Freethought & Rationalism Archive

semiopen · 06-22-2009, 12:12 PM

IAJ replied to a posting by Anat in the Phoenician Nay thread:

Quote:

From Anat - The book of Esther is a work of fiction. The events described there do not match anything from Persian sources. Daniel is about the events of the Helenic persecution written as if they took place in the Babylonian exile. The Bible can't be taken at face value, without comparing its contents to information from other sources such as physical finds and written sources from other relevant cultures. And documents that can be dated physically are generally more credible than accounts that were written down later.

That book also has greater historical credibility than any Christian or Islamic scripture, and is used by archeologists to learn what the Babylonian months were called, the names of its kings, is cultures and diets, its religions, priests, contemporary names, how far the Persian empire travelled eastwards, etc, etc. You never showed which verse or description is ficticious, nor who else wrote it. Your proof is nil. You sound like an avid Finklestine fan too.

The historical basis of the story has been academically doubted for about 300 years.

The book of Esther seems to have appeared quite late and isn't part of the dead sea scrolls. A festival called Mordecai Day is noted in Maccabees.

These paragraphs are from http://www.netzerolami.org/Eng/Resou...?ContentID=141

Quote:

... festivities soon spread across from Persia and Babylon to the Jews of Palestine, certain passages of the Talmud give the impression that Palestinian Jews were at first opposed to observing Purim.

Purim was also originally known as Mordecai Day, where the heathen festival of the seasons was Judaized and given historical meaning, where a Jewish official in the court of Ahasuerus scored a victory over his enemies and thus saved the Jews. On the 13th of Adar, the day before Purim, a festival called Nicanor Day was observed. This day of joy and festivities marked Judah Maccabee's victory over general Nicanor of the Syrian army. Like Mordecai Day, Nicanor Day celebrated the victory of the Jews over a great enemy who sought to destroy them. The observance of this day ended with the destruction of the second Temple.

The Talmudic noting of Palestinian opposition, is quite likely referring to religious authorities who didn't like the pagan natrure of the holiday

The Esther/Ishtar Mordecai/Marduk construct has been known for a long time. A Babylonian or Persian origin for this has been strongly questioned on technical grounds.

Stephanie Dalley in Esther's Revenge at Susa: From Sennacherib to Ahasuerus (or via: amazon.co.uk) is a recent (2007) attempts to resolve this by moving the origin to Assyria.

IAJ has also claimed the story has perfect historical accuracy. Marc Brettler in How to Read the [Hebrew] Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk) agrees that certain features are accurate but that many elements such as: a Queen being chosen through a Miss Persia contest; a king being unable to rescind a royal decree, etc. are not.

Quote:

From IAJ - The book of Esther describes topical, minute events in babylon like one is reading the Sunday papers. Proof does not get better.

IAJ has also suggested that there is clear historical evidence for Purim. I have been unable to find anything that would remotely qualify as evidence. More to the point, this evidence is unknown to many generations of biblical scholars.

A major second theory is presented in Ancient Israel (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Roland De Vaux, John McHugh, where they suggest the origin being in the Persian feast of "The Massacre of the Magi."

Roger Pearse · 06-23-2009, 12:44 AM

I don't know anything about this, but I think one would need to approach the matter with rather less "oh the bible is crap, this must be an example" and rather more careful and conservative thinking.

The idea that the characters of Esther and Mordecai are Ishtar and Marduk sounds very odd, straight out of the box. If this is so, then who is Darius, the husband of Esther? Who is Haman, who is determined to kill all the Jews? We can't just pick a couple of characters in the story.

Otherwise I fear that all we are doing is to point out a series of consonants and claim identity -- especially daft in Aramaic, where all the words are based around groups of three consonants and the meanings can range widely.

semiopen · 06-23-2009, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I don't know anything about this, but I think one would need to approach the matter with rather less "oh the bible is crap, this must be an example" and rather more careful and conservative thinking.

The idea that the characters of Esther and Mordecai are Ishtar and Marduk sounds very odd, straight out of the box. If this is so, then who is Darius, the husband of Esther? Who is Haman, who is determined to kill all the Jews? We can't just pick a couple of characters in the story.

