebuyherproducts?!WewantStarbuckstobe shutdownthroughouttheArabandIslamiccountries;wewantitto beshutdowninMeccaandMedina.IimploreKing ‘Abdallahbin ‘Abd al-Aziz,theCustodianoftheTwoHolyMosques:Itisinconceivablethat inMeccaandMedina,thereshouldbeapictureofQueenEsther,the queenoftheJews.14
13 Contrastthiswiththe “medieval” Muslim-EgyptianlackofinterestinPharaonic history,asdiscussedinM.A.Cook, “PharaonicHistoryinMedievalEgypt” , Studia Islamica 57(1983),pp.67–113;andU.Haarmann, “MedievalMuslimPerceptionsof PharaonicEgypt”,inA.Loprieno(ed.), AncientEgyptianLiterature:Historyand Forms,Leiden:E.J.Brill,1996,pp.605–27.Acontrastingviewhasrecentlybeenput forwardinO.El-Daly, Egyptology:TheMissingMillennium.AncientEgyptinMedievalArabicWritings,London:UCLPress,2005.
14 Translationmodifiedfromthatprovidedinhttps://www.memri.org/tv/egyptiancleric-safwat-higazi-calls-shut-down-starbucks-arab-and-islamic-world-jewish-queen
EvendisregardingthefactthattheStarbucksCoffeelogohasnothing todowith Esther, 15 anyoneevenvaguelyfamiliarwithanyversionof the Esther storywillappreciatehowwideofthemarkHegāzī iswith thissummaryofit.Thecontrastbetweentherelativelywell-informed, IranianMuslimstatementson Esther andthatofferedbythis Egyptianversionofa “televangelist”,isstark.16 Thepointhereis thatwhilethisbookisaboutthereceptionof Esther inMuslim culture(s),itisimportanttobearinmindthroughoutthat “Islam” , “Muslims”,and “Muslimlands/cultures” areproblematictermsthat candeceiveuswiththeirapparentsimplicitywhereastheyare,inactual fact,pregnantwithdiversity,complexity,andeveninconsistency.17
Indeed,bytheendofthebookitwillbecleartothereaderthatthere wasnosingle “Islamic” receptionofthe Esther story.Wewillmeet “medieval”18 PersianMuslimsforwhomthestoryhadtobesquared withtheir(pre-Islamic)Iranianheritage.Wewillreadasummaryof Esther authoredbyanineteenth-centuryShia-Arabfeminist.Andwe willhearaculturallyIslamicSamaritanwriterretellthe Esther story, albeitwithaJewasitsvillain.
Acentralpreoccupationofthisbookisthechartingandanalysisof thereceptionhistoryof Esther inIslamiclands.Inrecentyearsthe fieldofbiblicalreceptionhistoryhasbecomeincreasinglypopular, sophisticated,andwellservedbystudiesandreferenceworks.19 With (lastaccessed9May2017).Thisconspiracytheorywaspickedupbymediaatthetime, including:http://www.jpost.com/Features/Magazine-Features/Coffee-libel-in-Egypt (lastaccessed9May2017).
15 Foramoreaccurateaccountofthelogo’shistory,seehttp://www.designhill. com/design-blog/starbucks-logo-overview-of-design-history-and-evolution/(lastaccessed 9May2017).
16 AsweshallseeinChapter1,athirdcategoryoftwenty-first-centuryMuslim approachesto Esther comesfrominter-religiousinternetpolemics.Inthiscase,the existenceofacharacterbythenameof “Haman” intheQur’ānoutsideofthe Esther contexthasledMuslimapologiststoengageinhighlydetailed,criticalstudiesof Esther withtheaimofdiscrediting Esther’shistoricityandtherebyneutralizingthe anti-MuslimpolemicistswhotakeHaman’sappearanceintheQur’āntobeproofof thelattertext’sinaccuracy.
17 Onthistopic,seeC.Aydin, TheIdeaoftheMuslimWorld:AGlobalIntellectual History,Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,2017.
18 IusesuchEurocentrictermsas “medieval” , “MiddleAges” , “LateAntiquity” , andothers,forthesakeofconvenience,whileacknowledgingthattheyreflectperiodizationsthatareunsuitablefornon-Europeansocieties.
