Esther, fact or fiction?

I was chatting with my dad the other day about the book of Esther as he is preparing to lead some Bible studies on the book.  We were talking about some of the challenges of studying and teaching through the book.

One of the questions that gets raised is about the type of literature that Esther is.  The account is set during the exile of the Jews from Judah, after the Babylonian conquest and subsequently the defeat of the Babylonians by Persia.  It names specific people, including a king of Persia although his Hebrew name doesn’t align with a specific Persian name, we are given enough information to potentially identify him. The book finishes with a battle between the Jewish exiles and their Persian oppressors.  All of that might suggest that we are meant to treat this as history.

However, there doesn’t seem to be collaborating evidence for the account outside of Scripture. So, what are we meant to do with it?  Is it erroneous history?  Have we got proof here that the Old Testament isn’t reliable? Well, some would conclude that but of course this would depend on the intent of the author. Did they intend those reading to assume that this was history, or was it intended as a fable, a moral story, perhaps set in a historical context to bring it to life for its readers but not as literal history? If so, then we can read Esther, not worrying so much about the historical record but expecting God to speak to us through a story.  I don’t see a problem with this.  I don’t need to insist that every Old Testament account is intended as detailed factual history in order for me to defend its inerrancy.  The Bible includes poetry, prophecy, proverbs and parables, why not the forerunner of the historical novel?

At the same time, I don’t think we need to rush to assume that something isn’t historically true, just because we haven’t got all the evidence we would like yet. Frequently, we have seen that things assumed to be without evidence do have evidence. It’s a case of being patient and allowing the evidence to turn up.  We also need to recognise that there are good reasons why we may not have the evidence we want.  Persia was a powerful empire.  The victors were the ones who told the stories and they didn’t tend to present themselves in a good light. We shouldn’t be surprised then to find out that something bad happened for the Persians that left them looking ridiculous doesn’t get reported by their historians.

So, I think there are some clues that Esther is a historical account.  First, just as the victors don’t tend to put themselves in  a bad light, so too those seeking to tell theological stories about their own people and faith.  Whilst Esther ends up a hero in the story, it still isn’t presented in a way that suggests that the Jews were brilliant.  Mordecai’s behaviour in putting his relative forward for a beauty contest and into the kings harem doesn’t sound like the sort of thing that the Law and the Prophets would look kindly on.  There’s also the oddity of a book finding its way into Scripture where God doesn’t get an explicit mention.  I am inclined to think that the best reason then for including the account in Scripture is that it actually happened.

Not only were the events in Esther recorded in Scripture but they have been celebrated by the Jews throughout history since at the feast of Purim. We don’t question the historical foundations for Hanukkah. Maybe then, other Jewish festivals are not founded on myths.

One big clue we have is the shocking decision Cyrus made to experiment with radical devolution by sending exiles, including many Jews back to their homelands and allowing them to rebuild their temples, worship their own gods and enjoy a level of self-government.  What actually provoked this?  There are a few possible reasons but I would suggest that one good reason would have fears of unrest and destabilising events at the centre of the empire.  It may well have made sense for the emperor to keep potential trouble far away from the seat of power, whilst at the same time if there was a history of Jewish influence within the courts of Babylon and Persia (Daniel, Esther, Nehemiah et al) to look with some favour on the exiled peoples and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Now, traditionally, Ahasuerus has been associated with Xerxes, Cyrus’ grandson or alternatively with Darius the Great, who was the one who conquered India.  This pushes the events in Esther after Cyrus decree. If so, then the events in Esther don’t act as the cause of the decision but may fit with a pattern of unrest. The picture throughout Daniel is that relationships between exiles and empire were complex. In other words, the story fits the wider experience of exiles. 

However, I’m not sure that we have to assume that this was Xerxes or Ahasuerus.  Is the writer offering a technically exact description of the one who conquered and ruled over those provinces or simply, from a later time using the description of “from India to Egypt” in much the same way that the British Empire was described as “the empire on which the sun did not set” to give a sense of its vastness and greatness?   So, it is possible that Esther is intended to indicate another emperor. The use of Ahasuerus, rather than say Cyrus or Darius to name him may be intended as another clue to belittle him.  For example, it could make us think of the Ahasuerus in Daniel, on the surface a great ruler but actually little more than a late coming usurper of power.

In other words, we may not have cast iron evidence for Esther’s historicity but there is enough evidence, I would argue to point to its credibility.  I’m therefore happy to treat it as history.