David may not have killed Goliath

written  BY RABBI DR. ISRAEL DRAZIN 

There are more than a half dozen indications that seem to suggest that the story of David killing Goliath that is narrated in I Samuel 17 never occurred, another man killed the powerful giant, and the chapter describing David killing Goliath was a popular legend to glorify the famed king that was inserted in the middle of the biblical narrative about him. Chapter 17 does not fit into the narrative preceding and following the chapter and attempts to harmonize 17 with the rest of the book of Samuel failed.

(1) I Samuel 16 is the first notice of David’s existence. The opening of the chapter tells readers nothing more than that he was ruddy in appearance (having red hair), with beautiful eyes, goodly to look upon, and that Samuel anointed him surreptitiously as Israel’s future king.  Later in the chapter, when Saul suffered from an “evil spirit,” David is introduced to him to play music to sooth the king. The chapter then offers a larger portrayal of David as a man of war and armor-bearer who Saul loved. But chapter 17 has a totally different description of David. In 17, he is a shepherd who comes to the Israelite camp to bring food to his brothers who are in the Israelite army. He is a boy who is unfamiliar with armor and who neither Saul nor his officials know. This striking difference indicates that one of these two versions is a second version of the introduction of David to Saul in the book of Samuel.

(2) The fact that chapter 18 follows chapter 16 as if chapter 17 did not exist, speaking of David, as in chapter 16, as a man of war, shows that it is chapter 17 which is not the original version.

(3) A verse seems to have been added in chapter 17 to resolve the conflict between the two chapters, but only resolves one of many discrepancies. Chapter 16 states that Saul requested David’s father to allow David to remain with him, but in 17, David is at home, not with Saul, and his father sends him with food to his bothers. This parenthetical insertion states: “Now David went to and fro from Saul to feed his father’s sheep at Bethlehem.” This passage may explain why David was home, but it does not explain why David is portrayed as a boy who was not a warrior as he is in chapter 16 and why Saul and his captain do not recognize him.

(4) Like the attempt to resolve the conflicts between the two chapters by inserting a verse, the Greek translation called Septuagint deletes 17:12-31 and 17:55-18:5 in its attempt to seek harmony between the two chapters.[1]

(5) II Samuel 21:19 does not seem to know that chapter 17 states that David killed Goliath. It names another person who killed Goliath, “Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregin of Bethlehem slew Goliath the Gittite.”

(6) Recognizing the conflict between II and I Samuel, the later biblical book I Chronicles 20:5 states, “Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite.”

(7) In chapter 18, Saul offers David first his daughter Merab (17-19) and then, after she marries another, his daughter Michal (20-27), apparently long after the battle with Goliath after David showed that he was victorious in various conflicts with the Philistines. No mention is made in chapter 18 of Saul’s promise in chapter 17 to give his daughter to the man who fights Goliath along with riches. Chapter18 seems to know nothing about Saul’s promise in chapter 17, as if chapter 17 did not exist and David never killed the giant. The text states that Saul made the offer of his daughter to David in 18 in the hope that David would go out and fight the Philistines and be killed by them, not as fulfilment of his promise. Additionally, despite Saul’s promise of “great riches” in 17:25 to the man who defeats Goliath, David states in 18:23 that he cannot marry the king’s daughter because “I am a poor man.” In short, chapter 18 shows no familiarity with the story of Goliath in chapter 17.

More details in chapter 16

Chapter 16 narrates that after Saul became the first king of the Israelites and after he had a couple of adverse encounters with the prophet Samuel who criticized him on two occasions[2] for disobedience, “the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul. And an evil spirit from the Lord terrified him.”[3] This could mean that he suffered a severe depression after he heard from the prophet Samuel, whom he respected, that God rejected him, his dynasty would not endure, and God selected another man to succeed his (although Samuel did not identify the man).

Saul’s servants suggested to him that music may help his mood and told him that they knew that David was “skillful in playing [the harp], and a mighty man of valor, and a man of war, and prudent in affairs, and a comely person, and the Lord is with him.”[4] Saul accepted the suggestion. “Wherefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse [David’s father], and said ‘Send me your son.’”

David came, played for Saul, who “loved him greatly; and he [David] became his armor-bearer.” Saul recontacted Jesse, told him that he likes David, and wants him to stay with him. David did so, and when the evil spirit afflicted Saul, David played the harp, “and the evil spirit departed from him.”[5]

This chapter describes David as a man who King Saul came to like very much, he “loved him greatly,” and kept him by his side to play the harp whenever he became depressed. He knew about David’s father and contacted him on at least two occasions. Besides being a good musician, David is described as a warrior: “a mighty man, and a man of war,” and he became Saul’s “armor-bearer.”[6] Chapter 17 which contains the Goliath tale is radically different.

More details in chapter 17

Rather than a man of war who is loved by Saul, who sees David often, and knows about David’s father, the portrait of David in chapter 17 describes David as a boy without any military experience, whom Saul does not know, and whose father he does not know. Even David’s brother treats him as a busy-body youngster who should not be on the battle-field.

There is a fourth war between the Israelites and the Philistines.[7] The giant Philistine Goliath challenges the Israelites to send out a man to do single combat with him rather than sacrificing many lives in a huge battle.[8] He taunts the Israelites twice a day for forty days, but no one wants to fight the giant.

David’s three older brothers are part of the military force facing the Philistines. David is home caring for the sheep. His father sends him to the battle field to give his brothers food. David hears that Saul offered his daughter to the man who would defeat Goliath as well as other financial incentives. He is interested. His brother hears that he is asking about the reward, seems to know nothing about David being an armor-bearer of the king, becomes angry, and asks him with whom has he left the sheep. “I know your presumptuousness, and the naughtiness of your heart, you came to see the battle.”

