Discussing the biblical historiography of images of the Jew in the ancinet world

• Persepolis Fortification and Treasury Texts

Excavations at Persepolis in 1933-4 led to the discovery of 30,000 clay tablets. Of the 2000 that have been published, most are concerning transactions in foodstuffs and livestock from the state to individuals and working groups. Written in Elamite, they relate to the reign of Darius I. The Persepolis fortification and treasury texts are invaluable to the understanding of many economic features of Persian administration at the end of the sixth and early fifth century B.C..

 

1.3 Versions of the original Hebrew texts

i  Septuagint

sĕp’tyooəjĭnt: This is the oldest extant Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. It was composed by Hellenistic Jews around 250 B.C. The Greek form was later improved and altered to include the books of the Apocrypha (see below). This was the version used by Hellenistic Jews and the Greek-speaking Christians, including St. Paul, and  is  to this day used in the Greek Church. The symbol used to signify the Septuagint is LXX.

ii. Vulgate

vŭlˈgāt [Lat. Vulgata editio=common edition]: This is the oldest existing version of the  Christian . It is the official Latin version of the Roman Catholic Church, and was prepared  by St.  (c.342–420) at the request of Pope St. . The Vulgate was intended to replace the Old Latin version ( Itala), which was translated from Greek. Using the Septuagint, the Hebrew Masoretic text, and the aid of several rabbis, St.  produced translations of Job, Psalms, Chronicles, the books attributed to Solomon, and chapters 40–55 of Isaiah. Jerome also made hasty translations of Tobit, Judith, and the additions to Daniel and Esther.

iii.  Apocrypha

əpŏkˈrĭfə [Gr.,=hidden things], The term points to a collection of early Jewish writings excluded from the canon of the Hebrew scriptures. The Apocrypha include the following books and parts of books:   I and Esdras II; ; ; the Additions to Esther; ;  (also called Ecclesiasticus); ; the Letter of Jeremiah sections of Daniel,  I and II ; the Prayer of Manasses. All these books are included in the , (with the exception of Esdras II) but are not part of the Hebrew canon. So, whilst the Roman Catholic Church accepted its canonicity after a period of time, Protestants follow Jewish tradition in regarding all these books as non-canonical.

1.4 Summary of objectives

In this paper I will be looking individually at the role that the court tales in Daniel, Esther and Nehemiah play as exemplary tales depicting a model for life in the Babylonian and Persian Diaspora

2. Daniel

Daniel’s career as dream interpreter saw him performing his skills at the Babylonian court before King Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 1-4) and Prince Belshazzar (Daniel 6). Daniel was also placed in a position of importance at the court of Darius the Mede. The historicity of the book of Daniel has been an active point for discussion amongst biblical commentators and historians alike. Characters that go by the name of Daniel appear in both the Old Testament and the Babylonian records; Daniel appears as the signer of Nehemiah’s covenant in 444 BC (Nehemiah 10:6)and it is also possible that there is some connection with the character of Dan’el in Ezekiel (Ezekiel xiv 14, 20; xxvii3) and Dan’el who is father in law of Enoch (Jubilees iv20). However, it is impossible to state with any certainty that a direct connection exists with the exilic hero of the book of Daniel. Bickermann suggests that the name of the hero was chosen specifically for the purpose of bringing to mind the Daniel spoken of in the book of Ezekiel, thus, giving a certain authority to the visions.

2.1 Composition and scholarly debate

It is widely believed that the first six chapters in Daniel were composed much earlier than the others. Lucas observes; “The book of Daniel is an enigma, superficially it lacks unity”. The enigma of Daniel begins with its bilingualism. Not only is it written in both Aramaic and Hebrew, these languages do not coincide with the other divisions; stories and visions that differ in ethos. The stories in Daniel have a certain affinity with other tales set in the royal court; Ahiqar, Joseph and Esther. Collins suggests that the earlier material was subjected to re-editing during Maccabean times in order to attain a “redactional unity with the apocalyptic visions of chapters 7-12”. It has also been suggested that the stories, which use a popular pattern of ‘folk lore’, have been combined with the visions in order to give them a sense of authority. These visions have been taken by some to allude to a Judean setting in the 160’s B.C.; a time where power lay with hostile gentile authorities. Lucas argues that the author of the visions wrote them in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanies 176-164. The stories, on the other hand, were set in the Babylonian and Persian Diasporas, where success (not just survival)  was possible.

I have encountered several approaches to explaining the ‘enigma’ that the book of Daniel poses. I will separate these approaches into two schools of thought. The first attempts to categorize ‘types’ and ‘forms’ in the court anecdotes, by either using the sequence in which the events occur or simply noting the themes that appear common to several tales. The second school of thought seeks to explain the problems that the historian faces by looking at the context within which the stories have arisen. I will call the former ‘categorists’ and the latter ‘contexualists’

Categorists

It is Humphreys argument that noting the similarities between the tales of Joseph, Esther, Mordechai, Daniel and Ahiqar is of central importance to the understanding of the court tale.  By exploring similarities in setting,  plot outline and events (early notice of the hero at court, then a period of obscurity, elaborate preparations and training, endangering of life of hero, irrevocable laws, court feasts, final triumph and elevation), Humphreys distinguishes between two categories: court conflict and court contest.

Niditch and Doran set out to “solidify Humphreys argument” by highlighting recurring themes such as early notice, then obscurity for hero, elaborate preparation and training of hero, irrevocable laws and court feasts.  However, they go further than Humphreys in insisting that:

  “in order to define form, one must not only find motifs shared by several works but also a specific pattern in the order in which these motifs appear that is common to several works”. 

Using the work of A. Arne and S.Thompson, who worked as representatives of the Finnish School of Folklore Scholarship categorizing folklore, Niditch and Doran specifically focused on type 922:  “clever acts and words”, which was particularly relevant to the stories of Joseph, Daniel and Ahiqar.  They note several variations of the ‘type’; the Norwegian tale “the parson and the sexton” and the Jewish tale “the story of Knuz and his Shepard”. In both the ‘underdog’ wise man comes out on top regardless of how lowly his origins were. Similarly, in the tale of Daniel, the intelligence of Daniel and his friends is at first that which leads to  their noticed at court. However, Daniel is a less traditional ‘type 992’, as it is only a frame for a more important theme about revelation of the divine will

Collins splits ‘types’ of court tales into three categories:

1) Where tale emphasizes wisdom or ability of the courtier (Humphreys contest tale) and the nature of the message is of secondary importance (Daniel 2)

2) The tale may focus on the drama and danger of humiliation followed by salvation, the wise man is threatened or imprisoned but is eventually released and is rewarded (much like Humphreys conflict tale) (Daniel 1,3,6 ether Ahiqar) AKA  tales of deliverance

3) As a vehicle or message of the courtier Daniel 4 and 5

Contextualists

Lucas argues that the stories originally served a purpose amongst upper class, well-educated Jews, implicitly compiled into a sort of handbook that encourages its readers to find careers in government offices and make a name for themselves in the courts of foreign kings, whilst remaining in the service of their god.

