Open main menu

UntitledEdit

from http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/ :

We are bound, however, to mention some critical objections.

(1) The Babylonian festival corresponding to Purim was not the spring festival of Zagmuk, but the summer festival of Ishtar, which is probably the Sacaea of Berossus, an orgiastic festival analogous to Purim.

riiiight, Purim occurs in summer not spring and is celebrated with wild orgies, sure :P Kuratowski's Ghost 02:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(2) According to Jensens theory, Mordecai, and not Esther, ought to be the direct cause of Hamans ruin.

(3) No such Babylonian account as Jensen postulates can be indicated. (4) The identifications of names are hazardous. Fancy a descendant of Kish called Marduk, and an Agagite called Hamman! Elsewhere Mordecai (Ezra ii. ~ Neh. viL 7) occurs among names which are certainly not Persian (Bigvai is no exception), and Haman (Tobit xiv. 50) appears as a nephew of Achiachar, which is not a Persian name. Esther, moreover, ought to be parallel to Judith; fancy likening the representative of Israel to the goddess Ishtar!

Achiachar is generally understood to be the Persian name Akhuwakhshatra = Cyaxares. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see a counterpoint on the idea that Esther is historical fiction (to make the entry more balanced). Anyone know of one? -- Ram-Man

Most of the Old Testament is Mythology, and, aside from a minority of relgious nuts, this is the consensus of the vast majority of scholarship.99.150.202.21 (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The arguments against its historicty are typical 19th century pseudo-scholarship. Lets take a look:
As opposed to the staunch, solid scholarly rigor that the writers of the Bible were toiling under.99.150.202.21 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. Vashti allegedly comes from an Elamite water spirit Mashti - but that name is entirely fabricated and not attested in any source - it is a fabrication based on the attested Persian water spirit Mah and the name Vashti in Esther.
  2. Haman allegedly comes from an Elamite or Babylonian god or demon named Human or Uman or Humban or Humnan again all of which are unattested fabricated names - they are frabrications based the attested Persian earth spirit Asman and the unrelated Babylonian demon Humbaba and the name Haman from Esther.
  3. Mordecai is supposedely Marduk but the name in fact means "servant of Marduk" and is an attested genuine name in the form Mardaka. Its use amongst Jews can be undertood by the fact that "Marduk" was the creator in Babylonian mythology and that his name could conceiveably have been used by Jews simply to mean God.
  4. Esther is supposed to be Ishtar despite the fact that Judaism was well aware of the goddess Ishtar whom it calls Ashtoreth and opposed to her worship (duh). The names are phonetically unrelated in Hebrew - roots aleph-samech-tav-resh for Esther vs ayin-shin-tav-resh for Ishtar/Ashtoreth. Esther was named Hadassah in Hebrew meaning myrtle and "astra" is a known word for myrtle from the region of Media, related to the Indo-European root for "star" based on the appearance of the flowers. While still conjectural it is far more sensible that the name Esther is related to this word and is simply a translation of her Hebrew name. The only real connection with "Ishtar" would then be the coincidence that "Ishtar" is probably also related to the ancient root for "star". Ishtar being the goddess identified iwth the planet Venus.
  5. Hamantaschen are supposed to derive from the cakes baked to honour Ishtar mentioned in Jeremiah but hamantaschen were invented in Eastern Europe in relatively recent times.
Kuratowski's Ghost 00:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The "balance" is that the Bible says what it says, and all the historical facts we have contradict it, as the Book of Esther article says. Would you like to combine the two articles and make one title redirect to the other? I think that would be a great idea. -- isis 15:55 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)
Depending on who you identify Ahasuerus with there are some contradictions with what various Greek historians claim but the Greek historians in fact contradict each other as well as Persian records. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have to admit that I am extremely uncomfortable with a section entitled "History" that then goes on to summarize just what the Megillah says. Could we just call it "The Story"? Ok, that sounded lame - but unless there is absolute proof, I dislike leaving it as "History". FlaviaR (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

ESTHER IS REALEdit

Stop smoking what ever you are smoking!!!!! The bible has never been proven wrong but everything points to its reality! There is no way to proven it wrong!