Saul hears that David wants to fight Goliath and also apparently not knowing he is a “man of war” and an “armor-bearer,” says to David that he is unable to fight Goliath because “you are only a youth.”[9] David responds that he saved his father’s sheep from a bear and a lion, which he killed, and God will aid him in doing the same with Goliath. Saul agrees and offers David his armor, apparently the best armor, but David states he cannot use armor because he had not previously worn armor. Instead he took his staff, his sling, and five stones which he put in his shepherd’s bag, and approached the giant.

Not seeing the sling or stones, Goliath taunted David: did you come to beat me like a dog. When Goliath approached David, he reached into his bag, took out a stone and slung it. Goliath fell, David ran to him, grabbed the giant’s sword, and cut off his head. Seeing their warrior dead, the Philistines fled.

When David went out against Goliath, Saul asked the captain of his forces, “Whose son is this young man?”[10] The captain swore that he had no idea.[11] Saul instructed him, “Ask whose son the stripling is.”[12] After killing Goliath, the captain brought David to the king who asked, “Whose son are you young man,” and David replied, “I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem.”

In summary, David is not described as a man of war who Saul loved as in chapter 16, but the king repeatedly describes David as a young man he did not know who was unaccustomed to war and even the use of armor.[13]

Chapter 18

While chapter 17 interrupts the tale of chapter 16 with another version of David’s initial meeting with King Saul, chapter 18 continues 16 as if 17 did not exist. Chapter 16 ends with David being Saul’s armor-bearer, and chapter 18 continues by stating that “David went out [to war with fellow soldiers] wherever Saul sent him, and he had great success. And Saul set him over the men of war, and the people liked it, as did Saul’s servants.”[14]

Why didn’t Saul or his son Jonathan engage Goliath?

While chapter 14 narrates how Saul’s son Jonathan with only his armor-bearer at his side single-handedly and fearlessly slew about twenty Philistine soldiers and caused the Philistine army to retreat,[15] neither he nor his father the king showed any thought of combating Goliath. Why? Is it possible that this fact supports the view that chapter 17 is a legend that is designed to extoll David, showing that only he considered it possible to overcome the giant? However, S. Goldman suggests that it would have been “beneath the dignity of Saul or any member of the royal house to accept the offer of a duel with this vulgar braggart.”[16]

Suggested resolutions

Many ideas have been offered to address the problems presented by chapters 16 and 17. The following are some of them.

Accepting both 16 and 17 as original texts

• Goldman sees no problem. The descriptions of David’s prowess in chapter 16, such as “a man of war,” are typical biblical exaggerations and “armor-bearer” means a menial personal attendant. While Saul in chapter 16 wanted David by him, he allowed him to go home from time to time, and in 17 he was returning from one of his visits home. Saul did not recognize David because he was in the midst of one of his depressions. David’s brother criticized David for coming to the battle field, not because he was not part of the king’s military forces, but because of jealousy. Many Israelites were expert with slings. Judges 20:16 states that 700 men from the tribe of Benjamin could sling stones at a hairbreadth and not miss.
• Kil suggests[17] that it is possible to understand that when David refused to marry Merab in 18:18, he relinquished the wealth Saul promised him if he fought Goliath. Gersonides, without any scriptural support, suggests that David was reluctant to marry into the royal family because he was a descendant of the Moabite Ruth. It is curious that in the rather long story of David, in I and II Samuel as well as I and II Kings, no mention is made of Ruth. Does this indicate that the authors of these books knew nothing about Ruth, or that she was David’s ancestress?
• Abarbanel also attempted to resolve the apparent discrepancy between the two chapters.[18] He wrote that David’s pedigree is not repeated in 17:12 because chapter 17 originally was a document unrelated to chapter 16 but it is characteristic of scripture to repeat information about a person when it begins a new account of that person. Saul was not asking his captain who David was. He was wondering if David had good antecedents of warriors since he saw him acting without fear. Or, when he asked who David’s father was he forgot who he was because of his mental condition.
• Abarbanel adds an interesting observation: the concept of single combat is based on the notion that God is involved in human affairs and is able to reveal truth to people. The winner of single combat won because God helped him to win to show who was right.
• David may not have cared for the sheep, but was an overseer. He was just one of many armor-bearers of Saul and according to Josephus was sent home when the war broke out, Saul agreed to allow David to fight Goliath when David spoke of aid from God.[19]
• It is possible that Saul’s captain said he did not know who David was, even though David was constantly in the court to help Saul when he became depressed, so as not to embarrass the king who was depressed and confused at that time. It is also possible that both Saul and his captain knew who David was, but could not recall who his father was.[20]
• Saul suffered “a beginning loss of memory… or even the gradual onset of madness.” He rambles. His question about David “is expressed not just once but three times in…four verses.” David’s act in chapter 17 fits with 14. He plays the same role in 17 as Saul’s son Jonathan did in 14, both save Israel when Saul is passive and overwrought.[21]
• Saul asked about David’s father even though he knew who David was but wanted to know if he got his strength from his ancestors.[22]
• He asked about David’s father since he was giving him his daughter in marriage. [23]

Chapters 16 and 17 are two conflicting versions

• In contrast, Caro states it is impossible to resolve the conflict between chapters 16 and 17 without referring to imaginative midrashim.[24]
• David never killed Goliath, as indicated in II Samuel 21:19, with I Chronicles 20:15 trying to resolve the conflict between I and II Samuel. It is likely that after Saul made David an armor-bearer, as indicated in chapter 16, David fought Philistines and was successful, as indicated in chapter 18, and in one battle overwhelmed a Philistine superior warrior. The details of this latter victory were forgotten and the legend arose that it was Goliath that he killed. This legend became a tradition that was so beautiful that the editor of Samuel placed it in the book. Verses 17:12-31 and 55-18:5 were in the legend, but the editor deleted them so as not to conflict with chapter 16. The version in the Septuagint is based on this initial version in Samuel. Later, someone placed the omitted parts of the legend on the side margin of the manuscript, which were still later inserted into the current Masoretic text.[25]
• It is clear that chapters 16 and 17 were by different authors. The style of the narrative in both chapters is different. Originally there was “a brief account of David’s prowess against Philistines. The was later replaced [by the Goliath story].” “The picture of two armies going through this parade forty days in succession, only to hear the swelling words of Goliath is ludicrous” and is consistent with legendary tales.[26]
• “It is clear that if David was Saul’s armor-bearer from the day that [David’s] father sent him to him, Saul would know who he is.” Once David heard in chapter 17 of all the honors that would be heaped upon the man who would slay Goliath, he volunteered, showing his character. In Homer’s Iliad, to kill an enemy with stealth is improper. Not so with Israelites, as shown by the stealth used by Joshua, Gideon, and here by David.[27]
• Altschuler states that David took his staff with him in his battle with Goliath to deceive Goliath to make him think that he, David, needed to approach the giant to fight him. Goliath had to approach David to kill him with his sword, but David could sling his pebble from a far distance.[28][29]

Notes:

[1] L. C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Hendrickson Publishers, 1851. There are also some other small changes and deletions.