Similarly, Soggin  argues that: 

“The book of Daniel is an authoritative representative of the thought of Palestinian Judaism in the first half of the second century.”

Furthermore, somewhat controversially, Rowley argues that every point in the first half of the book is connected to the Maccabean age.

Composition

The composition date of Daniel has been a topic of heated debate amongst historians. Lucas contests the view that Daniel was composed in Hellenistic times. Indeed, in light of the Jews’ treatment at the hands of Antiochus, it does not follow that the writer of the story places the Jews so comfortably in service of pagan kings who are, curiously, favorably disposed towards the Jewish god. Similarly, Humphreys maintains that the stories were composed for and in the Diaspora, stressing that they represent “a life style for the diaspora”. Arguing in favor of the historicity of Daniel, Di Lella comments:  “the many correct uses of Persian customs and terms used at the Persian court have often been noted by commentators”. This is perhaps another point in support of the eastern Diaspora provenance, and the relative antiquity of the stories. Collins highlights that it is improbable that the stories were composed within Palestine, as the problems posed could be of little interest in the Jerusalem theocracy. However, for Jews in the Diaspora, the problems that the hero faces were of “a daily and vital interest”, especially to those Jews with aspirations of making a name for themselves at court.

5.2 Wise men at the Assyrian court

The importance of the ‘wise man’ at the near eastern court can be exemplified by the status held by Magi at the Neo- Assyrian court. Assyrian kings surrounded themselves with a plethora of learned advisors whose job it was to report omens and advise what their implications were. Kuhrt explains:

“The prominence of scholars at the Assyrian court is amply attested by the many letters in which they communicated their findings and advice to the king (Parpola 1970/1983);1971;cf. SAA 10)… It is argued that sixteen scholars formed a kind of inner circle of learned advisors. They included a chief interpreter of celestial and terrestrial omens (who was the closest to the king), a chief diviner, or haruspex, a chief exorcist, a personal exorcist whom the king consulted about the health of the royal children, and several more exorcists, two doctors, a chief chanter and at least two astrologers”(Parpola 1970/1983 part 2: xiv-xvi)

As documented in the story of Daniel, the wise man of the Assyrian court provided the king with dream prophecies:

“Ishtar, who dwells in Arbela, entered. Quivers hung to the right and left of her, she held a bow in her hand (and) held her sharp sword unsheathed, ready to do battle. You (sc. Abp) stood before her whiles she spoke with you like a real mother. Ishtar, the highest of the gods, addressed you, by giving you instruction;- ‘you are set on fighting. Wheresowever I wish to go, there I am on my way’…” (Prism B V 52-76)

But unlike Daniel, the prophecy of the above source was dreamt by the Magi and not by the king.

The office of ‘wise man’ at the Neo- Assyrian court was highly respected, and thus widely coveted. One Assyrian kings list records the name of several ‘royal scholars’ adjacent to the names of the kings under whom they had served. Correspondences indicate that there was a certain degree of rivalry between the royal advisors;

“He who wrote to the king, my lord; ‘Venus is visible [in the month of Add]aru’, is despicable, a fool and a liar![And he who] wrote to the king my lord: ‘Venus […] is rising in the constellation A[ries]’, [does] not [speak] the truth (either). Venus is [not] yet visible! Why does he so [deceitf]ully send such (a report) to the ki[ng, my lord]? … Why does someone tell lies (and) boast ab[out] (these matters)? [I]f he does not know, [he should] keep his mouth shut!”(ABL 1132 +; Parpola 1970/1983 no. 65; SAA 10 no. 72)

2.3 Stories of the wise courtier

 Humphreys argues:

 “The foundations of the books of Esther and Daniel are tales of a particular type, which, along with their considerable entertainment value, develop a particular theological emphasis addressed to the emerging Jewish communities of the Persian and Hellenistic diaspora. They suggest and illustrate a certain style of life for the Jew in his foreign environment”.

In support of his argument he calls to attention a letter in Jeramiah 29:4-7, in which a prophet writes to the exiles in the Diaspora encouraging greater contact with foreign culture and an enriched life in exile. Therefore, the popular court setting not only provides entertainment value, but also serves to portray a lifestyle that is akin to that expressed in the letter of Jeremiah. In the very first few lines of Daniel 1, the author writes that the children of Israel are selected for their particular intellectual skill to train for positions at court:

“children in whom was no blemish, but well favored, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the kings palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 1:4)

After proving their faith, Daniel and his colleagues are given “knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams” (Daniel 1:17).  With the help of God the friends become indispensable at the Babylonian court:

“and in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm”(Daniel 1:20)

In Daniel 2, the protagonist rises to success through his interpretation of dreams, the professional skill of Chaldeans, who interpreted Babylonian political oracles. Collins argues that the author of Daniel 2 endowed the hero with the skill of dream interpretation because oracles and dream interpretations played such a large part in the profession of a wise man at the Babylonian (or other near eastern) court.

2.4 Faithful Jew

The first chapter of Daniel sees him and his colleagues rise to positions of power at court because of their wisdom. However, the author clearly indicates that their wisdom is given by their god Yaweh, who gives wisdom to those who faithfully obey his laws. The gift of dream interpretation is only given to Daniel after he refuses to be defiled by the meat and wine of the king (1:16). Thus, not only is it indicated that a successful career is an attainable goal for the faithful Jew in the foreign court, but further to this, the very observance of Jewish law is a prerequisite to attaining the type of wisdom necessary for success.

In Daniel 6, a significant issue is raised, as the story aims to tackle and resolve the potential conflict of interest which may arise should success and religion become at odds with each other. The tale reflects the problems that may be encountered by the Jewish wise courtier. Where faith and career are at odds with each other, the primary concern in Daniel is upholding religious law. As exemplified by Daniels miraculous escape, professional success relies on to the favor of god: and so, being a faithful Jew is a prerequisite to being a successful courtier.

5.4 Visions of apocalypse

 The apocalyptic visions and harsh judgments of foreign nations heighten the element of conflict in this story between Jew and environment. Until recently, biblical studies connected the rise of the apocalyptic movements with situations of ‘deprivation’ among groups that felt marginalized. Thus, the growing hostility towards gentile kings in the book of Daniel is often attributed to the political problems in Palestine around 160BC. There is a development in Daniel from tales to visions. In Daniel 5 there is an outright denunciation of the gentile king and his downfall is prophesized; in ch4 Nebuchadnezzar is reduced to a bestial state whilst ch7 sees various kings reduced to beasts. Collins notes that as the primary function of wise men is revealing the future, they might well have had visions of gentile apocalypse when removed from the court setting to the persecution in Palestine.

