HOW MANY PROVINCES DID THE PERSIAN EMPIRE HAVE? (ESTHER 1:1; 8:9; 9:30)

How many provinces did the Persian Empire have? (Esther 1:1; 8:9; 9:30)

Joseph Sommer, writing on the American Humanist Association website, states that “the book of Esther describes the Persian empire as having 127 provinces, but historians maintain there was no such division of the empire.” For this information, he cites not an historian but the noted atheist Stephen Harris instead. Also pay attention to the way this biblical criticism is worded. He does not say that historians have found evidence to disprove the Bible, only that no such division is known to us today. But as I have said before regarding ancient archaeology: “Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.”

Joyce Baldwin echoes the same thought while briefly reviewing the critical attitudes toward the book of Esther over the years: “During the last 200 years there has been almost unanimous agreement among commentators that the book is not to be read as sober history. Some have contended it is pure fiction; others...have postulated that pagan mythology lies behind the story; another recent view is that it is a historicized wisdom tale. The most popular current opinion takes account of the accuracy of the local color in the story, and designates it a historical novel, thus acknowledging much of the evidence for historicity, but judging the plot itself to be imaginary. The days of Ahasuerus are so far removed from our time that it is easy for objections to the historicity of the story of Esther to be based on a subjective assessment of its credibility rather than on knowledge of Persian affairs during the 5^th century BC.” However, she reviews the concrete evidence we do have and concludes: “All this information strongly supports the historicity of Esther.” Additionally supporting the generally accurate knowledge the biblical author had of events at the time are the following:

“On a foundation tablet from his palace at Persepolis, Xerxes claims to rule over an empire extending from India to Ethiopia.” (Clines) And Leither echoes these words: “Ahasuerus...is probably Xerxes I (486-465 BCE) whose Persian Empire from India (i.e., the Indus Valley) to Ethiopia (Heb. 'Cush,' modern Sudan and modern Ethiopia) included some twenty satrapies.” (Herododus ) This is exactly the same geographical range cited in the Esther passages.

And as to the mode of sending out an imperial proclamation, here is what Millard writes: “The production of those decrees 'in the script of each province and language of each people' (Esther 3:12; 8:9) is reflected in Darius I's Bisiton inscription rendered on the cliff in Old Persian, Elamite and Babylonian and at Elephantine in Aramaic, and in the Xanthos state displaying texts in Greek, Lycian and Aramaic.”

It turns out that what little information we do have concerning the divisions within the Persian Empire comes from the pen of the Greek historian Herodotus. He was writing close to the time of the actual events, but he is known to have been rather credulous in his other writings (see my post titled “Are There Mythical Creatures in the Bible?”) and can't always be trusted to give an objective account.

Jobes puts the situation into perspective: “Although the accuracy of what he reports continues to be debated, his work must be recognized as the primary surviving source of information about how the Persians were viewed by their enemy and conqueror..Even though Herodotus has often been evaluated by modern historiographers as lacking historical accuracy, differences between Herodotus and the Esther story are often used to argue against the historical accuracy of Esther.” And Jobes goes on to demonstrate how Herodotus' account actually confirms the historical accuracy of the biblical narrative on a number of other points.”

So where exactly does the “contradiction” between this ancient historian and the Bible concerning the number of divisions come from? Several commentators point out:

“Herodotus (iii 89) says Darius 'set up twenty provincial governorships, called satrapies;' but these were taxation areas, whereas the biblical writers use a different word, and refer to racial units.” (Baldwin)

“The book mentions 127 'satrapies' (medinot: 1:1; 8:9), whereas Herodotus (3.89) knows only 20. However, the satrapies were subdivided into smaller units. In such passages as Ezra 5:8; Neh. 1:3; and so on the term medinah is used to refer to 'Judah,' which was but a portion of the larger satrapy of 'Beyond the River' (Ezra 5:3,6, etc.” (Howard)

“It has been objected there were not 127 satrapies. This word is also used in 8:9 and in Ezr. 5:8 and Neh. 1:3. Satrapies comprised several provinces...These 127 provinces may well have corresponded to the ethnic groups of the empire, whereas the 20 satrapies of Herodotus iii 89 were larger groupings used for government and taxation purposes.” (Bendor-Samuel)

“Medinot are provinces (see also Neh I 3, vii 6; Ezra ii 1), not satrapies; the Persian empire never had more than thirty-one satrapies.” (Moore) And Leith states the same thing.

It should be noted that the ten English translations and paraphrases I consulted all translated the key word as “provinces,” not “satrapies.”

Despite this consensus, Jobes says, “If the author of Esther intends his statement to be historical, an expansion or reorganization of the empire under Darius's son Xerxes would have to have occurred. It is also possible that the opening statement in Esther is rhetoric intended to parody the expanse and bureaucracy of the Persian Empire, which would be consistent with the tenor of the story.” But as demonstrated above, there is really no need to resort to either of these interpretations to fit the known historical facts we possess.

But there is a second, though minor, issue that must also be dealt with here. Daniel 6:2 states that there were 120 satraps in the Persian Empire whereas Esther 1:1; 8:9; and 9:30 states that there were 127.

Moore states, “Without the support of any version, Haller would delete 'seven' to bring it into conformity with Dan vi 2 and ix 1, which state that Darius the Mede had a hundred and twenty provinces. Despite scholarly speculation, no satisfactory explanation exists for the particular number of provinces given here.”

Despite Moore's pessimism, the most obvious explanation is that Esther and Daniel are talking about different time periods of history, and the exact number of provinces tended to vary under different kings. After all, as mentioned earlier, Moore reminds us that there were up to 31 satraps, not 20, at one time.

Another possibility is that in the book of Daniel the number 127 was rounded off to an even 120, as happens frequently in the Old Testament.

Alternatively, Jobes points out that Cassuto “suggests that there was a tendency to add the favored seven” to the real number of 120. We will really never know which scenario is correct, but it is certainly not the sort of historical “contradiction” to lose any sleep over.