Otherwise I fear that all we are doing is to point out a series of consonants and claim identity -- especially daft in Aramaic, where all the words are based around groups of three consonants and the meanings can range widely.

Hi Roger,

This story has always struck me as peculiar and the lack of supporting evidence, despite its relatively recent origin coupled with the involvement of important people is striking.

After looking at this myself, I found what I thought were effective criticisms of the Ishtar/Marduk theory in Babylonian and Persian settings. This is partially due to some issues with Haman, etc as you suggested. These theories are quite well developed however and not that simple to refute. I think this is what turned more recent attention to a slaughter of the magi scenario.

I've only been aware of the general debate for a short time, and was actually looking at the magi to see if there was some connection to Jesus.

Staephanie Dalley's book however is from 2007 and my impression is that it may be worth reading (even at $67 for the Kindle version).

Since the debate seems to have been going on for 300 years, I'm not sure we are exactly rushing to judgment here.

There is also a school of thought that supports a more or less literal interpretation of this story. Frankly this logic strikes me as circular and not based on objective evidence, but I'm not sure my opinions have any special merit.

There is quite a lot of debate over the husband of Esther from the historical school, I don't recall Darius being one of the major candidates.

Roger Pearse · 06-23-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I don't know anything about this, but I think one would need to approach the matter with rather less "oh the bible is crap, this must be an example" and rather more careful and conservative thinking.

The idea that the characters of Esther and Mordecai are Ishtar and Marduk sounds very odd, straight out of the box. If this is so, then who is Darius, the husband of Esther? Who is Haman, who is determined to kill all the Jews? We can't just pick a couple of characters in the story.

Otherwise I fear that all we are doing is to point out a series of consonants and claim identity -- especially daft in Aramaic, where all the words are based around groups of three consonants and the meanings can range widely.

This story has always struck me as peculiar

I've been reading it in the Arabic retelling in Agapius lately, and the element of folk tale in it seemed even stronger, if possible. The extent to which this narrative is intended as history by its author is something I don't know.

I don't have a particular view on this text; I merely wanted to apply some scepticism to the discussion before it got out of hand. Whatever we say, let's have it based on solid data.

Sorry if that sounds like ducking the issue -- ignorance on my part, you see.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle · 06-23-2009, 12:17 PM

Anti semitism has puzzled me - what exactly is it that gets people riled up against Jews?

It makes a lot of sense if they are seen as symbols of Persia - the differences at Marathon between priesthood of all believers and Darius and Zarathustra and the Most High are basic psychological attitudes.

semiopen · 06-23-2009, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Anti semitism has puzzled me - what exactly is it that gets people riled up against Jews?

It makes a lot of sense if they are seen as symbols of Persia - the differences at Marathon between priesthood of all believers and Darius and Zarathustra and the Most High are basic psychological attitudes.

I was struck by the damage to the Elephantine Temple, by an anti-Jewish mob. The Jews there were supposed to be mercenaries and you'd figure people wouldn't mess with them.

IAJ claims anti-semitism in Babylon and/or Persia, and maybe he's right for once, but I don't know of any documentation of this.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-23-2009, 12:44 AM	#2
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I don't know anything about this, but I think one would need to approach the matter with rather less "oh the bible is crap, this must be an example" and rather more careful and conservative thinking. The idea that the characters of Esther and Mordecai are Ishtar and Marduk sounds very odd, straight out of the box. If this is so, then who is Darius, the husband of Esther? Who is Haman, who is determined to kill all the Jews? We can't just pick a couple of characters in the story. Otherwise I fear that all we are doing is to point out a series of consonants and claim identity -- especially daft in Aramaic, where all the words are based around groups of three consonants and the meanings can range widely.

06-23-2009, 12:17 PM	#5
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Anti semitism has puzzled me - what exactly is it that gets people riled up against Jews? It makes a lot of sense if they are seen as symbols of Persia - the differences at Marathon between priesthood of all believers and Darius and Zarathustra and the Most High are basic psychological attitudes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.