19 E.g.DeGruyter’ s EncyclopediaoftheBibleanditsReception;itsmonograph seriesStudiesoftheBibleanditsReception;its JournaloftheBibleanditsReception; anditshandbookseriesHandbooksoftheBibleanditsReception.
particularreferencetotheIslamicreceptionofbiblicalcharactersand themes,therehavebeennumerousstudiesinthepastdecadesthat contributetothisgrowing field.20 Similarly,evenworksthatarenot specificallyconcernedwithreceptionhistoryarereflectinganawarenessoftheimportanceofconsideringIslamictopicswithintheir broader, “Abrahamic” context.Hence,asitislargelyaimedata Westernaudience,the EncyclopaediaoftheQuran oftenpresentsits entriesonQur’ānictopicswithinthecontextofwhateverbiblical backgroundorinter-textsaredeemedrelevanttoaparticulartopic,to namebutoneexampleofthistrend.21
Thisbookisnot,however,onlyconcernedwiththeIslamicreceptionof Esther.Asstated,oneoftheprinciplesunderpinningthisstudy istheconvictionthatIslamicmaterials,particularlythosethatwere producedduringtheAbbasidera(750–1258),preserveancient,preIslamictraditions,manyofwhichdidnotsurviveelsewhere.Inthe followingchapters,thesematerialswillbeshowntobepivotaltotwo subfieldswithin Esther studies:The firstisthestudyofancientJewish interpretationsof Esther,particularlythosethatsurvivedtotheeastof theEuphratesRiver,thatistosay,onEstherandMordecai’shome turf.Thesecondisthestudyof Esther itself,inbothitsHebrewand Greekversions.WewillseethatIslamicsourcesprovideuswith solutionstosuchcrucesasthereasonwhyMordecairefusedtobow downtoHaman(Esther 3:1–6),andthemeaningof “Bougaios”,this beingHaman’sepithetintheGreekversionsof Esther.Thisbookis, therefore,asmuchaboutwhatmightbetermed “conceptionhistory” asitisabout “receptionhistory” .
Thebookisdividedintotwoparts.The firstfourchaptersdealwith thereceptionof Esther withinIslamiccultures.InChapter1, “Haman intheQur’ān ”,Iconsidertheconnectionbetweenthecharacterby thenameof “Haman” (Arabic:Hāmān)whoappearssixtimesinthe Qur’ān(alwaystogetherwithPharaoh,inEgypt)andthe “Haman” of Esther.Theextraordinarysignificanceofthisquestionishighlighted: Weshallseethatforsome,thischaracter’sappearanceintheQur’ān isnothinglessthananerrorinGod’sbook;forothers,itisnothing
20 AhighlyregardedexampleisJ.Lassner’ s DemonizingtheQueenofSheba: BoundariesofGenderandCultureinPost-BiblicalJudaismandMedievalIslam, Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1993.Anotherexcellentmonograph,which treatsaselectionofcasestudies,ratherthanzeroing-inonaparticularcharacter,is G.S.Reynolds’ s TheQur’ānanditsBiblicalSubtext,London:Routledge,2010.
21 J.D.McAuliffe(ed.), EncyclopaediaoftheQuran,Leiden:E.J.Brill,2001–5.
shortofamiraclethatprovestheQur’ān ’sdivineoriginandjustifies conversiontoIslam.ChartingHaman’spathfromtheBibletothe Qur’āntakesusonajourneyofunexpectedtwistsandturnsthrough religious(andother)textsthathavenothithertobeenusedinseeking tounderstandHaman’sroleintheQur’ān.
InChapter2, “Esther inIslamicHistoricalSources”,ItaketheBible uponitschallengetoconsult “theChroniclesofthePersianand Mediankings” (Esther 10:2)forconfirmationofthe Esther story.Ido thisbyturningtothesummariesofthe Esther storypreservedin Muslimhistoricalworks,someofwhich(suchasal-Tabarī’ s History ofProphetsandKings)madeextensiveuseofancientIranianhistoricalmaterials.Withtheirown,verydifferentideasabout “Haman” or, insomecases,aboutancientIranianhistory,Muslimauthorswere forcedtoreimaginetherestofthe Esther storysuitably,andinthis chapterweencounterthefour “strategies” bywhichMuslimauthors didso.ThechapterendswithananalysisofaJudeo-PersiandescriptionofthePurimfestival,inwhichthe(Jewish)author’ ssummary of Esther displayssomeofthesamesignsof “Iranian” influenceon thestorythatwereidentifiedinMuslimtreatmentsof Esther earlier oninthechapter.