[2] Just as chapters 16 and 17 contain two divergent narratives, it is likely that Samuel’s announcement in 13:14 that Saul’s kingdom would not continue because Saul offered a sacrifice before Samuel came to him and in 15:23 that God rejected Saul because he saved the cattle of Amalek to offer as sacrifices are two versions of why Saul was rejected, because in 15:1 Samuel does not seem to know that Saul had been rejected.

[3] 16:14.

[4] 16:18.

[5] 16:21-23.

[6] Gersonides comments: there were certainly other men who could lay music as well as David, but he was chosen because he was also a man of war and armor-bearer.

[7] 14:52 states that war between Israel and Philistia was fierce during Saul’s entire life.

[8] Goliath’s challenge for single combat was similar to Menelaus’ challenge during the Trojan War in the Iliad and was the custom of Bedouin Arabs.

[9] 17:33.

[10] The phrase “whose son is this?” could be understood literally as an enquiry about the father of the young man, or an idiomatic way of saying “who are you?” Either way, it is clear that despite chapter 16, Saul had no idea who David was.

[11] 17:55.

[12] 17:56.

[13] While, as will be seen, the generally accepted view is that chapter 17 was not part of the original story of David, there are references to Goliath in 19:5, 21:10, 22:10, 13. These, like chapter 17, were most likely later additions or refer to another Israelite warrior.

[14] 18:5.

[15] 14:14-16.

[16] Samuel, Soncino Books of the Bible, The Soncino Press, 1951, page 100.

[17] Daat MikraMosad Harav Kook, 1981, page 193.

[18] Abarbanel, Nevi’im Rishonim, Torah Vada’at, 5715.

[19] Y. Kil. Josephus, Wars 6.

[20] Olam Hatanakh, Shmuel aleph, Keter, 2002. This latter view is based on the literal wording “Whose son is this,” but the words are usually understood as an idiomatic phrase for “Who is this.”

[21] Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, First Indiana University Press, 1989, page 162f.

[22] Radak.

[23] Peirushei Ralbag, Nevi’im Rishonim, Mosad Harav Kook, 2008.

[24] Joseph Caro quoted by Y. Kil.

[25] M. T. Segal, Sifrei Shmuel, Kiryat Sefer, 1976. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, The Anchor Bible, Doubleday and Company, 1980, is similar, as is Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, Meridian Books, 1957, pages 262-266; as is S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, T and T Clark, 1891; and many others.

[26] H. P. Smith, Samuel, The International critical commentary, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902.

[27] Arnold B. Ehrlich, Mikra ki-Pheschuto, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, page 141.

[28] Malcolm Gladwell, David and Goliath, Little, Brown and Company, 2013.

[29] Imaginative generally unrealistic interpretations

None of the following ideas is in the book of Samuel.

God awarded Orpah the sister-in-law of Ruth with giants as descendants because of the forty steps with which she accompanied her mother-in-law Naomi when Naomi returned to Judea from Moab. There four brothers and Goliath was one of them. He merited the ability to show his strength to the Israelites during the days of Saul for forty days, the number of steps (Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Jewish Publication Society, 1954).

David’s father encouraged David to help Saul, a Benjamite, because David was a descendant of Judah, son of the patriarch Jacob, and in Genesis Judah tried to protect Saul’s ancestor Benjamin, so a descendant of Judah should do it again (Ginzberg).

David did not pick up the five pebbles, they came to him. The five joined together and became one. When Goliath saw David, he was so impressed that he became leprous (Ginzberg).

Saul was afraid to fight Goliath because God took the divine spirit from him. Goliath came and threatened the Israelites in the morning and evening when the prayer shema was usually recited to confuse them and stop them from reciting it, so that God would not help them. Goliath was the son of one woman and a hundred lovers; she was a prostitute. Orpah merited to have giants because she cried when she left Naomi (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 42a).

Goliath frightened the Israelites when he said, don’t be amazed at my height; all Philistines are as tall as me (Rashi).

David was 28 years old when he fought Goliath. Goliath did not fall back when struck with the stone. God told an angel to push goliath forward so that the righteous David would not have to walk far. David took Goliath’s head on a tour of Israel to show the nation what God helped him do (Artscroll).

Esther is not as Simple as People Think

Written BY RABBI DR. ISRAEL DRAZIN 

The biblical book Esther, like Ruth, is one of the five Megilloth, scrolls that are read in synagogues on five different holidays during the year. Esther is read during the holiday of Purim because it tells the origin of the holiday. We no longer know who composed the book. The Babylonian Talmud[1] ascribes it to the men of the Great Assembly.[2] Rashi and others claim Mordecai composed the scroll.[3] Gersonides[4] states that the book was composed by means of the holy spirit to publicize a great miracle, how God saved Jews. Modern scholarship rejects both views and maintains that it was written by a Persian Jew or group of Jews familiar with the Persian palace practices and conditions.

