Parallels between Mark 6.14-29 and the Esther traditions.

[Secret Alias]

I think the earliest acknowledgement of the text of Esther is Josephus.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Then do you see the followers of John the Baptist as cribbing from Esther here?

It's highly possible, maybe probable that those followers were inspired by 'Esther' into concocting their story about JtB's execution.

Cordially, Bernard

[Secret Alias]

But how much older was Esther really? It might only have been half a century older, maybe a century older than the gospel.

[Ben C. Smith]

Colophon to the book of Esther in the Old Greek:

Ἔτους τετάρτου βασιλεύοντος Πτολεμαίου καὶ Κλεοπάτρας εἰσήνεγκεν Δωσίθεος, ὃς ἔφη εἶναι ἱερεὺς καὶ Λευίτης, καὶ Πτολεμαῖος ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, τὴν προκειμένην ἐπιστολὴν τῶν Φρουραι, ἣν ἔφασαν εἶναι καὶ ἑρμηνευκέναι Λυσίμαχον Πτολεμαίου τῶν ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ.

In the fourth year of the kingship of Ptolemaeus and Cleopatra, Dositheus, who said he was a priest and a Levite, and Ptolemaeus his son brought the foregoing epistle of Purim, which they said it was and that Lysimachus, the son of Ptolemaeus, who was in Jerusalem, had interpreted/translated it.

[Secret Alias]

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness

... so I guess the historicity of the gospel is settled too. It is odd that the text isn't found at Qumran and the first allusion to the text that I can find at least is Josephus c. 100 CE. It is even stranger that the same colophon makes reference to the 'Epistle of Phrurai (Josephus has Phrurim). I wonder whether the colophon only relates to Esther 9:20 - 28 and therefore the colophon is part of the myth:

Mordecai recorded these events, and he sent letters to all the Jews throughout the provinces of King Xerxes, near and far, 21 to have them celebrate annually the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month of Adar 22 as the time when the Jews got relief from their enemies, and as the month when their sorrow was turned into joy and their mourning into a day of celebration. He wrote them to observe the days as days of feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor.

23 So the Jews agreed to continue the celebration they had begun, doing what Mordecai had written to them. 24 For Haman son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, had plotted against the Jews to destroy them and had cast the pur (that is, the lot) for their ruin and destruction. 25 But when the plot came to the king’s attention,[a] he issued written orders that the evil scheme Haman had devised against the Jews should come back onto his own head, and that he and his sons should be impaled on poles. 26 (Therefore these days were called Purim, from the word pur.) Because of everything written in this letter and because of what they had seen and what had happened to them, 27 the Jews took it on themselves to establish the custom that they and their descendants and all who join them should without fail observe these two days every year, in the way prescribed and at the time appointed. 28 These days should be remembered and observed in every generation by every family, and in every province and in every city. And these days of Purim should never fail to be celebrated by the Jews—nor should the memory of these days die out among their descendants.

29 So Queen Esther, daughter of Abihail, along with Mordecai the Jew, wrote with full authority to confirm this second letter concerning Purim. 30 And Mordecai sent letters to all the Jews in the 127 provinces of Xerxes’ kingdom—words of goodwill and assurance— 31 to establish these days of Purim at their designated times, as Mordecai the Jew and Queen Esther had decreed for them, and as they had established for themselves and their descendants in regard to their times of fasting and lamentation. 32 Esther’s decree confirmed these regulations about Purim, and it was written down in the records.

If it was a product of a priest at Jerusalem why isn't Esther found at Qumran? The Book of Esther can't be described by any stretch of the imagination as an 'epistle' can it?

[Secret Alias]

There are many version of the colophon. The ambiguity about whether Dositheus was actually a priest - 'said he was a priest and a Levite' - is unusual. It can't be pretended then that the date of transcription is very accurate either:

And these days shall be unto them in the month Adar, on the fourteenth and fifteenth day of the same month, with an assembly and joy and gladness before God, from generation to generation for ever among His people Israel. In the fourth year of the reigns of Ptolemy and Cleopatra Dositheus who said he was a priest and a Levite, and Ptolemaeus his son brought in to Egypt the Epistle of Phrurai here set forth, which they said was true, and that Lysimachus the son of Ptolemaeus of the dwellers in Jerusalem, had interpreted it.