Chapter3, “TheSamaritan Esther”,issomethingofananomalyin thisbookinthatitistheonechapterthatdoesnot,forthemostpart, relyontextswrittenbyMuslims.Rather,itisalittle-knownArabic accountofthereignofAhashwerosh,inwhichaversionof Esther is presentedbythemedievalSamaritanauthorAbū ’l-Fath,who rewrotethestorytoreflecthisSamaritan,anti-Jewishperspective. Andyet,thechapterisvery “Islamic” initsrewritingof Esther, reflectingasitdoesthesortsofadjustmentstothestorythatearlier andcontemporaryMuslimhistorianswereshown,intheprevious chapter,tohavemadeto Esther.
InChapter4, “ThePersian Esther ‘Midrash’”,Iexaminematerials relatedto Esther along “regional” ratherthan “religious” lines,and arguethatJewsandMuslimsinIransharedcertainnotionsabout Esther thatdistinguishedthemfromtheircoreligionistselsewhere. Moreover,asthesematerialsemanatefromregionstotheeastofthe EuphratesRiver thatistosay,thegeneralregionwherethe Esther storyisset theyarenolessimportanttoourunderstandingof Esther thanthebetter-known, “Western” midrashicmaterialsare.Inparticular,Iexaminethecuriousidea,preservedinahighlyprestigious Iranianreferencework,thatHamanandAbrahamweresiblings.
Thesecondpartcomprisesthreechaptersthatseektodemonstrate thewaysinwhichIslamic-eramaterialscancontributetoourunderstandingof Esther itself.InChapter5, “Esther andAncientPersian Storytelling”,Iexplorethepossibleconnectionsbetween Esther andpopularworksofPersianstorytelling,suchastheArabic 1001 Nights andthePersian Samak-e ‘Ayyār,VīsandRāmīn,ShāhNāma, BahmanNāma,andothers.Althoughtheseworksreachedsomething resemblingtheircurrentformonlyin “medieval” times,theyare basedonsourcesthatweretransmittedorallyforcenturiesbeforehand,sourcesthat,insomecases,areidentifiablypre-Islamicin period,andIndo-Iranianinculture.Iwillarguethattheauthors/ editorsof Esther andoftheseIslamic-eraworksdrewonacommon literary-repositoryincraftingtheirtexts.
InChapter6, “Bougaios:TheIslamicEvidence”,Iarguethataseries ofpassagesinIslamicsourcesthatdealwithPharaohandHaman preserveanancientJewishunderstandingoftheepithet “Bougaios” , appliedtoHamanintheGreekversionsof Esther,namelythatitwasa referencetotheinfamousPersianeunuch “Bagoas”.Themisreadingof acrucialwordinJewish midrashim ledMuslimauthorstotakeastory about “Bagoas” inanentirelynewdirection.Attheendofthechapterit isshownthat,oncetheseoriginallyJewishmaterialswerereworkedby Muslimauthors,theyweresubsequentlyreabsorbedintomedieval Jewishsources demonstratingthatculturalinfluenceofthissort couldbenotmerelyaone-wayortwo-waystreet,butratheraroundtripjourney.22
Finally,inChapter7, “WhyDidMordecaiRefusetoBow?” Ioffera solutiontooneofthebest-knowncrucesofthestory,onethateven puzzledMordecai’scolleagueswhoserved ashedid—“attheking’ s gate” (Esther 3:1–6).ThesolutionisbasedonaliterarycontextualizationofMordecai’srefusaltobowtoHaman,seeingitasbutone linkinalongchainofsimilarepisodesinNearEasternhistory. InpresentingmyargumentsIdrawontextsspanningsome3500 yearsthatcontainacomparable topos.Thepotentialramificationsof thisnewreadingofthisepisode,for Esther asawhole,arethen considered.Thechapteroffersacontributionbothto Esther studies, butalsotoourunderstandingofthenumerouspassagesintheQur’ān
22 Forarecentworkdedicatedtotheanalysisofsuch “round-trip” journeysof midrashim,see.S.Lowin, TheMakingofaForefather:AbrahaminIslamicandJewish ExegeticalNarratives,Leiden:E.J.Brill,2006.
thatdescribeSatan’s(“Iblīs ”)refusaltobowtothenewlycreated Adam,aswellastoourunderstandingofalittle-understoodstatement preservedintheBabylonianTalmud(Sanhedrin 59b).Inthischapter, Ialsotietogetheranumberoflooseendsthatwereleftoverfrom earlierchapters.