Esther is the only Megillah (singular of Megillot) read twice, once in the evening synagogue service of Purim and a second time during the morning services on Purim. It is the only Megillah that is called “The Megillah,” the only one that is universally respectfully read from a parchment scroll, the only one in which the synagogue reader recites a blessing before and after reading the scroll, and the only one for which many Jewish households purchased their own parchment scroll to use in following along silently during the synagogue reading. The rabbis decreed that one does not say Hallel, the psalms of praise recited on all other holidays, on Purim because the book of Esther itself praises God.[5] Some Christians see Esther as prefiguring Jesus’ mother Mary and the gallows upon which Haman hung foreshadowing the cross.[6] In 2008, the Iranian government added the alleged tomb of Mordecai and Esther to their list of holy sites.[7] These distinctions are the result of the book’s immense popularity. Yet, the book of Esther is not simple at all.

Early rabbis, priests, and Christian ministers were dissatisfied with its content for many reasons, including God’s name being absent from the book, and there is no clear indication that Esther and Mordecai observed Jewish laws and that God assisted the Jews in stopping Haman’s evil plan to murder all the Jews.[8] There were Talmudic rabbis who felt that Esther should not be included as part of the Hebrew Bible.[9] To overcome these omissions, there are a multitude of midrashic amplifications of the story in such books as Midrash Rabba, add-on exceeding what was written for other Megilloth. Commentators have read ideas into the tale which are not explicit, additions were added into the Greek translation called “Apocryphal Additions,”[10] Josephus offered many elaborations in his book “Antiquities,” the Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, has many expansions, there are two Targums (early Aramaic translations of the Hebrew text) that enlarge, distort, and transform the story, and non-Jewish commentaries on Esther are legion.[11]

In addition:

1. The secular nature of the book prompted some rabbis to insist that Esther should not be included in the Bible.[12] No scrap of the book Esther was found at Qumran among the many Dead Sea fragments despite this religious community, which existed until around 68 CE, leaving fragments of all other biblical books. Did they reject the idea that Esther was a holy book?
2. The names in the book raise problems: We know of no Persian king called Ahasuerus. Modern scholars identify him as Xerxes I (485-464 BCE). His Persian name was Khshayarsha, meaning “venerable king,” which the Greeks rendered Xerxes. Ahasuerus is not very similar to Khshayarsha.[13] Xerxes was the son of Darius Hystaspes and succeeded him to the Persian throne in 486 BCE. His mother was the daughter of Cyrus. He was murdered by two courtiers and was succeeded to the throne by his son Artaxerxes Longimanus. His murder by two courtiers resembles the episode in Esther where Mordecai discloses an attempt by two courtiers to murder Ahasuerus, but in Esther they are not successful.
3. While the names Mordecai and Esther are “Hebrew names” today because they were the names of the heroes in this biblical book, they are actually Babylonian names, variations of the names of the great god of the Babylonian pantheon Marduk and the principal female deity in the Babylonian fertility and death cults Ishtar. Does the use of Babylonian names as well as the lack of indication that the two observed Jewish laws, Esther’s willingness to live as a wife of a pagan king, and live in a pagan non-kosher environment indicate they were assimilated Jews? Or, is the situation similar to Jews today using non-Jewish names?[14]
4. Haman’s and Vashti’s names are similar to the names of Elamite gods, Humman and Mashti. “Accordingly numerous scholars have postulated that Esther was a narrative which turned legends about the battles between gods and about the victory of the Babylonian gods over the Elamite gods into historical human events, thereby historicizing the legends.”[15]
5. The holiday that developed from the drama, Purim, is called by the non-Hebrew word pur, which the book defined as a lottery. Is this indicative as some scholars think that the holiday was originally a Persian festival?[16] Does the carnival nature of the holiday add evidence that it began as a secular celebration?
6. Esther fasted for three days[17] as a preparation to her meeting with Ahasuerus when she hoped to persuade the king to save the Jews from Haman. Wouldn’t a person who fasted for three days look terrible to the hedonistic king and wouldn’t she be too weak to lead a discussion about life and death and be persuasive? Esther fasted in the spring, but Judaism instituted a fast on 13 Adar, the day before the holiday of Purim, as the “Fast of Esther” for one day to commemorate her fast. Why only one day if it remembers and honors Esther’s three day fast and why was it moved to the day before Purim? 13 Adar was previously celebrated as Nicanor’s Day, after the Syrian general who threatened Jewish survival by attacking Jews on the Sabbath. He was killed by Judah Maccabee in 160 BCE.[18] Why was Nicanor’s day replaced by the Fast of Esther?
7. The book mentions many matters that do not conform to history as we know it. There is no historical evidence that there ever was an attempt to annihilate Jews in Persia. Xerxes wife until he died was not named Esther or Vashti but Amestris. Under Persian law, only a woman of noble descent could be queen, which would disqualify Esther. Haman could not have become second to the king, because by Persian law, this role was only filled by a Persian or a Mede. Verse 10:1 indicates that Ahasuerus’s kingdom included islands, but history indicates that the Persian king did not rule over islands in the days of Xerxes.[19] There is no reference in Persian sources of the irrevocability of decrees, which is a key element of the plot in Esther.[20]
8. It is highly unlikely that a celebration which included continuous drinking would last for six months, 180 days, or that the kings entire army, nobles, princes, and servants could attend during the entire period of 180 days with officials being absent from their posts for so long a period and soldiers being inebriated and failing to protect the country.[21]
9. There are many obscurities. Why did Ahasuerus wait until the third year of his reign to start his celebration? What was he celebrating? “Despite scholarly speculation, no satisfactory explanation exists for the particular number of 126 provinces.”[22] What prompted him to order his wife Vashti to appear before the revelers? When the text states she should come “with the royal crown”[23] does this mean that she should be naked[24] and only wear her crown, or is “crown” a synecdoche (a figure of speech where a part of something refers to the whole of something) for royal clothes? Why did she refuse the king’s order? Was it because, like her husband, she was drunk and did not realize she was making a fatal mistake, or was she insisting on the observance of Persian law that wives should not show their faces to strangers? Why didn’t the king observe this law? Chapter one mentions seven sarisim to bring Vashti to him and, after her refusal, seven “wise men who knew the times” for advice on how to react to Vashti’s refusal to obey him.[25] Does sarisim mean eunuchs or chamberlains?[26] Does “wise men who know the times” mean astrologers[27] or wise men who understand and can interpret events? Why after Haman was elevated are these assistants and advisors no longer mentioned? Why was Haman elevated to a high governmental position? Who was he? What happened to Vashti? Why did the king have to send seven men to bring her to him?[28] Was she killed, exiled, or simply ignored? What does the final part of Ahasuerus’s order “every man should rule in his own house and speak according to the language of his people”[29] mean? If it requires wives to speak the language of their husbands, what is the relevance of this command to the story; why did the king command it? Why did Vashti have a separate party for women; history reveals that Persian men and women ate and drank together at banquets? Why did Mordecai refuse to bow before Haman as all other people did? Why did Haman dislike Mordecai? Why did he take out his anger by planning to murder all Jews? When the book of Esther calls Mordecai and his coreligionists Yehudi (Yehudim is plural) does the word mean “Jew” or “Judean”?[30] Why does Haman’s wife say to him near the end of the book,[31]if Mordecai is Jewish “you will not get the better of him; he will be your utter downfall”? This seems to indicate that neither Haman nor his wife knew that Mordecai was Jewish; yet the plot of the tale is built on Haman wanting to kill Mordecai because he was Jewish? Why does the book sanction cruelty against the non-Jews? Why was there a need to kill non-Jews in Shushan an extra day? Is the objective of this book to teach that Jews should be confident that they will prevail against their enemies?
10. One of the obscurities may be the result of a mistake. Verse 1:8 states that Ahasuerus made abundant food and drink available to his guests at his banquets. “And the drinking was according to law; none did compel; for the king had appointed to all the officers of his house that they should do according to every man’s pleasure.” The problem is that the first phrase seems to say there were restrictions in the drinking (“according to law”) while the rest of the verse states there were no restrictions. Some scholars suggest that the word “not” was unintentionally deleted from the first phrase and it should read, as the Greek Septuagint, “not according to law.” [32] Similarly, the words “decorated with” are missing in the beginning of verse and are added in the Septuagint translation.
11. The book is filled with irony. Vashti is ordered to appear before Ahasuerus while, later, Esther states the king has not called her to come to him in a long time. Ahasuerus becomes angry because he does not want to allow his wife to tell him what to do, but later Esther succeeds in persuading the king to accept her view. Vashti disobeys the king’s command to come to him and is punished, while Esther disobeys his command to stay away and stirs him to act mercifully. The book begins with the king having two banquets and end with Esther arranging two banquets for him and Haman. Haman’s one mishap after another, such as being hung on the gallows he prepared for Mordecai and his trip to the king for permission to hang Mordecai ending with him having to show Mordecai honor, are ironic.
12. The numbers 3, 7, and 10 (a combination of 3 and 7) appear frequently. Is this an indication that the story is fabricated—these numbers abound in fairy tales? There was a banquet of seven days (1:5), Ahasuerus called Vashti on the seventh day (1:10), there were seven chamberlains and seven wise men (1:10 and 1:14). Esther had seven maidens (2:9), Esther was chosen as queen in the seventh year of Ahasuerus’s reign (2:16), The banquet was celebrated in the third year of the king’s reign (1:3), Esther demanded that the people fast for 3 days (4:16), Esther approached the king on the third day (5:1), the king’s servants read about Mordecai saving the king to the king on the 23rd day of the third month (8:9), 300 non-Jews were killed in Shushan (9:15), Esther was taken to the king in the 10th month (2:16), Haman bribed the king with 10,000 shekels (3:9), and Haman had 10 sons (9:10).

