ESTHER 8:9: THE LONGEST VERSE IN THE BIBLE

Previously, I published a post titled “Jesus Wept.” (John 11:35) Since it is the shortest verse in the King James Bible, I thought it was interesting that even a cursory look into the scholarly literature yielded a surprising amount of comments and thoughts. So I am going to attempt the same thing with what is generally felt to be the longest verse in the Bible.

But before beginning, it is only fair to admit that there is no special significance to these two extremes; zeroing in on these two particular verses is somewhat of an academic exercise. That is because results differ somewhat depending on which translation and which language one is using. And, even more significantly, the verse divisions should not at all be considered inspired by God since our current Bibles have adopted a verse numbering system first devised by a printer for inclusion in his 1553 French translation.

Thus, the excessive length of the verse alone is no guarantee that Esther 8:9 has any particular significance. As Cary Moore says, “Although the longest verse in The Writings, the third major sub-division of the Hebrew Bible, it is hardly the most important, differing from iii 12 and i 1 only in three particulars: the date, originator, and intent of the edict.” But despite this sentiment, Clines reminds us, “The language of this episode naturally mirrors that of 3:12-19, for the narrator has a liking for the ironies implicit in repetition with differing intention (cf. e.g., 6:6f.). The divergencies are often significant.”

Text and Translation

With those caveats, let us proceed to Esther 8:9, given below in the RSV translation:

“The king's secretaries were summoned at that time, in the third month, which is the month of Sivan, on the twenty-third day; and an edict was written according to all that Mordecai commanded concerning the Jews to satraps and the governors and the princes of the provinces from India to Ethiopia, a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, to every province in its own script and to every people in its own language, and also to the Jews in their script and their language.”

Some variation on the above wording is found in other versions. Thus,

    After “commanded,” The Living Bible reads “to the Jews” rather than “concerning the Jews.” Thus, it also deletes “to the Jews” at the end of the verse as being redundant. In addition, it states that Mordecai actually dictated the message personally. And instead of giving the name of the Jewish month, it substitutes the approximate equivalent “July.”

    The Message sticks fairly close to the RSV, but as in The Living Bible, it mentions that Mordecai dictated the proclamation.

    The only real change we see in TEV is that “Sudan” is substituted for “Ethiopia.”

    NEB has “to the Jews” at the start and end of the verse.

    NIV has “to the Jews” at the start of the verse only, and it refers to Ethiopia as Cush instead, with a footnote locating that area in the upper Nile region.

    The rendering in The Jerusalem Bible and NRSV is basically the same as that of RSV, except that the footnote in the latter notes that “Ethiopia” is “Cush” in the Hebrew, and can alternatively be translated as “Nubia.”

    The Anchor Bible agrees with RSV in saying “concerning the Jews” but reads “exactly as” in place of “according to all.”

The above differences bring up three translation problems that need further addressing. Each will be discussed below:

Is it “to” or “concerning” the Jews?

“There would be no point in stating here what is more clearly stated at the end of the verse, i.e., 'including the Jews in their script and language.' Because the LXX [Greek Septuagint] read 'el instead of 'al, it omitted altogether the phrase 'including the Jews in their script and language.' (Moore)

Clines similarly notes that the final phrase is redundant, but adds that “it is obviously a point to be emphasized.” Thus, he sees nothing wrong with including that information at both the start and finish of the verse. So you can see where the various approaches taken by different translators come from, depending on which factor is felt to be the determining one.

Where is Ethiopia?

In terms of the preferred translation to use, there appears to be some disagreement between Cush / Nubia / Ethiopia. Kitchen explains that the country being referred to is “the region south of Egypt...the 'Ethiopia' of classical writers (not modern Abyssinia)...Originally only the name of a district somewhere between the second and third cataracts of the Nile c. 2000 BC, 'Kish' quickly became also a general term for Nubia among the Egyptians, which wider use the Hebrews, Assyrians, and others then took over...it is one hint of Ahasuerus' (Xerxes') vast Persian Empire (Est. i. 1, viii. 9), as texts of Xerxes' time also indicate.”

When was the month of Sivan?

In contrast to the note in The Living Bible, most commentators opt for May/June instead of July. Thus, Moore notes that Sivan is the Hebrew cognate of the Babylonian month Simanu.

Historical Questions

There is a certain amount of historical information available which confirms some of the details in this verse.