TheAppendix, “AnArabFeministon Esther”,offersthe firsttranslationintoEnglishandanalysisofZaynabFawwāz ’sentryon “Esther” inhergroundbreakingbiographicaldictionaryoffamouswomen.As Fawwāzwasfromapoor,Lebanese-Shiabackgroundandapproached thestoryfromafeminist’sperspective,hersummaryof Esther is uniqueamongstthosecoveredinthisbookinmorethanoneway. Inmyanalysisofhersummary,IshowthemeansbywhichFawwāz chosetoIslamicizeandfeminizethestory,editingMordecaioutof itasmuchasshecouldwhileretainingthestory’sbasicplot.Interestingly,althoughthiswasalmostcertainlynotherintention,inredacting Esther soheavilyandconsciously,Fawwāzproducedatextthatconformstothehypothesized “Esthersource” thatsomescholarshave arguedfor.
ESTHER ANOVERVIEW
Inthesimplestofterms,MT Esther isthestoryofeventsthat tookplaceduringthereignofXerxesI(Hebrew: “Ahashwerosh” , r.486–465 BCE),particularlyeventsthatconcernedthefortunesofthe Jewishpeopleunderthisking’srule.Thekingheldanenormous banquetduringwhichherequestedthathisqueen,Vashti,displayher beautybeforehimandhisassociates.Vashtirefusedtodosoandthe kingheldanempire-widebeautycontestinorderto findanewqueen. AnorphanedJewessbythenameofEsther,whohadbeenraisedbyher cousinMordecai,waseventuallychosentobethenewqueenofPersia, butconcealedthefactthatshewasJewish.Inthemeantime,Mordecai whowasafunctionaryofsortsintheroyaladministration helpedfoil anassassinationattemptagainsttheking.
Followingthis,thekingdecidedtopromoteone “Hamanthe Agagite” tobehissecond-in-commandandorderedthatallroyal functionariesprostratethemselvesbeforeHaman.Allagreedtodoso exceptforMordecai,whichenragedHaman.AsMordecaiappearsto havejustifiedhisrefusaltobowonthebasisofhisJewishidentity,
HamansoughttohaveallJewsintheempirekilledandhecast “lots” (Akkadian: pūr;withtheHebrewplural: pūrīm)todeterminethedate onwhichthemassacrewouldtakeplace.ThekingapprovedHaman’ s planandedictswerecirculatedthroughouttheempireannouncing theplannedannihilationoftheJewishpeople,whichwastotakeplace towardstheendoftheyear,onthethirteenthofAdar.
MordecaiconvincedEsthertointerveneontheJewishpeople’ s behalf,atwhichpointthestorysplitsintotwoparallelnarratives:In theone,Estherapproachesthekingand(afteraseriesofbanquets) pleadswithhimtospare “her” people.Sheexplainsthatsheisa Jewessandthatherpeoplewereunderthreatduetotheplothatched byHaman.Inthesecondnarrative,onhiswaytooneofEsther’ s banquets,HamanisdisrespectedbyMordecaionceagainandhis advisorssuggestthathehangMordecaifromatallgallows.Haman setsofftotheroyalpalacetosecurepermissiontohangMordecaiand reachesthepalacecourtyardjustastheinsomniackingwashaving hisdiariesreadtohim.Bychance,thediarieswereopenedtothe recordofMordecai’sfoilingtheassassinationattempt,forwhichthe kingdecidedtorewardhim.Thekingsummonswhoeverhappened tobeinhiscourtyard inthiscaseHaman andconsultshimabout thewaytocelebratesomeonewhomthekingwishestohonour. Thinkingthatthekingwasreferringtohim,Hamansuggestedthat thehonoureebecelebratedpubliclyinaregalprocession.Theking thenorderedthatHamanexecutethisplan,albeitincelebrationof Mordecai,whichhedid.