In short, the biblical book of Esther is not only not as simple as most people think, it also raises many questions, some of which are unanswerable.

Notes:

[1]    Bava Batra 15a.

[2]    We know close to nothing about the men of the Great Assembly, mentioned in Ethics of the Fathers 1:1 and elsewhere. They may have been a council of sages convened by Ezra or shortly thereafter during the Second Temple period, perhaps around 350 BCE, and who functioned for a short period of time.

[3]    Based on 9:20 and 32.

[4]    Gersonides, Perushei Hamigilot, A. Chacham, Mossad HaRav Kook, 2003, page 134. See also Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 15a.

[5]    Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 14a.

[6]    W. J. Fuerst, The Cambridge Bible Commentary, Cambridge University Press, 1975, page 38.

[7]    Israel National News, March 10, 2009.

[8]    We can only guess why the omissions exist. Some scholars suggest that the author realized that the book would be read during the annual merrymaking of Purim and it would be inappropriate to mention God’s name when it might be profaned or since the book mentions the victory of Jews over non-Jews, non-Jews might treat the book and God’s name inappropriately (Cohen, page 194).

[9]    Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 100a.

[10]   Apocrypha is derived from the Greek term apókryphos meaning “hidden, unknown, spurious.” Apocrypha was the name of a group of 14 books originally included in the third century BCE Greek translation called Septuagint.

[11]http://thetorah.com/unraveling-megillat-esther-how-the-story-was-developed argues that the megilah is composed of two separate stories woven together.

[12]   Babylonian Talmud, Megilah 7a.

[13]   Xerxes was the Persian king who famously attacked Greece in the fifth year of his reign. The Greek Herodotus describes him in his History of the Persian War VII-IX, as a foolish and vain man who was hot-tempered and capricious. This description fits Ahasuerus in Esther. “Ahasuerus may have been a title meaning ‘the chief of rulers’ and had been applied to other persons known to the author” Fuerst, page 44.

[14]   Fuerst, page 38.

[15]   Fuerst, ibid. Elam was a pre-Iranic civilization located in far west and southwest of modern Iran. Its capital was Susa. It was captured and fragmented in 640 BCE by Assyrians.

[16]   Fuerst, page 36.

[17]   4:16.

[18]   Fuerst, page 37; 2 Maccabees 15:1-37. The modern day Fast of Esther began in the times of the gaonim (see http://rcarabbis.org/pdf/Mitchell_First_The_Origin_of_Taanit_Esther.pdf ).

