The Book of Ester...literal or metaphor?

The ending in Ester is quite specific…Mordechai became vicroy and the writer claims that this is recorded in the anals of the Medes and Persians.

Therefore surely this must be literal history. if we dont have the writings of tue medes contianing Mordecais promotion…just that, as modern scientists are good at claiming from an evolutionary perspective, “we just havent found it yet”.

Take a look at the following from Chapter 10 in Brentons Septuigent:

1And the king levied a tax upon his kingdom both by land and sea. 2And as for his strength and valour, and the wealth and glory of his kingdom, behold, they are written in the book of the Persians and Medes, for a memorial. 3And Mardochaeus was viceroy to king Artaxerxes

No real opinion, but in reading about Ester due to your post, found the differences in the Hebrew and Greek text (Septuagint) are interesting.

3 Likes

Not necessarily as we think of it, though. Depending on just when the book was written, it may play fast and loose with aspects of history.

I personally hold to the view that it is what we would call a historical novel, something that was popular at both the time it was likely written and the time of the events described. That means that the main points were intended to be accurate but much of the material would have been invented. I don’t give much credence to the conjecture that it was written as a justification for Israelites celebrating a festival originally having to do with Marduk and Ishtar by providing a theological rationale to make it about Yahweh instead, for a number of reasons but primarily because I don’t think that even during the Exile a significant enough number of Jews would have adopted a Persian religious festival to justify writing such a rationale, though it wouldn’t be surprising if they adapted some aspects of Persian festivals to their own celebrations.

Tom Clancy’s books are “quite specific” – are you counting them as “literal history”?

2 Likes

The ending in ‘The Land that Time Forgot’ is quite specific…Tyler sets up a house with Lys and the writer claims that his account of his adventures is cast into the sea in a secure container…

Therefore surely this must be literal history. if we don’t have the writings of Tyler concerning his adventures, “we just havent found it yet”.

The same argument can be used for many other works of fiction which purport to be based on documents, including The Name of the Rose, Flashman, The Turn of the Screw and The Call of Cthulhu. .

If your criterion for literal history is ‘it’s specific and someone said it was written down’, you need your head examined.

3 Likes

Sure, it’s literal – it’s literally a story. Whether the story happened or not is a different question. Probably not, I think.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.