Atthispoint,thetwoparallelnarrativeslinkup,withEsther implicatingHamanintheplotagainsttheJews,andtheking misinterpretingHaman’spleadingwithEstherasaninappropriate advanceagainstthequeen orderingthatHamanbekilledand hangedfromtheverygallowsfromwhichhehadplannedtohang Mordecai.ThekingallowsEstherandMordecaitoissueanedict throughouttheempire,whichwouldallowallJewstodefendthemselvesagainsttheirenemiesonthethirteenthofAdar.Haman’sten sonsarekilled,asareover70,000non-Jewsthroughouttheempire. Thefestivalof “Purim” (recallingthe “lots” thatHamanusedearlier inthestory)isthenenshrined,tocelebratethedeliveranceoftheJews fromHaman’splot,afestivalthatcontinuestobecelebratedonthe fourteenthor fifteenthofAdar.Thestoryendswithashortchapter onthere-establishmentofstabilityinAhashwerosh’sempireandthe elevationofMordecaitothepostofsecond-in-command.
14 VeilingEsther,UnveilingHerStory
AmongstJews,the Esther storyiswidelyknown,andthePurim festivalthatisbasedonitwidelycelebrated,evenbythosewhoare relativelyill-informedoftheBible’scontents.Onasuperficiallevel, thestoryisoneofcommunaldeliveranceanditisatthatlevelthatit isgenerallyunderstood.However,ancientandmodernscholarsalike haveknownthatthereismuchmoreto Esther thanthepopular understandingofitsuggests.
Alreadyinancienttimes, c.100 BCE,thebookwasrenderedinto Greek,inaversion(theSeptuagintor “LXX”)thatdiffersconsiderablyfromMT Esther.Tocomplicatematters,yetanother,shorter Greekversionof Esther (the “AlphaText”)hasalsocometolight.The preciserelationshipbetweenthesethreeextantversionsof Esther twoGreekandoneHebrew hasbeendebatedamongstscholarsfor decades.ItisnowcommontoassumethatthetranslatoroftheLXX basedhimselfontheMTversionof Esther,and “biblicized” thetext addingreferencestoGod(whichareabsentintheMTversion)andto religiositymoregenerally,aswellassixotherpassages,knownas the “Additionsto Esther”.TheAT,foritspart,isthoughttohave beenbasedonaHebrewversionofthestorythatisdifferentto(and probablyearlierthan)MT Esther,butalsocametoincorporatethesix “Additionsto Esther” thatoriginatedintheLXXversion.23 Notonly dotheGreekversionsaddreligiosityandthesix “Additions” tothetext, butinsomecasesthedetailsofthestorydifferfromthoseprovidedin MT Esther.IntheLXX,forinstance,thestorytakesplaceduringthe reignof “Artaxerxes” (ratherthan “Xerxes”),24 andinbothGreek versionsHamanisnotan “Agagite” butrathera “Bougean”—bothof thesebeingtermsofuncertainoriginandmeaning,asweshallseein Chapters1and2.
InadditiontotheGreekversionsofthestory, Esther was “translated” intoAramaicatleasttwice.The firsttranslation(Targum Rishon)probablyoriginatesinsixth-/seventh-centuryPalestine,the second(TargumSheni)probablydatesfromthelateseventh/eighth
23 Onthecomplicatedtextualhistoryof Esther,sees.v. “Esther,Bookof ”,in ABD, vol.2,pp.633–43(C.A.Moore);s.v. “Esther,Additionsto”,in ABD,vol.2,pp.626–33 (C.A.Moore);andD.J.Clines, TheEstherScroll:TheStoryoftheStory,Sheffield: JSOTPress,1984.
24 TherewerenofewerthanfourPersiankingswiththistitle.InChapters2and6 wewillreturntothecomplexissueofArtaxerxes’sidentificationinthecontextof Esther.
century,ifnotlater.25 Inbothcases,thetranslatorinterpretedhistask liberallyandthetranslations(especially TargumSheni)areinterspersedwithcopiousexegeticalmaterials,manyofwhichareonly distantlyrelatedtothecontentsof Esther.Takentogether, Esther wastranslatedintoGreekandAramaicmoretimesthananyother biblicalbook.