[19]   Y, Klein, Megilloth, Olam Hatankh, Divrei Hayamim, 1999, page 215.

[20]   Fuerst, page 50.

[21]   Verse 1:4. It is more likely that the book means that there were a series of celebrations with different people attending each one during a six-month period. A feast of 120 days is mentioned in Judith 1:16.

[22]   Carey A. Moore, The Anchor Bible Esther, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971, page4.

[23]   Verse 1:13.

[24]   As maintained by one view in the Talmud.

[25]   Verses 1:10 and 1:13. The wise men were called those “who saw the king’s face” in verse 14, suggesting that they could come and see the king when they wanted to do so, a power that the Queen and other people lacked.

[26]   The word means both.

[27]   As interpreted by Abraham ibn Ezra and others.

[28]   Verse 1:11.

[29]   Verse 1:22.

[30]   Yehudi originally meant Judean, i.e. a member of the tribe of Judah. When the ten tribes in the northern land of Israel were driven from their land, only the southern kingdom of Judah remained in existence and its inhabitants were called Judeans. Later all the people were called Judeans no matter from which tribe they were descendant. Judean soon morphed into a shortened version “Jew.” Since Yehudi can be translated as Judean or Jew, which is the more appropriate translation in Esther?

[31]   In 6:13.

[32]   Fuerst, page 45.

The Defense of The Qur'ân Against The Bible Borrowing Theory

Islamic Awareness

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

Last Updated: 14 June 1999

---

Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
The Qur'ân is made up of 114 Surahs: only 27 of them were revealed in Madinah while the remaining 87 were revealed in Makkah or some other nearby locations. It is to be reminded that the Jews were in Madinah and the Christians were in Najran and Yemen. There was no seat of Christianity in Mecca, in al-Hijaz nor in Madinah as stated by Bell:

...in spite of traditions to the effect that the picture of Jesus was found on one of the pillars of Ka'aba, there is no good evidence of any seats of Christianity in the Hijaz or in the near neighbourhood of Makkah or even of Madina.^[1]

Dr. Nabîh Aqel, a Professor of Arabic and Islamic History, University of Damascus, states in his book Tarîkh al-^cArab al-Qadîm:

The big difference between Christianity and Judaism is that Christianity unlike Judaism didn't have any bases in Hijaz , Christianity was an external source of enlightenment echoed in Hijaz either by missionary activities form Ethiopia, Syria and Iraq or from Alheerah's Christian centres; dair Hind al-Kubra [the order of Hind al-Kubra] - Um Amro al-Mundhir [the order of Um Amro]- Dair Hind al-Sugra [the order of Hind al-Sugra]) or from some of the scattered churches in Bahrain, al-Yamamah and Yemen.^[2]

Ibn Ishâq narrated also in al-Sîrah al-Nabawiyyah, speaking about four people from Quraysh (Mecca) who were among the generation that preceded the Prophet Muhammad^(P) and who had abandoned their people's faith (paganism) and went in search for their Haneefite roots.
These four men were Waraqah bin Nawfal, ^cAbdullâh bin Jahsh, ^cUthmân bin al-Huarith and Zaid bin Amro who said to each other "you know that your people had deviated from the religion of your father Abraham" and decided to search for their Haneefite roots and they "scattered into different countries seeking the Haneefite religion, the religion of Abraham". Ibn Ishâq said that Waraqah bin Nawfal had converted to Christianity as a result of his search. ^[3]
The migration of these four men out of Mecca shows that the city was completely a pagan society for if there was any significant Christian or Jewish presence in Mecca, it wouldn't be necessary for these men to travel in search for it.
Yet another piece of evidence is that during the period of Christian influence and power in Yemen, from Najran to Abyssinia (Ethiopia), history narrates to us the famous attempt of a great Christian army to conquer Mecca.  This army from Yemen was supported by elephants and was lead by Abraha, the Abyssinian.  The doomed invasion occurred in the same year that the Prophet Muhammad^(P) was born ,and later came to be known amongst the Arabs as the Year of the Elephant.  The army's aim was to vanquish Mecca, destroy the Ka'aba (the holy shrine built by Abraham^(P) and his son Ismâ^cîl^(P)) and then to convert the pagan Arabs to Christianity.  Once this was accomplished, they could force them to make pilgrimage to the great church named al-Qulais that Abraha had built in Yemen for this purpose.
Ibn Ishâq in al-Sîrah al-Nabawiyyah under the title The Story of the Elephant said:

Then Abraha built the "Qulais" in San'a, it was a church that people never saw its like in their time, then he wrote to the Abyssinian king; "I built for you O king, a church that no king had before you, and I'll not stop until I make the Hajj - that the Arabs perform to Ka'aba - shifted to it..."^[4]

Dr Helmi Mahroos Ismâ^cîl in his book al-Sahrq al-'Arabi al-Qadîm writes:

Abraha worked hard on spreading Christianity among the Yemens, he built many churches there the most important of it all was the "Qulais" in Sana'a which the Abyssinian took as their capital in Yemen. Abraha tried to make the Arabs to perform Hajj to it.^[5]

This Christian attempt lead by Abraha to destroy the Ka'bah corroborates that Mecca and al-Hijaz, in general, had no Christian or Jewish influence whatsoever even until the time the Prophet Muhammad^(P)was born. Abraha had failed in his attempt to destroy the Ka'bah and this was a subject of a Qur'ânic Chapter as a Sign from God (Surat al-Fîl) :

Seest thou not how thy Lord dealt with the Companions of the Elephant? Did He not make their treacherous plan go astray? And He sent against them flights of Birds Striking them with stones of baked clay. Then did He make them like an empty field of stalks and straw (of which the corn) has been eaten up. [Qur'ân: 105]

Historians could not explain how this great army of Abraha didn't reach its goals in conquering the weak- and almost surrendered city of Mecca!!
The following provides an excerpt from a Yemenite archaeological site that mentions, in part, this incident. Walter W. Muller, a specialized researcher in ancient Arabian history, under the subject Outline of the History of Ancient Southern Arabia, says:

Muller says: "Southern Arabia became an Abyssinian dominion, first under the local Christian vassal simyafa then under the former Abyssinian General Abreha (Abraha). In 542 .... An inscription dated 547, reporting of a campaign against the rebellious Maadd in Central Arabia (Ry 506). States that Abreha had already styled himself king. The most recently dated inscription of the Himyarite era (CIH 325) is from A.D. 554. It virtually marks the end of the well-documented ancient Southern Arabian epoch and heralds the decline of the Sabeo-Himyarite empire..... Towards the end of his reign, Abreha launched yet another military campaign against the North which has been preserved in the memory of the Arabs because of the elephants accompanying it. Abreha failed to take Mecca as he had intended and the operation had to be abandoned."