Whilst it is impossible to claim with certainty that the stories of the book of Daniel actually originated among Jewish courtiers, it is probable that the book of Daniel may have functioned as a model for those with aspirations of succeeding in the foreign court.  

 Techrikover even suggests that the group known in Daniel as משכילים   or ‘wise men’, to whom the Jews belonged in 1:4 and who are referred to as the good Jews in 11:33 and 12:3 are in fact the ‘Hasidim’, to whom belonged Ben Sira. According to Techrikover the Hassidim were the chief scribes and authoritative interpreters of the regulations and commandments of the torah, and might well have been the group amongst which the book of Daniel originated.

2.5 Discussion

The book of Daniel, with its interesting combination of age old popular court tales and sinister apocalyptic visions, has puzzled historians for some time. For the purpose of this discussion, it is necessary to divide the discussion of the book of Daniel into two parts, thus focusing on the stories and visions separately. The stories seek to inspire a particular ‘life- style for the Diaspora’; one of upper class, well-educated Jews who could find careers in government service. They were encouraged to make a name for themselves in the courts of foreign kings whilst reining in the service of their god. The additions of the visions to the original stories, Lucas explains, came from the time of Antiochus where the maintaining the Jewish faith was at odds with loyalty to the king. The visions in Daniel promised the imminent arrival of a kingdom of god. Both stories and vision in Daniel reflect a reaction to a changing environment over which the writer as well as target audience had no control. The author(s) of Daniel present(s) their audience with ways of adapting to change. The stories show that one may be a faithful Jew as well as a respected courtier in the gentile court, whilst the visions look forward to a future where Jew is not ruled by gentile.

3. Esther

Written in the first millennium BC, the exact date at which the book of Esther was composed, has long been a contested topic. The original Pointed Hebrew Esther text (MT) has not survived, except in a modified version from the 11th century. C.E.Wills dates it to the Hellenistic period and sees it as belonging to the genre of novel that is prevalent in that period, Berlin dates the book to the Persian period and compared it to the fictional storytelling found in Ruth and Jonah. Esther was translated from Hebrew to Greek in the late second century BCE or at latest 73 CE. The Greek translation known as the Septuagint or LXX contains 6 additions which mention god, whilst omitting some of  verses from the Masoretic text. In addition to the LXX there exists a shorter Greek text  known as the A text. Further translations exist in Old Latin, the Vulgate, in the writings of Josephus and Peshitto down to the Talmud and Targums.

A lot of the discussion about the book of Esther has focused on its historicity.  In 1908 Paton wrote fourteen pages outlining the arguments for and against historicity and concluded that the book is not historical. In 1971 Moore devoted eleven pages to the issue and arrived at the same conclusion. More recently Michael V. Fox (1991) and Jon. D Levenson (1997) wrote “five and 9 pages respectively with both authors agreeing that the book is fictional”.Similarly, Ackroyd argues that “[the book of Esther] tells us nothing of significance about the Persian court and its rulers”.

In opposition to the skeptics are the Fundamentalists, who seek to establish Esther as a historical document by drawing comparisons between the information found in Esther and non-biblical sources. Wright uses linguistic arguments to argue that Vashti is in fact Amestris, the wife of Xerxes, whilst Hoschander altogether rejects the identification of the Esther monarch, with Xerxes arguing instead that the story corresponds accurately to the life of Artaerxes II. Hoschander hypothesizes that Vashti and Stateira, the wives of Artaxerxes II are in face the same woman. He bases his argument on the realisation that the word Vashti is the Persian word for beauty, and that Stateira was known for being uncommonly beautiful.Berlin offers a different interpretation;

“the author of Esther is not writing History; he was imitating the writing of history, even making a burlesque out of it. Historiography is not a comic genre, and Esther is very comic” 

For the purpose of this thesis I will steer clear of the intricacies of the historiography debate. In the previous chapter, I outlined how biblical court stories represent a life style for the Diaspora, and by the same reasoning I will now discuss what the book of Esther teaches the historian about what aspirations a young Jewess living in the Persian empire might have had.

3.1 A Jewish queen?

One argument against the historicity of the book of Esther was the impossibility of a Jewess to become a royal wife. If we take as an example the tactical marriages of Darius I as he ascended the throne; Darius’ marriage arrangements were designed to secure the loyalty of Gobryas and Otanes, as well as to eliminate the danger of contestants to the throne by marrying royal daughters of Cyrus II Cambyses II and Bardiya. There was a marked difference between concubine and wife. This is emphasized in Xenophon’s narration of the disagreement between Pharnabazus and Spithridates. The latter became angered on account of Pharnabazus wanting to take one of the kings daughters for a wife, whilst taking his own daughter illegitimately; i.e. as a concubine. Briant explains that the distinction between wife and concubine was cemented by an official ceremony and was manifested in the status of the offspring. After Darius I little is known of royal wives except that their sons were considered possible heirs to the throne, whereas the sons of non-royal wives were generally not.Herodotus recounts that only the offspring of legitimate wives may stand to become heirs (Herod III.2 cf. Briant 278). There is no record of a non-Persian woman being anything more then a concubine to the king. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that even a foreign woman of royal descent could not become a royal wife; in his account of the events that led to Persian invasion of Egypt, Herodotus recorded the story that Cambyses demanded the daughter of the Egyptian king Amasis. Instead of fulfilling the request, Amasis sent the daughter of his predecessor because he feared that his own daughter would only receive the treatment accorded to a concubine (HDT 3.1.2). Speculation leads one to wonder if the reason why Amasis thought it unlikely that his daughter would become a legitimate royal wife was because she was Egyptian. On the other hand, we know that there was no issue with appointing foreign women to be royal concubines. At the palace of the Lydian satrap, Themistocles tried to gain the favor of the satrap’s concubines (Plut. The. 31.2cf. Brosius 32). The women had allegedly been captured during a military campaign and had been taken to the palace of the king and the satraps. Whilst a Jewess may not have been able to become queen, as a royal concubine she may still have been able to hold an influential place in the Persian court.