Notonlywas Esther translatedrepeatedlybutitwasalsodiscussed, debated,andelaborateduponmorefrequentlythanmightotherwise beexpected.Premodernrabbiswereconvincedthatthe Esther story wasmorethanthegodless,rages-to-richesorCinderella-typefairy talethatMT Esther related,andgenerationsofexegetessoughtto readtheologicalmeaningintothetext.Indeed, Esther hasbeenthe subjectofmoremidrashicelaborationsthanvirtuallyanyother biblicalstory,whichisanextraordinaryfactconsideringthebook’ s relativelymodestlength.26 ItisalsotheonlybookoftheBibleto havebeenthesubjectofarunningmidrashiccommentaryinthe BabylonianTalmud.27 TothesefactsmaybeaddedtheJerusalem Talmud’swell-knownstatement,laterrestatedbynoneotherthan Maimonides(1135–1204),thatinthedaysoftheMessiah,whenall thebooksoftheProphetsandtheWritingsarenullified,onlythe Torahand Esther willremain.28
Tosummarize, Esther issomethingofaparadox:Itisbothavery well-known,simplefairytalewhoseplotcanbegraspedbychildren, butalsoapuzzlingtextwhosemeaninghasbeenthesubjectofrichly
25 Thedatingof TargumSheni isparticularlycontroversialinlightofthefactthatit includesmaterialsthatarealsofoundintheQur’ān.If,as “traditional” scholarshold, thetextispre-IslamicthenitcanbearguedthattheQur’ānicmaterialscommonto thistextarebasedon TargumSheni.Conversely,ifthetextislaterthantheriseof IslamthenmaterialsthatitshareswiththeQur’ānmaybetakenasoriginally Qur’ānic.WewillreturntothisquestioninChapter7.OnthetwoTargumsto Esther seeA.Damsma, “TheTargumstoEsther” , EuropeanJudaism:AJournalfortheNew Europe 47i(2014),pp.127–36;B.Grossfeld, TwoTargumsofEsther:Translatedwith ApparatusandNotes (AramaicBible18),Collegeville,Minn.:LiturgicalPress,1991; andB.Ego, TargumschenizuEster:Übersetzung,Kommentarundtheologische Deutung,Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2001.
26 Ontheearlieststagesoftherabbinicinterpretationof Esther,seeA.J.Koller, EstherinAncientJewishThought,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2014, especiallychs9–15.Foracollectionandanalysisofmedieval,European midrashim on Esther,seeB.D.Walfish, EstherinMedievalGarb:JewishInterpretationoftheBookof EstherintheMiddleAges,Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1993.
27 Onthe Esther midrashintheBabylonianTalmud,seeE.Segal, TheBabylonian EstherMidrash:ACriticalCommentary (3vols),Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1994.
28 Maimonides, HilkhotMegilla,2:18;JerusalemTalmud, TractateMegilla,1:5.
variedyetinconclusivedebatesforovertwomillennia.Inwhatfollows, Iwill,ostensibly,furthercomplicatethingsbyintroducingyetmore sources,interpretations,andvoicestothealreadyovercrowded field of Esther studies.Inmydefence,Ioffertwoinducementstopersevere inreadingyetanotherbookonthesubject,whichIbelieveoutweigh anyexasperationcaused.First,Ihopetoshowthatitisbyviewing Esther throughtheprismofIslamiccivilizationthatwegainimportant insightsintoIslamiccultureandMuslimsthroughouthistory,butalso insightsinto Esther itself. “Veiling” Estherallowsustounveilaspectsof herstory.
Second,IhopethatdemonstratingthecontributionofIslamic materialstoourunderstandingofvariousaspectsof Esther will serveasacasestudyontheresultsofwhichbiblicistsandIslamicists willwishtobuild.Muslimsourcescanbeofgreatvalueforwhatthey tellusnotonlyaboutbiblicalreceptionhistory,butalsoforthe ancient(pre-Islamic)JewishandChristianinterpretationsofbiblical storiesthatonlyMuslimauthorspreserved.Theoverwhelmingmajority oftheBible’scontentsconcernregionsthat,fromtheseventhcentury onwards,cameundertherule,and,eventually,theculturalsway,of IslamandMuslims.Ifthefollowingchaptersmanagetoencourage bibliciststoexplorethepotentialofIslamicmaterialstocontributeto theirownwork,thenformetherewillbe “light,gladness,joy,and honour” (Esther 8:16).