Without giving any reason why Abraha had failed in capturing Mecca even though it had surrendered!
Bernard Lewis in his book The Middle East: 2000 Years Of History From The Rise Of Christianity To The Present Day, writes:

Newly converted, the Ethiopians were fervent in their Christianity and responded eagerly to Byzantine embassies. Unfortunately for the Ethiopians, they were not able to complete the task assigned to them. They succeeded initially in crushing and destroying the last independent state in southern Arabia, and opening the country to Christian and other external influences, but they were not strong enough to maintain it. They had even tried to advance northwards from the Yemen, and in 507 CE had attacked Mecca, a Yemenite trading post on the caravan route to the north. The Ethiopians failed and were defeated, and a little later the Persians came to the Yemen in their place.^[6]

For further information on the story of this Christian campaign against Mecca a reference is made in al-Seerah al-Nabawiyyah. Below is a pre-Islamic poem from the same source that preserved the event by a person who had witnessed it. The poet Nufail bin Habeeb was there when the event took place and met with the fleeing soldiers of Abraha's army who asked him the directions to Yemen:

The poem can be roughly translated as follows:

Greetings Rudainah (A female name) we have been pleased with an early morning view. We had received - a seeker of fire - from your side (the word Qabis is used for a person who seeks fire or wood to be used as a source of light at night) but he could not find anything here. O Rudainah! if you have seen what we have seen near al-Muhasab (a location between Mecca and Mina) you would excuse me and not be saddened with what happened in the past between us. I thanked God when I saw the birds and I was afraid of stones that was thrown on us. And they (Abraha's men) were asking about me (to show them the way) as if I was owing them some previous debts.^[7]

Bernard Lewis also gave a brief summary on how al-Hijaz looked before the advent of Islam saying the weakness that hit the empires of the north and the south lead to the state that later came to be known to Arabs as al-Jahiliyyah (the days of ignorance).

The militant Christian monarchy which had emerged in Ethiopia developed a natural interest in the events on the other side of the Red Sea [Yemen]. Persians were, of course, always concerned to counter Roman or Christian - for them, the two were much the same - influence.

By this time even these remote outposts of Mediterranean civilization were influenced by the general economic decline of the ancient world.... At least part of the reason for this decline in Arabia must be sought in the loss of interest by both rival imperial powers. During the long period from 384 to 502 CE when Rome and Persia were at peace, neither was interested in Arabia or in the long, expensive and hazardous trade routes that passed through its deserts and oases. Trade routes were diverted elsewhere, subsidies ceased, caravan traffic came to an end, and towns were abandoned. Even settlers in the oases either migrated elsewhere or reverted to nomadism. The drying-up of trade and the reversion to nomadism lowered the standard of living and of culture generally, and left Arabia far more isolated from the civilized world than it had been for a long time. Even the more advanced southern part of Arabia also suffered, and many southern nomadic tribes migrated to the north in hope of better pasturage. Nomadism had always been an important element in Arabian society. It now became predominant. This is the period to which Muslims give the name Jahiliyya, the Age of Ignorance, meaning by that of course to contrast it with the Age of Light, Islam. It was a dark age not only in contrast with what followed, but also with what went before. And the advent of Islam in this, sense may be seen as a restoration and is indeed presented as such in the Qur'ân - as a restoration of the religion of Abraham.^[8]

Although the above excerpt paints a very dark image of how the situation was in Arabia before Islam, it is not totally true. The great amount of cultural heritage left by the Arabs of al-Hijaz represented, for example, by their literature shows that the term al-Jahiliyyah is not descriptive and was mainly used to mean the decline in the social/ethical standards, but nothing else. 
Furthermore; the failure of the Christian Abyssinian army of Abraha to capture Mecca made the pagan Arabs glorify the city even more. Mecca was mainly a pagan society that worshipped stones and trees, yet still believed in a Supreme God.  As the Qur'ân makes clear, they believed that their false gods and idols were a means of getting nearer to God:  

Is it not to Allah that sincere devotion is due? But those who take for protectors other than Allah (say): "We only serve them in order that they may bring us nearer to Allah." Truly Allah will judge between them in that wherein they differ. But Allah guides not such as are false and ungrateful. [Qur'ân: 39:3]

The historical evidence plus the internal evidence of the Qur'ân proves beyond any doubt that there was no Christian nor Jewish influence in al-Hijaz, in general, and in Mecca, in particular. So how was Muhammad^(P) borrowing from the Bible when the non-existence of any Arabic Bible or Arabic apocryphal sources has been proven?
Again the Qur'ân denies that someone was teaching the Prophet^(P) and at the same time points to the fact that the language is foreign.

We know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and clear. Those who believe not in the Signs of Allah Allah will not guide them and theirs will be a grievous Penalty. [Qur'ân 16:103-104]

Had someone been teaching Prophet Muhammad^(P), his family and close friends would have eventually known.  However, far from being skeptical about his claims to prophethood, these people gave their wealth and lives for Islam.
In Sûrah Fussilat, the Qur'ân explains the reason why the revelation is in Arabic. This is to make sure that the people who were experiencing it could not make excuses.

