I was listening to a cassette tape last night by Best Video Productions. A name popped up through a conversation that sparked my interest. It was a name I knew well; and a name that I have studied on my own and through a Bible correspondence course that I took. The name was "Haman," which comes from the Book of Esther.

There are certain aspects of the Bible that have been altered; or have been mistranslated by unscrupulous means. For this reason I am going to conduct this study on the Book of Esther to clarify a few things.

What is interesting about this book is that this book actually has no place in any truly Christian curriculum. There are several reasons for this:

1) The Book of Esther is the only Old Testament book not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

2) Neither God (El) or the Lord (Yahveh) is every mentioned.

3) The Jews did not pray to Him to prevent their massacre (at the hand of Haman) nor did they thank Him for their deliverance.

4) Fasting and mourning, feasting and gladness are mentioned; that is all.

5) This book was not admitted to Old Testament Canon until very late in the First Century A. D. because of these discrepancies, and many more.

6) During the First Century - shortly after the fall of Jerusalem - the Jews suddenly ranked this book very high. Rabbi Simon Ben Lakish (A.D. 300) says, "Next to the Law;" Maimonides says, Although the Prophets will pass away when Messiah comes, Esther and the Law will remain." Little Ditto here; some how I think that it actually is the other way around.

There are certain points in the story-line that doesn't seem to ring with much validity. These are:

1) In Esther 1:1 the kingdom is said to have 127 provinces when history records only 20.

2) The King would never have commanded his Queen to parade her physical attributes before "the people' (Es. 1:11). This is also true of more recent Monarchs. Most of what they did were behind closed doors, a way from the scrutiny of the people, or their subjects.

3) Issuing the King's decree in the various languages of the different provinces was contrary to Persian custom (Es. 1:19-22)

4) The historian, Herodotus, reported that Persian law limited the King to selecting a Queen from among the daughters of the "seven" most noble Persian families. In other words, to keep the royal blood line pure. Even back then they were thinking about this. Also, by tradition, the nobles would have chosen the King's wife for him. The King never would have chosen a Queen from among the fairest virgins in the Empire(Es. 2:1-4).

5) Esther was raised by Mordecai as his daughter (Es. 2:5-7), and he revealed that he was a Jew. However, Esther was able to conceal the fact of her race (Es 2:10, 20). This isn't logical.

6) Mordeai's ability to visit the harem daily (Es. 2:11) is contrary to the custom at that time, and even in modern times.

7) Haman's long toleration of Mordecai's insults (Es. 3:2, 5) is unusual for oriental conduct. In fact, it probably wouldn't have been tolerated.

8) The decree against the Jews was written on, "the 13th day of the first month" (Es. 3:12) and rushed to the provinces by royal command (Es. 3:15). It stated that the Jews were to be slaughtered and their possessions looted, on "the 13th. day of the twelfth month (Es. 3:13)." Haman was very considerate to provide the Jews with this information.

9) (Es. 7:3-4), Here Esther reveals that she is a Jewess and that her people have been ordered killed. The King had already given Haman permission to move against the Jews (Es. 3:8-11), and now he is astonished to hear about it (Es. 7:5-6). The King then had Haman hung (Es. 7:9-10).

10) The King told Esther to write a new decree as she pleased and to seal it with "his ring," in other words, reversing a royal decree that Esther ordered (8:5); Something that Daniel tells us that, "the law of the Medes and Persians...altereth not" (cannot be changed - Daniel 6:8, 15) She was even told to use the Kings ring, which was unprecedented (Es. 8:8). The new order authorizes the Jews, "to destroy, to slay, to cause to perish all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey (Es. 8:11). Esther was even permitted to have a second day of slaughter (Es. 9:12 - 15). She was even permitted to slaughter those in the Palace of Shushan. Isn't the Palace the place where the King and his family reside? Does it seem plausible that the King would permit the slaughter of members of his own family? You have to remember, Esther was not even the Kings own nationality. It doesn't seem logical that he would permit this.

The Feast of Purim is the Jewish celebration of this great slaughter (Es. 9:20 - 28) by Judaism. The first mention of Purim is found in the Apocrypha, II Maccabees 15:36 - "The day before Mardocheus' Day." This feast is the only man made feast in the Bible. All other feasts came from God for his Glory.

11) None of the Personages of the book receive the slightest mention in any history, nor in any other Book of the Bible. The names are mostly Semitic, not Persian. King Ashasuecrus (unknown) is commonly considered to be the Xerxes of secular history, but his queen is Amestris; the daughter of a Persian general.

12) The Hebrew used to write the Book of Esther is as late a form of the language as any used in the Old Testament. The Aramaic influence (Aramaic replaced Hebrew. At the time of Christ, Hebrew was actually a dead language). Many of the words used in the book are found elsewhere only in Rabbinical writings of the Greek period. It seems that Esther is an elaboration of Babylonian Legend (The Jews are Babylonia the Great, not the United States) concerning the conflict between Babylonian and Elamite (Persian) god's. Here we see the Babylonian influence on the Rabbinical writings of the period. It is generally acknowledge that Judaism (Jew's religion) had its beginnings in Babylon: the, "Tradition of the Elders" later becoming known as the "Talmud." Here are the comparisons:

"Hadassah" is Babylonian, "Hadashati," "bride," a title of some Babylonian goddesses.

"Esther" is the Syrian form of Ishtar, Babylonian Goddess of fertility.

"Mordecai" is the Greek form of the Babylonian God, "Marduk." (Esther and Mordecai were cousins; so were Ishtar and Marduk)

"Haman" or "Humman" was a Persian god.

"Vashti" was a Persia goddess.

"Zeresh," wife of Haman, is possibly derived from "Kirisha," another persian goddess.

A few more points to be made: 1) This book was not regarded as sacred in the first century. 2) The early church made no use of it; Syrian Christians called it Apocryphal. 3) The Nestorians (followers of 5th Century Patriarch Nestorius) never had it in their Old Testament. 4) Melito (170 A.D.) omits it from the Canon, Origen (225 A.D.) does not include it among the Historical Books. 5) It was rejected by the Greek Church for "four centuries;" however, it was accepted by the Latin Church and Jerome included it in his "Vulgate." In other words, it looks as if the Book of Esther is nothing more than another, "Jewish fable" as mentioned by Paul in Titus 1:14.

What more can I say? You must study to show yourself approved. This doesn't mean just reading the Bible or go to church. It takes courage and committment to follow the things of God even if it means the things we don't like to do; like studying the little things that seem to always trip us up. I think that we should realize that God is going to hold us accountable for more of the little things, rather than the big things. The little things are subtle, and don't seem to carry much weight; but the big things are visible, and we seem to think that because they are more noticeable, God will judge them more harshly. Actually, the other way is more true. It is the little things in life that God will bring out into the open for all to see.