3.2 Concubines

The main sources to the historian on Persian concubines are the writings of Greek authors. Plutarch, (Artaxerxes 27:2) citing the writings of  Deinon mentions that they were present at court in large numbers, whilst Heracleides ( FGrH 698 FI) states that during the day they accompanied the king on royal hunts, whilst at night they guarded his sleep singing and playing music. Brosius warns that the description of the Persian Harem by fourth century by Greek authors should be taken with a pinch of salt. For Greeks, concubines or phallakai held low status by reporting that these women held powerful positions at court they painted a picture of the Persian king as weak, effeminate and ruled by women. Herodotus on the other hand, paints a different picture of Persian concubines not attributing to them any significant influence at court.

In the book of Esther, a non-Persian woman succeeds in rising to an influential position in the Persian court. The Persian tradition of endogamy would have prevented a foreign woman from becoming queen and as a concubine it is unlikely that much influence could have been wielded. So, to what extent are the achievements of Esther a realistic ambition for the average Jewess living in the Persian Empire?

Though rare, it was possible for the children of illegitimate wives to ascend the throne. In general, only the sons of royal wives were legitimate candidates to the throne; Herodotus mentions that a rule nomos disqualifies illegitimate sons from succession (III.2). However, when Xerxes II, the first heir to the throne and only legitimate son of Artaxerxes I came to an untimely death, it was left to the other illegitimate sons to fight amongst themselves for the crown. First Sogdianus, son to a Babylonian woman named Alogune ascended the throne but it was not long before it was seized by Ochus (Darius II), who became king despite being the son of Artaxerxes I and a Babylonian woman named Cosmartidene. It was therefore possible for a non Persian women to produce offspring that could hold the ultimate position of power in the Persian empire however, there is nothing to suggest that this directly led to them being entitled to power and influence.  

3.3 Feasting

Royal feasts were an important staple of Persian court social life. The organisation of the room reflected court hierarchy, and likewise the inclusion and indeed exclusion of guests. Greek sources are inconsistent in their description of the inclusion of royal women at feasts. Heracleides of Kyme introduced the notion that royal wives had to leave the banquet to allow the concubines to enter (FGrH 689 F2). Similarly, Plutarch notes that the wives of the king had to leave once the drinking started,at which point the concubines, female dancers and musicians were allowed. Brosius explains that whilst some incidents imply that women joined the feast at a certain point during the event, they also show clearly that these women cannot be regarded as concubines. According to the book of Esther, the wife of the Persian king celebrated a separate feast with women, while the king gave a banquet for the men in which queen Vashti refused to participate (Esther 19-21). Similarly, In the book of Daniel (5:2, 10) the banquet was held with the women of the harem, while only the Queen came in later.  Aspasia was taken before Cyrus the younger in the course of a banquet (Ael. Var. hist, 12.1) she was a prisoner of Cyrus and she was foreign, but she was not a concubine. Her case was similar to that of Barsine daughter of Arses, who was a female captive of Alexander when she was taken to dance before Alexander during a Banquet (curt 6.2.5-7). Similarly Esther was brought before the king along with a number of young girls during a feast (Est 2:2,8).

 There is evidence to suggest that women did take part in the feasts at least to a certain degree alongside men. Roxanne, daughter of the Sogdian ruler Oxyartes was introduced to Alexander during a banquet when she joined the feast together with thirty other young women (curt 8.4-23), whilst Plutarch attests that the king’s mother and wife were present at royal feasts (p317 art). Five texts from the Persepolis archive indicate the involvement of royal women in feasts. Two tables are letter orders of the king issuing rations to his wife Artistone.  Furthermore three other texts mention Artistone together with Arsames in connection with royal provisions. The information regarding the participation of women in feasts is often contradictory. Broseus explains that this might be due to sources’ lack of distinction between different types of feasts, ceremonies and banquets. She asks:

“Would the role of women in feasts have been different for new years feasts and the kings birthday? How did they participate in wedding ceremonies and religious feasts particularly funerary banquets and were they present in feasts held for the army?”

In conclusion, whilst the king’s wife and mother may have eaten with the king, they did not participate in the drinking and entertainment sessions that seem to have followed meals. This may have been where concubines, musicians, singers and dancers entered the scene.

It is possible to argue that women were included in social activities such as feasts however, it is not clear whether the inclusion of concubines was practiced at such events or just legitimate wives. Whilst separation of Greek concubines from wives indicated the low social standing of the former, this does not seem to be the case in Persia.  With the exception of selecting an heir to the throne, there is nothing to suggest that wives and concubines were separated in every day life at court. It is therefore possible to deduce that a Jewish woman might well have, like Esther been able to take part in royal feasts alongside kings and queens of Persia.

3.4 Love and power

Greek writers paint an image of Persian women as wielding awesome power and awful punishments over men at court. Plutarch describes in grizzly detail the involvement of Parysatis in the deaths of a Carian (art 12:10), Mithridates (art 16.I), of the eunuch Masabates (17.1) and of the satrap Tissaphernes (23.1). Similarly, Esther informs the king of a planned attack against him (2.22). Whilst there is evidence that a Persian queen has influence in the empire, we have already shown that it is highly unlikely that a woman of foreign descent would become a legitimate wife to the king. So I must ask the question, can a concubine convince the king to do her bidding? Though speculative, there is room to argue that if there was a genuine romantic attachment as is detailed in Esther that the concubine might find herself in a politically advantageous position.

The relationship between King Ahasheurus and Esther is noticeably different to the kind of tactical marriage alliances that are commonly recorded. It is indeed difficult to imagine that romantic love did not govern even to a small degree the great kings’ relationships.  Plutarch writes that Artaxerxes II;

“married a beautiful and virtuous lady, by order of his parents and he kept her when they wanted him to put her away”

Similarly, Herodotus tells of Darius’ special relationship with his wife Artystone, for whom he had a golden statue erected (Herod VII.69). Displays of royal affection were not restricted to the royal wives, Aelian recounts the relationship between Cyrus the younger and his concubine Aspasia. Aspasia was brought to the court of Cyrus the younger along with four other girls who came from a poor family, and were bought at a market by one of Cyrus’s satraps. The girls were to receive a hetaria’s education; to learn how to groom themselves, act in an attractive manner before the men gathered to drink, as well as sing and play instruments. The reserve of the beautiful Aspasia seduced Cyrus and he added her to his concubines (VH, XII.I). Aelian writes;

“She was very soon preferred to his other mistresses because of her natural manner, reserved disposition and unstudied beauty… From that time on Cyrus had a greater liking to her that any other woman he had dealings with. Later he fell very much in love with her, and she returned his affection” VII.69