Had We sent this as a Qur'ân (in a language) other than Arabic they would have said: "Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a Book) not in Arabic and (a Messenger) an Arab?"Say: "It is a guide and a healing to those who believe; and for those who believe not there is a deafness in their ears and it is blindness in their (eyes); they are (as it were) being called from a place far distant!" [Qur'ân 41:44]

Now with the absence of Jewish and Christian sources in Mecca, the question remains: who was teaching Muhammad^(P) the stories of the old Prophets and Nations which were all revealed in Mecca as the following table shows:

Adam(P)	| 7: 11~25 Mecca | 15: 26~44 Mecca | 17: 61~ 65 Mecca | 18: 50 Mecca | |20: 115~126 Mecca | 38: 67~88 Mecca
Enoch(P)	|19:56~57 Mecca |
Nûh(P)	| Surat Noah ( the complete chapter) Mecca | 7: 59~64 Mecca | 10: 71~73 Mecca | 11: 25~49 Mecca | 21:76~77 Mecca | 23: 23~30 Mecca | 26: 105~122 Mecca | 29: 14~15 Mecca | 37: 76~82 Mecca | 54: 9~17 Mecca | 4:163~165 Madina | 6: 83~87 Mecca | 9:70 Madina | 14: 9 Mecca | 17:3 -17:7 Mecca | 38:12~14 Mecca | 40:5~6 Mecca | 42:12 Mecca | 50:12~14 Mecca | 51:46 Mecca | 53:52 Mecca | 57:26 Madina | 66:10 Madina |
Hûd(P)	|11:50~60 Mecca | 7:6~27 Mecca | 23:31~41 Mecca | 26:123~140 Mecca | 41:15~16 Mecca.| 46:21~25 Mecca | 51:41~42 Mecca | 53:50~55 Mecca | 54:18~22 Mecca | 69:6~8 Mecca | 89:6~14 Mecca |
Saleh(P)	| 7:73~79 Mecca | 11:61~68 Mecca | 15:80~84 Mecca | 17:59 Mecca | 26:141~159 Mecca | 27:45~53 Mecca | 41:17~18 Mecca| 54:23~32 Mecca | 91:15 Mecca |
Ibrahîm(P)	|14: 35~40 Mecca | 6:74~83 Mecca | 21:51~70 Mecca | 26:69~83 Mecca | 29:16~27 Mecca | 19:41~48 Mecca | 37:83~98 Mecca | 2:124~141 - 2:258 Madina | 22:26~27 Madina | 16:120~123 Mecca | 53:37 Mecca |
Ishmâ'îl(P)	| 14:37 Mecca | 2:127~129 Madina | 37:99~113 Mecca |
Ishâq(P)	|37:112~113 Mecca | 11:69~73 Mecca | 15:51~56 Mecca | 51:24~30 Mecca | 19:49 Mecca |
Lût(P)	| 7:80~84 Mecca | 11:69~83 Mecca | 15:51~77 Mecca | 26:160~175 Mecca | 27:54~58 Mecca | 29:28~35 Mecca | 37:133~138 Mecca | 51:31~37 Mecca | 54:33~40 Mecca |
Shuaib(P)	| 7:85~93 Mecca | 11:84~95 Mecca | 15:78~79 Mecca | 26:176~191 Mecca |
Yûsuf(P) Joseph	Surat Yousuf [ The complete chapter] Mecca
Ayoub(P) Job	| 6:84 Mecca | 4:163 Madina | [21:83~84] Mecca | 38:41~44 Mecca |
Yûnus(P) Jonah	| Surat Yonus [10:98] Mecca | 21:87~88 Mecca | 37:139~148 Mecca | |68:48~50 Mecca |
Moses(P)	| 19:51~53 Mecca | 28:1~44 - 28:76~83 Mecca | 20:9~100 Mecca | 27:7~14 Mecca | 17:101~104 Mecca | 7:103~155 - 7:159~174 Mecca | 43:46~56 Mecca | 33:69 Mecca | 26:10~68 Mecca | 79:15~25 Mecca | 41:45 Mecca | | 10:75~93 Mecca | 40:23~54 Mecca | 2:49~103 Madina | 18:60~82 Mecca |
Jesus(P)	|3:33~62 Madina | 5:72~77 - 5:110~120 Madina | 19:16~40 Mecca | | 21:90~91 Mecca | 4:156~159 Madina | 61:14 Madina | 57:27 Madina |

Arranged according to Qisas al-Anbya - Stories of the Prophets - by Imam Ibn Kathîr ^[10]

The only answer to the question of who was teaching Muhammad^(P) the Qur'ân can be found in these verses [53:2-5]

Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled. Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him. He was taught by one mighty in Power. [Qur'ân 53:2-5]

Christian missionaries attribute to Muhammad^(P) an encyclopedic knowledge, indirectly saying that he knew all the sources - Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hanif and ancient Arab beliefs - you name it - before he could compile the Qur'ân.  This ignores the simplest facts which the disbelievers from among his own people acknowledged 1400 years ago- that Muhammad^(P) was an illiterate man. The following verse, for example, was revealed in Mecca during the early stages of the Prophet's call: 

And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came) nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: in that case indeed would the talkers of vanities have doubted.Nay here are Signs self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge: and none but the unjust reject Our Signs [Qur'ân 29:48~49]

The Qur'ân had answered this accusation 1400 years ago; but all through the past thousand years were the Christian missionaries able to provide any further evidence for their claims?
It should be kept in mind that the Qur'ân was publicly memorized and recited by all Muslims, both during and after the life of Muhammad^(P).  If it was not clearly and widely known in Mecca that Muhammad^(P) was illiterate, the verses which claimed that he was certainly would have caused doubts amongst the Muslims.  However, not only did the Prophet's^(P) followers continue to grow - in spite of great persecution - but there is also no record of the pagan Arabs in Mecca accusing Muhammad^(P) of not being illiterate.  They instead accused him of having a tutor or of being possessed, as previous verses have shown, since it was common knowledge that he was illiterate.