Behind | The Historicity of Esther

The historicity of Esther has been a perpetual debate. Arguments appear on all points of the spectrum, from opinions that Esther is completely historically accurate to it being a work of fiction, a “novella” expressing values and dreams for the diaspora community.

Karen Jobes has shown that there are a number of interesting convergences between Esther and the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus about Xerxes and Persia:

• Esther 1:14 speaks of seven people who constituted the king’s “inner circle” and who were trusted to give proper advice. Moreover, Esther 4 speaks of a particular protocol in seeing the king, all of which created an overwhelming sense of anxiety. These are echoed in Herodotus 1.99; 3.77; 3.84.
• Esther 3:7-14 describes the casting of lots to determine a particular course of action. Herodotus attests to this method in 3.128.
• In two locations, empire-wide messages were disseminated with incredible accuracy and efficiency. Herodotus boasts of the effectiveness of the Persian messaging system (8.98). 
• Xerxes was hot-tempered. According to Herodotus, he reacted violently when his make-shift bridge across the Hellespont was destroyed by a storm (7.34-35). Esther’s anxiety about approaching the king over Haman’s plot suggests someone with unpredictable emotional reactions.  

The convergence between Herodotus and Esther (and a list of other items) certainly confirms a sense of historical and cultural “fit.” But there are some other questions that still linger. Are the queens Vashti and Esther or ministers Haman and Mordecai mentioned in Persian records? Are any of the events and institutions in the story recorded in Persian sources? 

Reference: Karen H. Jobes, “Esther 2: Extrabiblical Background,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings, edited by Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns, 2008, pp. 170-75.

In one of the few commentaries that views Esther as an historical book, Dr. Timothy Laniak presents the evidence to date. Vashti may be the cruel queen Amestris, who is banished by Xerxes in 483 BC during a major banquet prior to the invasion of Greece. The king returned home defeated in 479 BC and sought comfort. Although Esther is not mentioned in the sparse records, the timing of her marriage fits perfectly here. Haman is not mentioned by name, but Agag is a known district. Mordecai’s name appears at numerous periods of time; it remains to determine which one is the minister in question. 

While the evidence doesn’t conclusively prove that Esther’s account is historical, it certainly provides reason to pause before accepting the view that it is fiction. Perhaps the strongest reason to expect Esther to be grounded in history is that, like Moses and Passover, it provides an account of God’s salvation and its ongoing celebration. If these events are legendary, then the festivals offer no real grounds for hope in God’s ongoing capacity to rescue His people. In general, the “historicity” (historical accuracy) of the Bible is tied to the primary storyline that the powerful God of creation is the engaged God of history and the caring God of redemption.

Reference: Leslie C. Allen and Timothy S. Laniak, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 2012.