Indeed, royal concubines were at no disadvantage to the royal wives in capturing the kings desire. Concubines were brought from Ionia and all over Greece to the kings bed, many of whom might have attended ‘finishing schools’ which Briant speculates may have existed to teach the skills of singing and dancing much in the same way that centres for the training of eunuchs existed. The author of Esther describes the appointment of maidservants to pamper the concubines and prepare them to be presented before the king.  (Esther 2:9). Plutarch states that Artaxerxes had three hundred and sixty concubines, all women of the greatest beauty (art XXVII 5.). We are also told of the ‘parades of virgins’ that would have been brought presumably to replace old concubines or simply add to the stock; (Dio XVII,8). Diodorus explains that as well as the parades of women that marked additions to the harem,

“Each night [the concubines] paraded about the couch of the king so that he might select the one with whom he would lie that night” (XVII.77.7)

Similarly, the creator of Esther writes that after following the “regulations for women”, Esther was summoned before the king. Afterwards she stayed overnight in “another harem entrusted to the care of Shaashgaz, the king’s euneuch, custodian of the concubines” (2:12-14 cf. Briant p282) at this harem she waited to be called before the king, and unless specifically called would not appear before him at all. If the royal wives were capable of igniting ‘romantic’ feelings from the great king, it is entirely possible, as the story of Aspasia shows that the concubines, selected for their beauty and trained in the art of lovemaking could have inspired similar feelings.

The book of Esther has been criticized for being farfetched and unrealistic. However, Esther’s success as a foreign woman in the Persian Empire is not so unbelievable. If we assume for the purpose of this discussion that Esther existed, it is entirely possible that she would have entered the palace of the great king as a concubine. As part of the king’s harem Esther could have taken part in the king’s feasts and it is possible that she gained the king’s affection and thus been able to exert some influence. Speculation aside, the book of Esther teaches suggests that Jewish women too had ambitions. Like Daniel, it is arguably, an inspirational tale of success in the Diaspora. Perhaps this is the reason why it has remained popular despite its lack of religious substance.

4. Mordechai

The dual plots in the book of Esther; namely, the story of the concubine Esther and the courtier Mordechai have certain themes in common. Both cousins come from the same poor family, and both succeed in rising to positions of notoriety at the Persian court. However, the parallel tales must be examined separately as each presents a unique message to convey to its audience. Whilst Esther deals with the complications of Jewish concubines, the story of Mordechai presents a scenario of a Jewish courtier, entrusted with keeping the safety of the kings gate. Mordechai’s allegiance lies both with his king and with the Jewish people and it is perhaps an important message to the audience that the two can coexist. One of the primary themes in the tale of Mordechai is that of Royal reward, another is that success at the Persian court may ultimately benefit the  Jewish community.

4.1 The kings benefactors

The story of Mordechai shows at many points, the familiarity of the composer with Persian customs and ideology. The tale sees a man of non Persian descent, denouncing a plot against the king’s life and being subsequently honored for his actions. The promise of reward and indeed the threat of retribution played a prominent role in Persian ideology; at Behistun, Darius I proclaims;

“The man who cooperated with my house him I rewarded well, whoso did injury him I punished well”.

Similarly, At Naqš-i Rustam he declared;

 “What a man does or performs according to his powers (there with) I am satisfied and my pleasure is abundant” .

In a parallel inscription, Xerxes repeats the promise of his father; “And I generously repay men of good will”. Herodotus writes that at the battle of Salamis, Xerxes “chose a spot from which he could watch the course of the battle”.  He then contrasts the motives of Greek soldiers to those of the Persians at battle; whilst the former are “prodigies of valour because they were infused with the desire to preserve their liberty”, the latter try to distinguish themselves before the kings eye which they know is upon them. Herodotus recounts, that the promise of reward led to fierce competitions between the soldiers. He write; “they entered into competition with each other to be the first to win a reward from Xerxes for the capture of an Athenian ship”. The Persian Empire was renowned for its strict offices of administration. This practice is exemplified in the process of recording the King’s benefactors.  The author of the book of Esther writes;

“that night, the king could not sleep; he called for the record book, the chronicles, to be brought and read to him”.. (Esther 6:1-2)

Likewise, during the battle of Salamis, the secretaries of Xerxes  recorded the names of valiant warriors. Herodotus explains that the Persian word orosangae was used in reference to the king’s benefactors; this points to its status as a court title. Thus, the privilege of being the kings’ benefactor was no doubt a highly coveted position.

4.2 How should a man be honored?

Royal gifts were highly coveted rewards, their worth being much more then their monetary value. Xenophon writes;

“Cyrus gave [Syennesis ] gifts which are regarded as court tokens of honour- a horse with a gold mounted bridle, a gold necklace and bracelets, a gold dagger (Anab I.2.7)

Ctesias states that “the most outstanding gift the king can give among the Persians is a gold millstone”(cf. Aelien VH VIII.8).  Briant explains that this suggests a hierarchy of Royal gifts; robes and jewelry being the most common. Xenophon writes that different colored robes were distributed amongst Royal officials, these too were distributed in a hierarchical fashion;

“Those of the Persians and of the allies that held office… And when he had distributed among the noblest the most beautiful garments, he brought out other median robes, for he had a great many made, with no stint of purple or sable or red or scarlet or crimson cloaks”.(Cyrus. VIII.3.1-3)

The garments were worn with pride and demanded a respect for the wearer; Artapates, the most faithful of Cyrus the Younger’s scepter bearers had

“a dagger of gold, and he also wore a necklace and bracelets and all other ornaments that the noblest of Persians wear; for he had been honored by Cyrus because of his affection and fidelity”( Xenophon Anab I.8.29)

Briant explains that the robes and Jewels “were not baubles” they were marks of honor and rank, wearing of the ornaments represented accession of the rank of the wearer to one of the king’s most esteemed.

In Esther, Mordechai is given the robes of the king to wear and paraded about the square  so everyone might see him honored. This type of reward reappears in Plutarch’s life of Atraxerxes. Plutarch writes that the noble Persian Teribazos asked for the King’s ‘coat’ as a reward.A similar story is recounted in Plutarch’s life of Themistocles where Demaratus the Spartan becomes a ‘benefactor’ of the king.Demaratus’ request to ride through Sardis wearing his tiara upright is reminiscent of the honor bestowed on Mordechai, to have the royal crown placed upon his head. However, the request of Demaratus was not happily granted. The king’s cousin stating “this tiara of thine hath no brains to cover”.  The writer of Esther, in allowing Mordechai an honor which, as far as we know has never been happily granted in Persian history emphasizes the exceptional privilege which was bestowed on him. If we remember the audience for which the story was directed, it is possible to argue that this was an attempt to show that the possibilities of reward exist equally for Persian and Jew alike.