The above was written by the IP 67.50.215.221 Samboy 00:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • sign
  • cut down on the !'s
  • this is just, like, your opinion, many people will laugh in your face for such reasoning
  • There is no way to proven it wrong – you bet there is. it's even self-contradictory, in parts. The parts that cannot be proven wrong are worthless as factual statement anyway. Falsifiability.
Falsifiability, the Bible actually doesn't contradict itself. Certain interpretations of the Bible contradict themselves, most of them interpreted so intentionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RCIWesner (talkcontribs) 08:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

dab 10:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) No one will believe you if you don't provide credible sources, Dbachmann. I have never seen the bible contradict itself. Arlen22 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22

The {} sign/sEdit

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we remove the NPOV notice, can we also take the 'marginal' out of Some marginal modern scholars? What is a 'marginal scholar'? Most scholars will not take the biblical account for historical fact. dab 10:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Only true of you exclude all Bible believing Christian scholars and all Jewish scholars other than the minority Humanistic Jews. :P Kuratowski's Ghost 00:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Bible believing Christian scholars", meaning, literally believing in the literal letter? How can you be a scholar if there is no room for debate? More to the point, how many of them are there? I imagine they cluster in the American midwest, but worldwide, they must be pretty rare. dab () 07:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well only the fundamentalists believe that every single word is divinely inspired truth (and fundamentalists are not a negligible group). Many will recognize that the story is "dramatized" but there is a big difference bewteen recognizing dramatization and adhering to 19th century crank arguments. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is amazing that Greek stories can be recorded as fact (these people believed in Gods and Goddesses who were mythical)so why would their stories not be mythical also?207.119.91.193 20:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that everyone is expected to know that they are myths. However some stories are attested to be true. Such as the story of ancient Tyre which has long since been Proven true. Arlen22 (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22

AhasuerusEdit

well, the Xerxes article mentions the connection, the Artaxerxes one doesn't. What is the basis for either identification? The Herodotus reference of course relies on the identification with Xerxes. dab () 07:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The identification with Xerxes I is based on the fact that the most plausible explanation of the name Ahasurus is that it is derived from Khshayarsha as is Xerxes. Xerxes II is too late therefore Xerxes I. Artaxerxes II based on the fact that the Septuagint version of Esther calls him Artaxerxes as does Josephus plus the description of the extent of his empire which doesn't fit Artaxerxes I. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Besides these most popular identifications there are several other theories including identifications with various Cyaxares, Cyrus, Camyses, Darius, Arses etc. The information from Greek historians is problematic and is by no means certain that they name the kings consistently, one historians Artaxerxes III appears to match anothers Artaxerxes II for example (can't remember the details off hand) the bottom line is that not enough information is known to be certain about which king was which in Greek sources let alone which king matches Ahasuerus. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the POV comments that Esther's family didn't avail themselves of the opportunity to return under Cyrus' decree. Nothing like that is stated in the Book of Esther. Perhaps they were prevented from returning against their will. It is not even agreed that the events happen after the decree. If one interpets the statement about exile under Nebuchadnezzar as referring to Mordecai himself not to his ancestor Kish (as many do) then Mordercai is a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar. If that is the case then Ahasuerus is most likely identical to the Ahasuerus mentioned in Tobit as an ally of Nebuchanezzar. This Ahasuerus is also called Achiachar generally considered indentical to Cyaxares (Akhuwakhshtra), placing the events long before Cyrus decree before the conquest of Babylon by the Persians in fact. Some will point to the description of Ahasuerus ruling from Cush to India which seems to contradict the idea that this occurs while the Babylonian empire still existed, but it is not certain which Cush this refers to - Cush in Sudan/Ethiopia or Cush in Iran. Even if Sudan is intended this could merely be a biased view of history in which Nebuchnezzar is being deliberately snubbed and portrayed as a vassal of his ally Ahasuerus. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hadashatu and other nonsenseEdit