For me at least it seems highly suspicious that this could possibly be an accurate statement about the date of the transcription. Why doesn't the author know whether Dositheus was a priest? Here are the list of variant ending of the document. Another suspicious characteristic (why so many variants?): https://books.google.com/books?id=NutBA ... 22&f=false Whatever was written originally it has now dissolved into obscurity. My guess is that the original author was referring to Dositheus compiling something to do with the historical background related to Purim which included letters or a 'letter.' But that letter is now gone and the ending to me at least implies that the Book of Esther was written after the fourth year of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, long enough that the author doesn't know whether Dositheus really was a priest and a Levite.

[Secret Alias]

As we piece things together it might be worth keeping some of this in mind:

Some scholars argue that Purim does not actually have a historical basis. Amnon Netzer and Shaul Shaked argue that the names "Mordecai" and "Esther" are similar to those of the Babylonian gods Marduk and Ishtar.[14][15] Scholars W.S. McCullough, Muhammad Dandamayev and Shaul Shaked say that the Book of Esther (despite its accurate details of the Achaemenid court) is historical fiction.[15][16][17] Amélie Kuhrt says the Book of Esther was composed in the Hellenistic period and it shows a perspective of Persian court identical to classical Greek books.[18] Shaul Shaked says the date of composition of the book is unknown, but most likely not much after the fall of the Achaemenid kingdom, during the Parthian period, perhaps in the third or second century B.C.E.[15] McCullough also suggests that Herodotus recorded the name of Xerxes’s queen as Amestris (the daughter of Otanes) and not as Esther.[17] Scholars Albert I. Baumgarten and S. David Sperling and R.J. Littman say that, according to Herodotus, Xerxes could only marry a daughter of one of the six allies of his father Darius I.

If we take the striking similarities between Esther and Ishtar and Mordecai and Marduk as a given the place to start piecing together is wondering whether there are crucifixion narratives involving Marduk - especially those which might involve a 'substitution myth.'

[Secret Alias]

I strongly suspect Esther was written originally in Greek. Notice how Marduk is rendered in Greek Μαρδοχαῖος

[iskander]

One of the most significant features of the Hebrew book of Esther is the absence of any mention of God. . The Greek version contains many additions. Additions to Esther: these are six blocks of text found in all known Greek versions of Esther and without any parallel in the Hebrew text.

"This process of revision is a powerful example of the dialogues and discussions which must have taken place during the days of the Second Temple, as Jews struggled to define their identity, whether living as residents in Judea or in far-flung diaspora communities in Persia, Mesopotamia, or Egypt.
The book of Esther threw down the gauntlet, challenging Jews to consider the limits of their tradition and how they could live as both faithful Jews and productive citizens in the broader empire. In the eyes of some, however, it went too far. It is no accident that the Additions were added in Hasmonean Jerusalem; the Hasmoneans had a very different attitude toward life under the empire than the intermarried Esther.
And it is likely no accident that the book of Esther is the one book to not be preserved at all among the Dead Sea Scrolls: for the Qumran community, intermarriage was a capital crime, and a community that withdrew from the “impure” society of Jerusalem certainly could not tolerate a book where the heroes were so enmeshed in imperial culture."
http://thetorah.com/a-more-religious-megillat-esther/

[Secret Alias]

I think the question of defining what the Book of Esther is exactly is a fascinating question and it relates directly to the core questions of the gospel. I've been reading a lot of scholarship on the question. It would seem that Josephus is the oldest reference to Esther. 2Maccabees mentions Purim but that's not exactly the same thing. The core problem is that if Mordecai and Esther go back to two pagan divinities (there is no evidence anywhere for the Persian king having a Jewish wife of this name) then the entire narrative is a myth. It is not an 'epistle' as the colophon references. An 'epistle' must have originally followed the Book of Esther which 'proved' or underscored certain details ('epistles' are also mentioned earlier in the letter). This also bears a striking resemblance to the Marcionite canon where Paul wrote the gospel and then letters of Paul were appended after the gospel.

But before we stray too far from the issue. Esther is a fiction having developed characters from pagan divinities around a substitution crucifixion narrative - exactly like some early Christians said the gospel was. The crucifixion of Haman falls very close to Easter. My hunch would be both texts might have developed from a common non-Israelite myth involving a docetic resurrecting god who had someone else crucified in his place. This myth hasn't been identified yet. But that doesn't mean it didn't exist.