4.3 At the kings gate

Esther manages to secure for her uncle Mordechai the office of royal gate keeper which gives him the opportunity to pass messages to his cousin Esther  as well as uncover a plot against the king. The royal ‘gate keeper’ was indeed one of central importance to the security of the palace, as was the king’s gate. The gate was an imposing building, distinct in Elamite and Persian vocabulary from the gate of a building. Briant describes;

“The Darius gate at Susa was comprised of three halls, Three square central halls measuring 21.20m on a side; flanked on the north and south by two oblong halls open to the central hall…  At Susa the passage to the central court was flanked by statues of King Darius. Within the great hall, stone benches were arranged against the walls, where, we suppose the petitioners waited. In the gate itself were cut openings, doors giving access to the interior of the palaces.” (see Fig 1)

Unfortunately, only the foundations of the gate at Susa survive (figures 2 and 3). The gate of Xerxes at Persepolis (Figure 4) however, fared better then that of his father. Xerxes began his additions to the palace at Persepolis at around 480 B.C; he constructed his palace between the treasury and the Apadana (or audience hall). The stairs of all nations and gate of all nations were constructed between 486 and 465 B.C after which the entrance to the palace moved from south to west and necessitated an ascent to the terrace in order to access the building. The entrance to the gate was ‘guarded’ by Lamass’s bulls with heads of bearded men; these were believed to ward of evil.(see figure 5 and 6). The entire structure was approximately 24 meters long with two large doors in the west and east and a hall between them. There was also a third door to the south  from which one could enter the Apadana, this was changed by Artaxerxes (465-424) to the entrance to the hall of hundred columns.

The Persian word for the King’s gate became a synonym for the palace and the court, as shown by the expression “those at the gate” which became court title of sorts this is seen in Esther 2:21, 3:2-3 and  even in the Babylonian tablets. On the Darius gate at Susa, his son Xerxes inscribed

Xerxes the king says; ‘by the grace of Ahura- Mazda, this gate, Darius the king made it, he who is my father”. (XSd)

A structure worthy of a royal inscription is indeed a worthy structure; the office of gate keeper is therefore one of no little importance. The guardian of the gate was the main access point to the Royal palace; Herodotus tells us that Syloson “hurried to Susa [and] sat down at the entrance of the royal palace” there he was interrogated by the guardian of the gate. Similarly, when the conspirators of Darius’ coup of 522 arrived at the gates, they were interrogated by the guardians at the gate but succeeded in penetrated the courtyard. The Eunuchs or “the king’s messengers” confronted the conspirators and reprimanded the guards for letting the seven to enter. This protocol is the same as the one described in Esther;

“All the kings servants and the people of his provinces know that for a man or a woman who approaches the king in the inner court without being summoned there is one penalty: death”(4:11)

Discussion

The story of Mordechai, much like Daniel and Esther would have been an inspirational tale of success in the foreign court to Jews living under Persian rule.

“Mordechai and Esther represents the aspirations of a group of Diaspora Jews to positions of influence at the royal court.”

However, the tale is unique, as it encompasses the Persian notions of telling the truth (arta), honoring the king and receiving reward as inscribed at Behistun and Naqš-i Rustam. We already know from the discovery of the Aramaic copy of the Behisitun inscription, found at Elephantine, that the Jewish community living there would have been aware of these themes. The tale of  Mordechai presents a positive image of the king;  rewarding and punishment according to the deeds preformed. These themes toe the line of the circulating official royal declarations,  it is therefore possible to argue that the tale of Mordechai is the Jewish answer to Persian propaganda. This is best exemplified by the last words of the book of Esther:

“For Mordechai the Jew was second in rank to King Ahasuerus: he was great among the Jews and was popular with a multitude of his brethren seeking the good of his people and promoting the welfare of their offspring” (Esther 10:3)

These closing words present Mordechai as Jew  wishing to be both of service to his religion as well as  living a creative and rewarding life in the foreign court.

5. Nehemaiah

5.1 Background

Nehemiah was originally combined with Ezra to form a single book in the Hebrew canon. The Hebrew title is Hymjn- arzu (Ezra- Nehemiah) ; ‘arzu’ is probably an Aramaic form of the Hebrew term "rzu," meaning "to help" while hymjn is Hebrew meaning “Yahweh comforts”. Ezra and Nehemiah were regarded as one by the Babylonian Talmud, Josephus and Melito of Sardis; In the Masoratic Text there is no white space between the end of Ezra 10 and the beginning of Nehemiah 1 this suggests that the two were originally one text.

In the Greek version, the  (or LXX) Ezra and Nehemiah are combined together in one book called Esdras B or 2 Esdras, with 1 Esdras being the Apocryphal book. The book narrates the return to Jerusalem of Nehemiah; cup-bearer to Artaxerxes I, as governor of Jerusalem. In the first period of Nehemiah's governorship (445–433 B.C.) Jerusalem's walls were rebuilt. There follows an account of the census taking during the earlier era of  in c.520 B.C. The work continues with the return of Ezra in 458 B.C. There then follows the reading of the Jewish law; the national confession of sin; a return to Nehemiah's first governorship and a brief account of his second term, which began sometime after 433 B.C. 

The Latin translation known as the ‘Vulgate’ divided Ezra-Nehemiah into First and Second Ezra because of the duplicate list in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. Ezra and Nehemiah are called 1 and 2 Esdras respectively. The Chronicler narrates the history of the Jews from 538 B.C. to c.458 B.C. as follows: The decree of the Persian king Cyrus, permitting the Jews to return to Palestine from captivity under the leadership of ; the return of Zerubbabel with a certain number to Jerusalem in c.520 B.C. where they complete the task of rebuilding the Temple despite opposition and the return of Ezra, priest and scribe, to Jerusalem in c.458 B.C. with orders from King Artaxerxes I to restore the Jewish law.

It is not certain who the author(s) of Ezra/ Nehemiah were. The Babylonian Talmud identifies Ezra the scribe as the chronicler of 1 and 2 Chronicles and Ezra/ Nehemiah on account of the use of the first person in Ezra 7:27-- 9:15. However, most of Nehemiah was written in the first person, which implies that he was the author. It is possible that Ezra incorporated his writings in Ezra and Nehemiah (chapter 7) and then added to this Nehemiah’s personal memoirs. It is also possible that both or either were written by somebody else entirely.

Ezra- Nehemiah is a composite work containing sources from different periods and even in containing different languages. It is thus difficult to decisively conclude its date of composition. We do know that Nehemiah’s first arrival in Jerusalem was probably in 445/444 B.C. Nehemiah 1:2 and 2:1 affirm that the events of Nehemiah occurred in the twentieth year of king Artaxerxes. The Memoirs of Nehemiah were apparently written after his second administration, not long after the end of the reign of Artaxerxes in 424 B.C..  