Hadassah might look similar to Hadashatu to an English speaker but its actually completely different in Hebrew, Hadashatu is cognate of Hebrew Chadash (chet-dalet-shin) and means "new" not bride nor is it a standard title of Ishtar. In semitic languages it doesn't look anything like Hadassah (he-dalet-samech) meaning myrtle. Ishtar is not the Aramaic for Esther. There are no known Elamite deities named Humman, Uman or whataver or Mashti. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps Isaac Asimov let me down? How about "Ishtar and Marduk were also cousins, as Esther and Mordecai are", is that wrong? What do you have to say about this: "Humban was an Elamite god, the principal god of Elam and was known there as 'The Master of Heaven.' His first wife was the Elamite goddess Pinikir, but he later married Kiririsha, a goddess from Liyan, an Elamite port on the Lower Sea (Persian/Arabian Gulf). They had a son named Hutran." [1] Pfalstad 01:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
p347 of the Archeology of Elam by D. T. Potts has a table which lists Humban as an Elamite god, attested in various places.. Go on amazon [2] and search inside the book for "humban pantheon". Kiririsha is mentioned too but I don't know if/where she is attested. Pfalstad 02:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The name Humban is a reading that has been dismissed as far as I know as has Mashti.
Explicitly the reading is thought to be Huban, with a connection to Babylonian Humbaba being purely conjectural. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Moreover the H in Huban is hard, Khuban is the standard transliteration. Khumban- occurs as an element in the royal name Khumbanigash there is also an element Khumma- in royal names. Their meaning can only be conjectured at. Haman in Hebrew has a soft h trying to get Haman out of these is silly. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Some of the info added is simply irrelavant to the article. All the Babylonian gods and godesses are part of a close family tree making many of the some sort of cousin of each other, something which is never emphasized explicitly. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The fact that Herodotus fails to mention Esther and Mordecai is irrelevant there is a lot that he doesn't mention. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, given that Marduka was mentioned as a Persian official in an inscription, odds are it's based on a true event.. It might be a good idea to add to the historicity section to more completely address this theory. There's a lot of stuff in the talk, but I think it's worth moving it to the article, given how common this theory is on the web and Isaac Asimov and such. Maybe also merge the historicity info in Esther and Book of Esther. Pfalstad 13:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the info should be merged into the section in Book of Esther. Mention also needs to be made of Dr Chaim Cheifetz's proposal that Omanes and Anadatos mentioned by Strabo are references to Haman and Hammedatha. Strabo describes them as deities worshipped with Anahita but no such deities are known in Persian sources, Cheifetz proposes that they are Haman and Hammedatha being worshipped as martyrs. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarifying nameEdit

`Ashtoreth is the presumed cross-language Hebrew/Canaanite COGNATE correspondence to Ishtar, based on common Proto-Semitic linguistic heritage, while Esther could very well be a simple direct BORROWING from late Akkadian into Hebrew (after the `Ayin sound had disappeared from the Akkadian languages, etc.). Similarly, "Foot" is the native English cognate to the Greek word pous/pod-, while "pod-", as in "podiatrist", is a direct borrowing of this Greek cognate form into English. So there's no real conflict between `Ashtoreth and Esther. AnonMoos 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

See article doublet (linguistics) ... AnonMoos

This is "original research" and also flawed - there is no reason for the "sh" of Ishtar to turn into an "s" in a supposed Hebrew borrowing. Kuratowski's Ghost 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it is NOT "original research"!!!! For someone who knows actually something about some subjects and is not a troll, you are certainly incredibly annoying and difficult to work with. A random source that I happen to have in front of me right now is the "Dictionary of the Bible" by John L. McKenzie, and there are plenty more out there to be found without too much difficulty. Furthermore, there is plenty of reason for Akkadian Š to become Hebrew S, because the sound-values of the conventional cuneiform transcriptions were determined basically by correlating Proto-Semitic reconstructed sounds with cross-linguistic transcriptions of the second millennium B.C., and are by no means necessarily accurate phonetic literal IPA transcriptions (especially for outlying dialects, or those not of the second millennium B.C.). For example, Hebrew Sargon (with samekh) corresponds to the name which in conventional scholarly cuneiform transcription appears as Šarru-kin. AnonMoos 04:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll grant you Assyrian Akkadian (supposed) "sh" becoming "s" in Hebrew. Give a reference in the article and it will be acceptable. Kuratowski's Ghost 04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why won't it let me put diacritics in the right order?????Edit

Every time I try to put dagesh before sere, it automatically undoes my changes. Having the diacritics in the wrong order reduces the chances of correct browser display... AnonMoos 19:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Esther is cool!!!!!!!!!!