The whole reason for the new edict to be drafted and circulated is said to have been because of a Persian law prohibiting even the king from simply canceling a previous edict. Sprinkle points out that this issue also pops up in Daniel 6:8,12. He adds, “Possible extra-biblical evidence of this quirk in Persian law comes from Diodorus, where Darius III, despite his royal powers, is unable to undo the death sentence that he had pronounced on a man whose words had offended him.” And Hartman and Di Lella cite the fact that “the Code of Hammurabi made it a crime for a judge to change a decision that he had once made.”

Then there is the issue of the actual geographical extent of the Persian Empire and the advanced system of bureaucracy reflected in this verse. Alan Millard states, “Darius and his successor Xerxes I (486-465 BC) expended considerable energy in an attempt to conquer the Greeks of the Peloponnese, almost the only area remaining outside the Persian Empire in the known world...His [Darius'] reorganization of the satrapies, his system of military commanders, and his introduction of coinage, legal, and postal systems lasted as long as the Empire. These facilities coupled with the considerable degree of autonomy allowed to subject peoples contributed greatly to the stability of the Empire and allowed such a small community as Judah to survive.”

One of the most discussed subject regarding this verse is the number of administrative districts mentioned: 127. Below are several sometimes conflicting views expressed by scholars:

The apparent problem is stated by Jobes as follows: “The mention of 127 satrapies, when Herodotus mentions only twenty, may be an expression of the Persian powers' inflated sense of self-regard as perceived by others rather than an egregious historical error that indicates a late date.” In other words, Jobes feels it is either a gross mistake on the part of the narrator or a highly exaggerated number given for rhetorical reasons. But there may be a third explanation, as discussed below.

I find it interesting that no other commentator I consulted even brought up such a large discrepancy in numbers, leading me to think that perhaps it all boils down to a mere difference in nomenclature regarding the different administrative levels in the Persian government at the time. Thus, the book of Esther assumes a four-level hierarchy, and those levels may have had slightly different designations from those mentioned by the Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484 – c. 425 BC).

G.H. Johnston gives his understanding of the historical background of Esther 8:9 as follows: “Herodotus states that Darius, the father of Xerxes [probably the biblical Ahasuerus] had organized the empire into twenty satrapies composed of smaller provinces. But the time of Xerxes, there were 127 provinces, each under the control of a provincial governor. Historical records from the reigns of Darius and Xerxes list sixty-seven different tribes and nations in the Persian satrapy/provincial system. Because Judah and Samaria were separate Jewish provinces, 127 provinces is reasonable for sixty-seven different people groups.”

Literary Considerations

Some issues of proper understanding can be best addressed by literary means. In this case, it starts with an overview of the structure of Esther, my analysis being shown below:

Figure 1: The Organization of the Book of Esther

A. Three Feasts (1:1-2:17)

B. Banquet, Gifts to the People (2:18)

C. Villains are Hanged (2:19-23)

D. Haman’s Power, Seeks to Destroy Jews (3:1-6)

E. ADAR Chosen (3:7)

F. Haman’s Request (3:8-4:17)

                                                                        G. The Scepter is Extended (5:1-4)

H. Haman is Summoned (5:5a)

I. Esther’s Feast (5:5b-8)

J. Haman and Friends (5:9-14)

K. The Plot Turns (6:1-11)

J'. Haman and Friends (6:12-14)

I'. Esther’s Feast (7:1-10)

H'. Mordecai is Summoned (8:1-2)

G'. The Scepter is Extended (8:3-4)

F'. Esther’s Request (8:5-17)

                                                E'. ADAR Arrives (9:1)

D'. Mordecai’s Power, Jews Destroy Enemies (9:2-10)

C'. Haman’s Sons are Hanged (9:11-15)

B'. Banquet, Gift Giving (9:16-19)

A'. Feast of Purim (9:20-10:3)

For example, look at the parallel nature of sections E and E'. Verse 3:7 is confusing to the reader in that it describes Haman choosing a date by lots for an event that is not even described until a later verse. As Clines points out, “The narrative does not require this sentence.” Rather than being a crude insertion by “a later editor for whom the liturgical and cultic aspects of the story were of primary importance” (Moore), we can instead view the explanation as a literary one. Its placement at its present position is necessary to preserve the parallelism with Section E' describing the actual arrival of the fateful date.

With that in mind, we can proceed to sections F and F', which provide fine examples of reversal of fortunes, from (a) the Jews being given equal time for vengeance to (b) Mordecai's drastic change in clothing to (c) the contrasting reactions of the city of Susa. Regarding the last case, the four-fold mourning, fasting, weeping and lamenting of Section F are turned into light, gladness, joy and honor.