5.2 Cupbearer

“previously I had been cupbearer for the king”(Nehemiah 1:11)

It is Nehemaih’s close proximity to the king that gives him the opportunity to bring to the attention of Artaxerxes the troubles in Judah and request aid.

“Then in the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes when wine was brought to me I took the wine and gave it to the king. Previously I had not been depressed in the kings presence so the king said to me “ why do you appear depressed when you are not sick?”… (Nehemiah 2:1)

The role of Royal cupbearer offered substantial rewards in the way of pay as well as royal notice. The office was one of great importance; the Kings drinking was conducted with a degree of ceremony. Heraclides states that during a symposion ‘drinking banquet’ following dinner the king drank a special wine (IV.145c); the Chalybonian wine from Syria was the only wine he used to drink (Athenaeus II 28.d) In addition to this we know from Dinon that the King drank from a special cup shaped like an egg (XI 503f). Xenophon recounts;

“the cupbearers of those kings perform their office with fine airs; they pour in the wine with neatness and then present the goblet conveying it with three fingers, and offer it in such a way as to place it most conveniently in the grasp of the one who is to drink” (Xen Cyr I.3.8)

As well as ceremoniously presenting the King with his drink, the Royal had to undertake the more dangerous task of ensuring the drink was not tampered with. Bagoas tried to poison Darius III by pouring poison into it his drink but the plan was thwarted by an informant. For this reason, the Kings drink had to be tasted first. Xenophon remarks;

 “now it is a well known fact that the king’s cupbearers when they proffer the cup, draw off some of it with the ladle (kyathe) pour it into their left hand and swallow it down- so that if they should put poison in it they may not profit by it” (I.3.9)

The cupbearer, as the director of wine pouring at court is thus of central importance and like other members of the kings first circle must be trusted completely. The cupbearer had every opportunity to poison the royal drink and indeed such accusations were brought against Alexander’s cupbearer Iollas (Arrian VII.27.2). At Cambyses court, the son of the very highly regarded Prexaspes was trusted with the office of cupbearer. (Herod III.34) Furthermore, according to one of the founder legends recorded by Nicolaus of Damascus (FGrH 90 f66.6-7)  Cyrus followed in his adoptive fathers footsteps as royal cupbearer in the Median court.

As well as managing the Kings drinking, The royal cupbearer played the role of introducer:At Astyges court seen by Xenophon, the cupbearer Sacas “had the office of introducing to Astyges those who had business with him and keeping out those who he thought it not expedient to admit” (Cyr I.3.8)

5.3 Governor

As well as being trusted with the role of Royal cupbearer Nehemiah enjoys the unique role of governor of Judah. It is not the role itself that is unique, we know from a series of seal impressions an bullas found in Judah (yehud) that between Zerubbabel and Nehemiah there governed Elnathan (perhaps zerubbabel’s successor) Yeho- ezer (early 5th century) and Ahzai (early 5th ) all of whom were  Jews. However, it has been argued that Nehemiah’s close relationship with the king of Persia put him in an advantageous position over his predecessors to speak on their behalf and resolve their grievances.

Prior to the Arrival of Nehemiah at the time of Artaxerxes we do not know much about the organisation of Judah. Province of Judah and it governor came under power of the governor of Ebir Nari (across the river) at the beginning of Darius reign which was governed by Tattenai.Nehemiah complains that “the former governors, my predecessors, had been a burden on the people from whom they took forty silver shekels each day as their subsistence allowance” In contrast, He states that  he himself “never ate governors bread” (Neh 5:15-18).

It is unclear whether Nehemiah’s position was as an ambassador of sorts for the people of Judah at the Persian court; Nehemiah 11:24 states;

24 Pethahiah the son of Meshezabel, of the sons of Zerah the son of Judah, was the king's representative in all matters concerning the people.

25 Now as for the villages with their fields, some of the sons of Judah lived in Kiriath-arba and its towns, in Dibon and its towns, and in Jekabzeel and its villages,”

Scholarly opinion has varied over the significance of these lines. W. Rudolph accepts the reality of the institution, representing the interests of the people of Judah at the Achaemenid court whilst K. Galling , who dates verse 11:24 after 400 B.C thinks that Petahiah son of Meshezabel was one of the Judean Governors whose office was unimportant according to the transmitter of this tradition. On the other hand, S. Mowinckel thinks it was entirely irrelevant as it was written in Hellenistic times and is thus inauthentic. M. Zer –Kavod, offers a different hypothesis; Kavod He sees Petahiah, son of Meshezabel, as an official (i.e., a nominated one pqyd). He had to be nominated by the king and to deal with all the problems concerning the Jewish people. Therefore his position had to be a high one close to the royal court. The office of Petahiah can be compared to that of the elected administrative heads of the Egyptian temples and who “had to deal with the worship of Egypt or respectively with the worship of other nations within the Persian Empire”

Heltzer concludes that Petahiah, son of Meshezabel from the clan of Zerah, belonged to a family of the tribe of Judah and his genealogy shows that the family was an aristocratic one. From the term “at the kings hand” it is unclear whether he was based at the court or in Jerusalem. The text also shows nothing about his nomination: so it is unclear whether Petahiah was appointed by the king, by a Judean political body, or by the provincial administration.It was Petahiah’s job to handle the problems of the Judeans and transmit to them the kings will. It is unclear whether Nehemaiah, as an official of the king also acts as a representative of the Jewish people in the same way as Petahiah appears to be.

5.4 Discussion

Following in the pattern of the exemplary tales in the books of Daniel and Esther, Nehemiah provides a good model for the successful Jew living in the Diaspora. He created a name for himself at the court of Artaxerxes and was trusted enough to be appointed cupbearer, a role that has been in the past performed by Cyrus the great. The message that is prevalent throughout the book of Nehemiah is that his success at court proved useful in helping the Jewish community in Jerusalem. We know from Ezra 4:6 that the building of the walls of Jerusalem was halted by Artaxerxes I, who, influenced by the advice  of Rehum and Shimshai who wrote;

“Let the king also be aware that if this city is built and its walls are completed, no more tax, custom, or toll will be paid, and the royal treasury” (Ezra 4:13)

Nehemiah arrives in Jerusalem within 20 yearsand succeeds where his predecessors have failed. He arrived in Jerusalem with an armed guard (Nehemiah 2:9) and it seems carried with him from Persia a supply of weapons so that if needed his workforce could be transformed into a well equipped army.

“ So I stationed people at the lower places behind the wall in the exposed places. I stationed the people by families, with their swords, spears, and bows.”

Nehemiah swiftly set to rebuilding the walls before there is time to send further complaints to Artaxerxes. The whole operation was undertaken with the degree of professionalism that would be expected of one who resides at court; surrounded by the best warriors and strategists in the Empire.