HamanintheQur’ān
Anyinvestigationintothestatusof Esther inIslamicculturemust beginwhereIslambegins,withtheQur’ān.Evenasingle,allusive referencetoacharacterorplotintheQur’ānvirtuallyguaranteesthat generationsofexegeticalattentionwillbepaidtothisreference, layingthefoundationforother,extra-scripturalrolesthatacharacter orplotmayplayinthebroaderworldofIslam.Simplethoughthis ideamaysound,ourcaseiscomplicated:NeitherEsthernorMordecai, Ahashwerosh,Vashti,orZereshappearsintheQur’ān,whichisnota promisingstart.Andyet,acharacterbythenameof “Haman” does appearssixtimesintheQur’ān,1 althoughinacontextsodifferent fromthatdescribedinthe Esther storyastocastseriousdoubtoverthe associationbetweenthebiblicalandQur’ānicHamans.Thus,inthis chapter,weshallconsiderthepreciserelationship(ifany)betweenthe biblicalandQur’ānicHamans,andask:DidHamanmakethetransitionfromtheBibletotheQur’ānand,ifso,howdidhecometobe dissociatedfromtherestofthe Esther story?Thequestionisanoldone andtheanswerthatwillbeproposed thatthetwoHamansareindeed oneandthesame isofsimilarvintage.2 However,theevidencethat shallbeadducedhereinsupportoftheanswerisnew.Weshallsee, moreover,thatthesignificanceoftheanswertothisquestionis enormousinthattheanswerprovestosomethedivinenatureofthe Qur’ān,tootherspreciselytheopposite.
1 Q28:4–6;28:8;28:38;29:39;40:23–4;and40:36–7.
2 Asweshallsee,thequestionwhethertheQur’ānicHamanistobeidentifiedwith thebiblicalcharacterisindeedanoldone.However,thesecondpartofourquestion concerningthischaracter’sdissociationfromtherestof Esther hasnothitherto beenposed.
IneachofthesixinstancesinwhichHamanappearsintheQur’ān, heisassociatedwithPharaoh(Fir‘ awn).Intwooftheseinstances (Q29:39;and40:23–4),3 PharaohandHamanarejoinedbyKorah (Heb. “Qorah”,Ar. Qārūn).Intwootherinstances(Q28:38;and 40:36–37),4 HamanisorderedbyPharaohtobuildhimalofty “tower” (s . arh)fromwhichPharaohwouldsurveytheGodofMoses. Contrarytotheimpressioncurrentinbothscholarlyandpopular circles,thereisnoreferenceintheQur’ānitselftoHamanasPharaoh’ s “ wazīr ”;noristheresufficientinternalevidencetoconvinceusthatthe “loftytower” wasrelatedtothebiblicalTowerofBabel:Infact,a nuancedanalysisofthetwotowersdemonstratesthattheyplayessentiallydifferentrolesintherespectivestories.5 Whatisclear,however,is thatinallsixinstancesHamanisoneofPharaoh’shighest-ranking assistants,andthatboth figuresareidentifiedascorrupt,boastful,and disbelievingsinners.6
Thebasicplotofthe Esther storyissowellknownthatonewould behard-pressedto findatraditionallyeducatedJewishchildwhois unfamiliarwithit,7 afactthatislikelytoholdtrueforJewseverywhere
3 Q29:39: “AndKorah,andPharaoh,andHaman certainlyMosesbroughtthem theclearsigns,buttheybecamearrogantontheearth.Yettheydidnotoutrun(Us)” , andQ40:23–4: “CertainlyWesentMoseswithOursignsandclearauthorityto Pharaoh,andHaman,andKorah,buttheysaid, ‘Amagician,aliar!’”
4 Q28:38: “Pharaohsaid: ‘Assembly!Iknowofnoothergodforyouthanme. Solighta fireforme,Haman,ontheclay,andmakeatowerforme,sothatImaylook atthegodofMoses.SurelyIthinkheisindeedoneoftheliars’”,andQ40:36–7: “Pharaohsaid: ‘Haman!Buildatowerforme,thatImayreachtheropes,theropesof theheavens,andlookuponthegodofMoses.SurelyIthinkheisaliarindeed.’ Inthis waytheevilofhisdeedwasmadetoappearenticingtoPharaoh,andhewaskeptfrom theway.ButtheplotofPharaohonly(came)toruin.”