Reversing the edictEdit

The antisemitic edict was never reversed per-se, as occurs with Daniel and praying to false Gods elsewhere in the Bible, Persian royal decrees were irreversible. Ahasuares simply issued a contrary, but not exactly opposite, decree. I have editted the article to note this.

Deleted section "Talmud"Edit

I deleted a section headed "Talmud" that contained only this string of words: "The talmud a religious text of Judaism states that where 600,000 female prophets and 600,000 male prophets yet it states only 7 of female prophet's names are known she is included in that group of 7." Since it is beyond my comprehension, I have moved it here for one more learned in kabbalistic lore to translate. ➥the Epopt 03:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad reasoning on name derivationEdit

"Some critics of the historicity of the Book of Esther seized on this as evidence to support a view that the story of Esther derived from a myth about Ishtar. However, in Hebrew the goddess was referred to by the Hebrew cognate of her name - Ashtoreth. "Esther" cannot be derived directly from the latter."

The English names "Joshua" and "Jesus" both descend from the Hebrew name "Yehoshua". The fact that we got "Jesus" from "Yehoshua" does not in any way prove we didn't get "Joshua" from "Yehoshua" as well. It is by no means evidence that the name "Esther" did not descend from "Ishtar" because the name "Ashtoreth" also descended from "Ishtar". I vote to have the text in italics above removed from the article. It's pretty obvious that people taking the Bible's accuracy entirely on faith are trying to influence the content of this article by downplaying possible objections or criticisms. Wje 14:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you read the article properly, it considered the possibility that it derives from a late form of Ishtar. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That argument, while worth noting, it also presented as being very solid, followed by a "But some people believe it really happened." I have no numbers to show, but I'm pretty sure more people believe it as fact of history than of convoluted twist of borrowed myths (Jews, Christians, and some Muslims and Agnostics besides, all in all a pretty high count). RCIWesner (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think devoting three paragraphs that try to decipher the origin of the name 'Esther' is overkill and belongs in a separate article on the name itself and not in a 'supposed' encyclopedia article on the biblical/historical person. MapleLeaf

I think it should be boiled down to what's accepted, what is provable, and what is plausible. None of this "This name sounds like this other name from this other language that.. isn't actually related. So these other guys that don't speak the language at all are right." Giving Esther's name an article of its own may be a bit much I think, but if the discourse can't be contained in here, then that seems to be the best way to do it. RCIWesner (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

VandalimsEdit

There is a lot of vandalims. I have gone back about 15 edits and still haven't found where the last non-vandalism edit starts. Could an admin help out.

Vashti Naked?Edit

I've checked every version of the bible on Bible Gateway[3] and I can't find any that say that the king ordered his first queen, Vashti to appear naked before his guests. Does anyone have a bible that says this? --24.22.98.21 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in Talmud, that's why you can't find it. FlaviaR (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference Please Arlen22 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22

Actually the Bible does not say that Vashti was ever naked, but it does say that Ahasuerus was drunk and asked VAshti to display her beauty to his guests--98.166.90.125 (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

La Historia de ColombiaEdit

This article has a main heading titled "La Historia de Colombia". Doesn't this mean, "The History of Colombia" when translated from Spanish into English? I'm sure this must be a vandalism that slipped through the cracks, but I'm not sure what this should be reverted to. Could someone please fix this, or explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Catto (talkcontribs) 18:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Bible never says those exact words, but it does say that Ahasuerus was drunk and wished for Vashti to Display her Beauty I.e. yes you know what!!

Unbiased presentation of informationEdit

I don't know enough about this particular subject, otherwise I would have revised it myself, but I really think that there's a desperate need for a clean-up mission here - the article is filled with undertones that detract from the information being presented, for instance, if you look at this paragraph:

"The King also issued a second edict allowing the Jews to arm themselves, and this precipitated a series of reprisals by the Jews against their enemies. This fight began on the 13th of Adar, the date the Jews were originally slated to be exterminated. Esther and the Jews went on to kill not only their would be executioners but also their wives and children, this altogether meaning three hundred killed in Susa alone, seventy-five thousand killed (fifteen thousand in the Greek biblical account) in the rest of the empire."