Whilst the book of Nehemiah does not offer examples of how he did not faith in the same was as the tales in Daniel, the Jewishness of Nehemiah is never called to question. Influence of the teaching of Isaiah are evident in the work of Nehemiah during his first administration; “He will treat the poor fairly, 1and make right decisions   for the downtrodden of the earth” (Isaiah 11:4) Nehemiah offered relief to the poor people and used his personal funds to free Jews sold into slavery. He also served his term as governor without benefiting from the governor’s tax that his predecessors levied on the Jewish community. During Nehemiah’s second administration (20th – 23rd year of Artaxerxes)he returned to manage the increasing disregard for the Jewish law; the Sabbath was not being observed (13:15-22) and marriages to gentiles were becoming more common (13:23-27).He rectified this situation and restored religious order to Jerusalem.

6. Summary and concluding notes

“It is within these foreign courts that the heroes move, and the possibility of a life, rewarding and creative, in this setting is affirmed. The heroes are successful and high ranking courtiers at the end of each tale. Such a life is not without pitfalls and dangers, but one can meet these and still remain a loyal Jew and devotee of his deity”

The deportation of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar into Babylon in 587 B.C. had profound ramifications on their cultural and religious identity. In their new environment maintaining their faith became something that had to be worked at; an alien concept to people whose previous centre of government was also a place of religious worship. The heroes of Daniel, Esther and Nehemiah were characters that the average member of the Diaspora in Babylon and subsequently Persia would have identified with.

Using a popular form of court tale, the author of Daniel places the hero in scenarios that at times test his faith. Ultimately is it Daniel’s commitment to his religion that enables him to develop the ability which leads to his success; when Daniel  potentially risked severe retribution by refusing to eat the Kings meat and drink the Kings wine (Daniel 1), he is given the ability to interpret dreams. The lesson that the book of Daniel teaches its audience is that one should put religion before their desire to succeed professionally.

The book of Esther presents its audience with two parallel tales of Jews that succeed at the Persian court, firstly in rising to positions of power but secondly and more importantly of securing the safety of the Jewish people in the face of a direct attempt to destroy them. In this paper I chose to deal with the protagonists of the tale individually; I learned that like Esther, women from all backgrounds may be selected to enter the Persian court as the King’s concubines but there is no reliable evidence that these women ever became royal wives. As a royal concubine, non Persian women may have participated in the regular feasts held at the royal palace and lived their lives in close proximity to the most powerful men and women in the empire. Mordechai, is the instigator of the plan that leads to Esther’s entrance to the Persian palace as concubine. He rightly predicts that it will be useful to have a Jewess in a position of potential influence at court. It could be argued, that the character of Mordechai presents an ideal model of a Jew in the Diaspora; he is  successful professionally: as gatekeeper to Xerxes palace and faithful to his King e.g. by denouncing the plot of the Eunuchs. However he is also loyal to his people and used his position to benefit them.

The book of Esther exemplifies that a Jew may live a life in the top circles of society, indeed it seems to encourage professional ambition. However the heroes of the tale do not fail to use their position in a way that will benefit their fellow brethren. The message in Esther therefore, is that even when rub shoulders with royalty, the ultimate loyalty of a Jew should lie with his God and with his people.

Similarly, the hero of Nehemiah holds a position of importance at the Persian court. His appointment as cupbearer; a duty undertaken in the past by Cyrus the great implies that he was a much trusted and respected member  of the King’s courtiers. Like the heroes of Esther and Daniel, Nehemiah utilises his position and indeed his familiarity with administrative protocol to aid the reconstructions of the walls of Jerusalem. It is, arguably due to Nehemiah’s experiences at the kings court that he had the knowledge to execute the building of the walls with calculated precision. It was also due to his position at court that he has the military support necessary to foil  any repeat attempts to stop the build.

The exemplary tales of Daniel, Esther, Mordechai and Nehemiah played a crucial role in the cultural identity of the Jewish Diaspora.  The stories, show members of the Jewish faith thriving in their new environment without sacrificing their faith. The stories also forge a cultural link between the Jewish community (that was small and fairly insignificant in relation to other nations in the Empire) and their new rulers; retelling the stories of Jews who rose to positions of influence at court gives the impression that members of the Jewish people had a stake in the history of the Persian empire.

Images

Figure 1

Figure 2 

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5  

Figure 6 

Bibliography

Berlin, A.,(2001) ‘The Book of Esther an ancient Storytelling’ Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 120, No. 1.  p3-14

Briant, P. (2002), From Cyrus To Alexander. Eisenbrauns

Brosius, M ‘The Persian Empire from Cyrus II to Artaxerxes I’ Lactor 16, London, 2000

Brosius, M (2002) Women in ancient Persia (559- 331 BC), Oxford

Collins, J.J The Court Tales in Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic Journal of Biblical Literature vol. 94. no2 Jun 1975 pp218-234

Friedelberg, A.D. (2000) ‘A New Clue in the Dating and Composition of the Book of Esther’ vetus testamentum, Vol. 50, Frac. 4.

Heltzer, M. Neh. 11:24 and the Provincial Representative at the Persian Royal Court, Traneuphratene 8

Hoschander, J., (1919) ‘The book of Esther in Light of History: Chapter IV, Jewish Quarterly Review; New Ser., Vol. 10, No.1

Humphreys, W. L, (Jun 1973), A life style for diaspora: A study of the tales of Esther and Daniel Journal of biblical literature, Vol 92, no2 pp. 211-223

Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, Routledge, London, (1995)

Lucas, E.C Jan., 2000Daniel: resolving the enigma vetus Testamentum vol 50, frac. 1.  p. 60-80

Momigliano, A.,( 1977) Essays in Ancient and Modern historiography, oxford.

Montgomery, J. A. (1950) International Critical Commentary, Daniel, Edinburgh

Myers, J. M.,(1965) The Anchor Bible-  Ezra, Nehemiah , Doubleday

Niditch, S. and Doran, R.  The success story of the wise courtier: a formal approach, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol 96, No2( jun., 1977), pp. 179-193

Paton, L. B., (1951) The International Critical Commentary, Esther, Edinburgh

Rowley, H.H (1952) “the unity of Daniel” in H.H Rowley The servant of the lord 

Sancisi Weerdenberd, H and Druijvers, J W Achaemenid history Vol5

Soggin, J.A ( 1976), introduction to the old testament, OTL

Wright. J.S.,(1970)  ‘The Historicity of the Book of Esther’ in ed Payne, J.B, New perspectives on the old testament, Word

Websites

Plutarch, Lives, life of Artaxerxes, www.books.google.com

 

---