5 WhereasPharaoh’stowerintheQur’ā nismeantto “surveytheGodof Moses”—andprovethatheisnotreallythere,in Genesis 9:1– 9the “ Towerof Babel” wasconstructedwiththeaimof “makinganame ” foritsbuilders( Genesis 11:4).Furthermore,thereisnoetymologicalrelationshipbetweenthe s arh -towerof thePharaohandthe migdāl-towerofthepeopleof “ Shinar” (=Babylonia).Butsee H.Schwarzbaum, Mi-MaqorYisra’elveYishma’el,TelAviv:DonPublishingHouse, 1975,p.188,whereSchwarzbaumassumesthatPharaoh ’stower is thetowerof Babel(drawntomyattentionbyUriRubin).WeshallseebelowthatMuslim exegetesalsooccasionallyequatedthetwobuildings.
6 Unsurprisingly,Pharaoh’sreputationasanevil-doerisconfirmedandelaborated uponin tafāsīr andassociatedliterature:e.g.Ibn ‘Adī al-Qat . t . ān, al-Kāmilfī du‘afā’ al-Rijāl,Beirut,1418A.H.,vol.2,p.401.
7 InhistranslationoftheQur’ānintoHebrew,U.RubinappendstothenameHaman thesuccinctcommentthat “[T]heQur’ānenumerateshimamongstPharaoh’sministers”,presupposingthatthecharacterisknown(from Esther)tohisreaders(Ha-Qur’ān, TelAviv:TelAvivUniversityPress,2005,p.313 ad Q28:6).
intheworld,includingseventh-centuryArabia.8 Bearingthisinmind, theapparentgapbetweenthetwoHamanstemptsusnottoseethe Qur’āniccharacterasaninterpretationofthebiblicalHaman,butrather asanaltogetherindependentpersonwhoplayedimportantrolesat Pharaoh’scourtinancientEgypt.Thisisnot,however,howHaman hasbeenseenoverthepastcenturies;thischapterwilldemonstratewhy.
THECURRENTDEBATE
Althoughthehistoricityof Esther hasbeenchallengedbyscholars forcenturies,9 itisclearthatthebiblicalstory evenifitisbuta historical novella was fixedcenturiesbeforetheQur’āncameinto existence.Thus,iftheQur’ānicHamanismeanttorepresentthe Hamanof Esther,thentheQur’ān ’stransportationofthebiblical HamanfromanoriginalAchaemenidcontexttoaPharaoniconeis, toputitbluntly,ahowler.AllāhandHisapostledonotgethistory wrongbyonethousandyearsandbytwothousandkilometres. Oneofthe firstscholarstodrawattentiontothediscrepancywas FatherMarraccio,confessortoPopeInnocentXI,whopublishedhis annotatedtranslationoftheQur’ān(intoLatin)inthelateseventeenth century.IncommentingontheQur’ānicHaman,Marracciostates,
Mahumet[sic]hasmixedupSacredStories.HetookHamanasan adviserofPharaohwhereasinrealityhewasadviserofAhasuerus,King ofPersia.HealsothoughtthatPharaohorderedconstructionforhimof aloftytowerfromthetopofwhichhecouldseetheGodofMoseswhich iftruewouldbeinferiortohim.Thereisnodoubtthatheborrowedthe storyofthistowerfromthestoryoftheTowerofBabel.Itiscertainthat intheSacredScripturesthereisnosuchstoryofthePharaoh.Bethatas itmay,[Mahumet]hasrelatedamostincrediblestory.10
8 Conversely,the BookofEsther hasnotgenerallybeenreceivedaseagerlyin ChristiancirclesasithasbeeninJewishones.Onthissubject,seeBush, “TheBookof Esther: opusnongratum intheChristianCanon”;B.W.Anderson, “ThePlaceofEsther intheChristianBible” , JournalofReligion 30(1950),pp.32–43;andM.Nolan, “Estherin theNewTestament” , ProceedingsoftheIrishBiblicalAssociation 15(1992),pp.60–5.
9 Forasurveyofthestateofthe field,seeA.Silverstein, “TheBookofEstherand theEnūmaElish” , BSOAS 69ii(2006),pp.209–23,esp.pp.209–10.
10 AlcoranitextusuniversusexcorrectioribusArabumexemplaribussumma fide, atquepulcherrimischaracteribusdescriptus eademque fide exArabicoidiomate inLatinumtranslatus;appositisunicuiquecapitinotisatquerefutatione:hisomnibus