This is filled with rhetoric that paints a certain picture and the figures provided are unsubstantiated with primary resources. Girl-razor (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The article shows clear traces of tendentious editing. It is pointless to keep this article separate from Book of Esther anyway, as all it can ever do is report on the content of the Book of Esther and its reception. --dab (��) 10:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

DisambiguationEdit

The disambiguation consists of two lines (I added the second one because I feel that it is very likely that users looking for the biblical book will use "Esther" as a search term), but due to the way that the template for general disambiguation is set up, I cannot figure out how to make the two lines within the disambiguation line up, and I think it looks somewhat odd as is. Can somebody help me out? CopaceticThought (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"The severity of the verdict was meant to provide an example to all women in the empire concerning obediance and submission "Edit

This was sourced to Esther 1:17. In the New American Standard Bible this reads ""For the queen's conduct will become known to all the women causing them to look with contempt on their husbands by saying, 'King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought in to his presence, but she did not come.'" I've reverted it to the earlier version of the sentence with the original request for citation, as I don't see how this citation can be used as a reference for the sentence. Not only does it not say what the sentence says, we probably need a WP:RS for this. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
She was deposed to prevent that from happening ""For the queen's conduct will become known to all the women causing them to look with contempt on their husbands by saying, 'King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought in to his presence, but she did not come.'"Arlen22 (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22
Should we include verses 16-21? Arlen22 (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22

No. 'Was meant' is an interpretation. We need a source for the interpretation. Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, if you mean replace the sentence with a paraphrase of those verses, and cite the verses, that would probably work. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging Rabbinic with Biblical ArticleEdit

I'd like to see discussion of the rabbinic literature kept apart from the article about the Biblical book of Esther, because they were written so far apart in time, and because the book of Esther is important to Christian religion, while rabbinic literature is not. Unfree (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sassanids?Edit

Can we delete the Sassanid reference? There is plenty of historical evidence that the story of Esther predates the Sassanids by hundreds of years. I think whoever added that reference is confusing scholarship about Esther with scholarship about the tomb that is often purported to be Esther's. The tomb may date from the Sassanids (i.e. even if biblical Esther were real, the tomb would not be hers). However, the existence of the story of Esther definitively predates the Sassanids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckstar (talkcontribs) 07:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There may also be confusion because there seems to be some evidence of a Jewish wife of one of the Sassanid kings that may have taken the name Esther or been referred to as Esther. If true, this would have been someone playing off what at that time was a many-centuries-old story. Chuck (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I saw you already removed it. I think that was a little too hasty. If you want to remove sourced information, you have to make sure. After you check the books and find that the books were misunderstood, then it would be the right time to remove the references to Sassinids. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The second reference is definitely misunderstood. See [4]. It says that "the story of Ester .. might have occurred sometime in the second century BCE", and then continues to tell that Persia regained independence under the Sassanids in the second century CE. The reader might have confused BCE and BE. Debresser (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I know I'm responding pretty late to this, but for the record: I waited two weeks for comments before I removed it. Considering the info was patently untrue (regardless of the existence of a reference), I don't think that was hasty. Even if the referenced book made the claim, it would be such an over-the-top ridiculous claim that it wouldn't belong in wiki, except perhaps as an example of an over-the-top ridiculous claim. (i.e. not every crazy claim made in print belongs in a wikipedia article on the topic.) Chuck (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

VandalismEdit

This page seems to be prone to vandalism. Perhaps we should semiprotect it, to exclude IP users from editing it/ Opinions? Debresser (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Although reverting nonsense sometimes gets old and it becomes even more so when its the same idiot over and over, I only see seven or eight obvious cases of vandalism in the last 3+ months. I think this falls well below the threshold to protect a page. Ckruschke (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Real person?Edit