It is no accident that other commentators have picked up on the similarities between these two separated passages:

    Moore: “The material from vss. 8-17 [of chapter 8] is strikingly parallel in both sequence and phraseology to that of iii 9-iv 3, except that here the roles have been reversed: the Jews will be victors, not victims.”

    Leith: “The verse [8:9] follows the same general structure as 3:12-13 while reversing the effect.”

Symbolism of the Number “Seven”

A special example of literary considerations is the important role of “seven” in biblical symbolism, universally standing for completion or perfection in Hebrew thinking. Here is how that number comes into play in the present study.

To begin with, consider again the 127 number of districts in the Persian Empire. This number finds rough corroboration in Daniel 6:2 where 120 such units are mentioned. Cassuto made the suggestion that there might have been a tendency to add the symbolic number 7. This is indeed a possibility due to some statistical considerations of the ways numbers are utilized elsewhere in the Book of Esther.

I offer the following tentatively since the results I came up with may be merely coincidental or a result of miscounting:

First, look at the three times the number 127 appears in Esther. Besides its presence in 8:9, our verse under consideration, it is significant that it is the first and last number found in the book. And the total amount of numbers in the book are 52, many of them giving indicators of time, especially months. With that in mind, as well as the Persian fascination with astronomical phenomena, it is not fanciful to suggest the number of weeks in a year are in mind here.

Next, is the fact that the numeral 7 appears exactly seven times, sometimes alone and sometimes as part of a larger number.

Thirdly, consider the way the numbers are distributed within the book, with the three appearances of “127” separating them into two sections:

                        127 – 28 different numbers – 127 – 21 different numbers – 127

Thus, the intervening numbers are both even multiples of 7.

If it seems doubtful to you that the narrator could have had buried such subtle hidden messages in the text, just read the sections titled “The Absence of God’s Name” and “Symbolic Numbers” in my post “The Book of Esther: Introduction to the Literary Structure,” and you may possibly change your mind.

Lastly, the number “seven” may offer the solution to one final problem area brought up by Esther 8:9. Moore notes, “According to the MT [Masoretic text, the standard Hebrew Bible], Mordecai's letter went out two months and ten days after Haman's (iii 12), a significant time lapse which can in no way be precisely accounted for.”

But Clines does offer a good, if somewhat long, explanation by stating that “the seventy days between the threatened annihilation of the Jews and their release from danger will have struck a chord with every attentive post-exilic reader of the book...the seventy days are (are they not?) the seventy years of exile. The time that has elapsed has by no means been clearly consumed in the events of the intervening chapters; for no longer than four days appear to have passed between the conversation of Esther and Mordecai in ch. 4 and the present moment. Some interval may be supposed between 3:15 and 4:1, and between 3:3 and 3:4, as also between 8:8 and 8:9 (the vague phrase 'at that time,' deviating from the strict temporal succession in the counterpart to these verses in 3:12, may be inserted precisely for the purpose of creating distance between the two verses). The narrator has obviously been torn between his attachment to the symbolic number seventy and his desire for a rapid progression of the narrative; the latter impulse has evidently predominated, but not to the extent of involving him in a contradiction.”

Current Affairs

I can't help noting the correspondence between events in Persian times with today's news. There are worldwide protests over the current Hamas-Israeli conflict. Two facts appear to be incontrovertible: (1) The immediate precipitating factor, despite or because of, a long history of earlier disputes, was a rather underhanded attack by the Hamas resulting in over 1,000 Israeli deaths. (2) The Israeli counter-attack appears to be a classic case of overkill in which roughly ten times that many people have died in Gaza so far.

The parallels are not that far removed from Haman (note the superficial similarity with “Hamas”), descendant of a tribe at war with Israel generations earlier, wishing to get even with Mordecai and willing to sacrifice all the Jewish people in order to accomplish his goal. But then in turn, when the Jews get the legal go-ahead to “defend themselves,” they not only wipe out 500 people in the city of Susa alone, but then ask for one more day of slaughter during which they kill an additional 300 citizens. By the time it is over, the Jews have killed a total of about 80,000 people within the Persian Empire.

Were and are the Jews justified in such slaughter, despite what their enemies had done to precipitate the conflict? Some would say that their whole existence as a people was (and is) at stake in each case while others find that no excuse. I am not going to try to justify the activity of either since I think there is enough blame to go around for both sides, and no simple-minded rush to justice or one-sided protest is likely to be effective in addressing the long-term conflict in the Middle East.