This article makes it unclear whether Esther is a fictitious person or a historical figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.135.232 (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think when you read "According to the Bible" in the opening sentence and nothing in the text talks to an ACTUAL Esther, it is somewhat obvious that no one has made a historical find connecting a real person to the Biblical Esther. However, it might be prudent to say this in the lede. Ckruschke (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
According to the Tanakh, specifically the Book of Esther, she was an actual person. So we have a written source describing (an episode in) her life, dated over 2000 years ago. That seems pretty damn "actual" to me. Historical finds would shed additional light on her, but I see no reason why the absence of such would make her less historical. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Easy now. I'm a very conservative Christian and thus agree that if the Bible says it, it must be true. However, "the rest of world" doesn't see the Bible/Tanakh as anything more than fancy stories. I probably should have been a little clearer by saying historians and researchers have found no evidence of Esther that corroborates the text of the Tanakh/Bible. Ok - still friends? Ckruschke (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Of course we are. :) Still, these stories are based on certain facts, even according to the most skeptical. So if a whole book is all about her, I suppose we may assume she existed. In any case, if there is a source that mentions that no historical findings corroborate her existence, then we could add that to the Origin and meaning section. I think that saying "According to the Bible" in the lede is already clear enough in this regard, as you also mentioned above, and no need to be more explicit in the lede. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't follow this at all. You are saying that if someone has a whole religious book about them, they must have existed? There's no logic to that. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I find that a lot more logically sound than saying that a whole book was written (and revered) about a completely fictional person. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
If my fellow editors will allow me, I'd like to express my personal opinion about this subject. I have always been utterly wondered by the shortsightedness of those who call themselves scholars, and are willing to accept the most obscure and partial archaeological inscription as basis for elaborate and often contradictory theories, always hoping for another clay-stone or archive of another city-king, while refusing to accept as such the elaborate and precise writing of the Old Testament, which have been faithfully rendered into our times since at least some 2,000 years. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing "precise" about the Biblical books. Some like the Book of Genesis are mythological narratives, others like the Books of Kings are in part biased historical accounts and in part ancient propaganda. That obscure archaeological inscription has a greater chance of shedding light to the past of humanity than the elaborate and unreliable Biblical narrative. Dimadick (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not talking about Genesis. And almost any source is likely to be biased. So let's just agree to disagree regarding this. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think the lead is fine the way it is, though it's a little on the short side. It has the important words "According to the Bible", it has the traditional historic identification, but it remains agnostic about her existence. StAnselm (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Our article on the book discusses its historicity, putting forward the suggestion that it was meant as a historical novella, a common genre "describing historical events but ...not necessarily historical fact." It also discusses possible historical inaccuracies. Looks like we need to say something about this perspective in this article. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Three editors here seem to think that the words "According to the Bible" that are presently in the lede, are enough of a qualification in this regard. Debresser (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Let's here from them then, as they probably weren't aware of this. Why keep relevant material about the Book of Esther out of this article? Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think "I" was merely answering a question - didn't really see this much discussion coming - and not really commenting on the article itself. I think the lede is fine as is, but, as I said originally, there may be a gap we need to close and thus would be open to whatever you or any other editor has in mind Doug. Ckruschke (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
I'd just like to point out that the "suggestion" at Book of Esther is that "according to some sources, it is a historical novella". I don't think that article is, or should be, privileging that hypothesis above others. StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not a matter of privileging. The lede of this article is very short. To mention this specifically, in addition to the already present words "According to the Bible" would be excessive. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to add another voice here: I think it would be appropriate to adjust the lede slightly to reference the lack of other sources for the existence of Esther. Perhaps the second sentence could be changed to something like "Ahasuerus is traditionally identified with Xerxes I during the time of the Achaemenid empire, although non-Biblical sources have not been found that reference Xerxes I, or any other Persian monarch of the time period, having a Jewish queen nor that reference the events of the Book of Esther." I object to the phrase "historical novella" as it seems pretty POV, to me. Let's just leave it that there are no other sources than the Bible, and let readers decide what they think. BTW, not wedded to my exact wording, just thought I'd throw something out there. Chuck (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Quote box under "Esther's rhetoric in practice"?Edit

Does anyone know why the box is there about the paragraph on Christine de Pizan and how to get rid of it?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayloraapplegate (talkcontribs)

In popular cultureEdit

There is a novel about Esther: Chosen: The Lost Diaries of Queen Esther by Ginger Garrett. I think this and other novels (I assume others exist) should be included in the article. Kdammers (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Esther. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Code BrokenEdit

User:Debresser, what seems to be the code problem your edits speak of? Alephb (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There was a red error message yesterday, but it is gone now. Thanks for asking. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Should this article have an infoboxEdit

There is currently a discussion about this question on the related Talk:Vashti#Infobox. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Esther" page.