{"id":8674,"date":"2023-09-03T08:15:46","date_gmt":"2023-09-03T13:15:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/?p=8674"},"modified":"2023-09-03T08:15:47","modified_gmt":"2023-09-03T13:15:47","slug":"the-dead-sea-scrolls-dont-include-the-book-of-esther-or-do-they","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/2023\/09\/03\/the-dead-sea-scrolls-dont-include-the-book-of-esther-or-do-they\/","title":{"rendered":"The Dead Sea Scrolls Don\u2019t Include the Book of Esther\u2014or Do They?"},"content":{"rendered":"\nThe one biblical book suspiciously missing from this massive corpus of scriptural manuscripts\u2014or is it? By\u00a0Christopher Eames\u00a0\u2022 March 17, 2022\n\n\n\nHere in Israel, the book of Esther is on people\u2019s minds at this time of year as they celebrate Purim, the holiday marking the saving of the Persian Jews from a genocide led by the wicked Haman (Esther 9:26-32).\n\n\n\nThe book of Esther is notable among the biblical canon in that it was one of the last books to be written and the last to be canonized. There are numerous peculiarities about this book of the Bible\u2014and it is common knowledge that among the Dead Sea Scrolls (a trove of fragmentary manuscripts dating variously from the third century b.c.e. to the first century c.e.), this is the only biblical book entirely missing.\n\n\n\nThis has, in part, led to various speculations about the authenticity of the Esther account, including perceived \u201cdifficulties\u201d for its original inclusion into the biblical canon. Bible.org\u2019s \u201cIntroduction to Esther\u201d highlights four such points of \u201ccontention\u201d about the book of Esther:\n\n\n\n\n1) Probably because it does not mention (a.) any name of God, (b.) the temple, (c.) the Law of Moses, (d.) sacrifice (the cultus of Israel), (e.) Jerusalem, (f.) prayer (although it is implied).2) The Dead Sea Scrolls have copies (in whole or part) of every book of the Hebrew Bible except Esther.3) The book of Esther, like Ruth, is not quoted in the New Testament.4) It has gotten mixed review[...x]<\/span>
s from [early Bible] commentators.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Most of these points are moot. The reason for nearly all of point 1 is obvious: The book of Esther takes place in a Persian community, centered particularly around Susa. The Jewish people had been deported from Judah and Jerusalem some 100 years earlier after the destruction of the city and temple. For point 3, the logic should also disqualify the book of Ruth (as well as Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon, works likewise not quoted in the New Testament). This assertion about Esther is debatable, though\u2014and there is even significant opinion that John 5:1 refers to \u201cno other than the Feast of Purim\u201d! (Note also that the Jewish historian Josephus, of the same first century c.e., describes the Esther account at length in Antiquities<\/em> 11.6.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And regarding point 4, \u201cmixed reviews\u201d can be found on anything. Regarding the book of Esther, for example, the central figure of the Protestant Reformation\u2014Martin Luther\u2014believed it should be \u201cexcluded from the canon because it was too Judaistic\u201d (note that he also rejected certain\u00a0New<\/em>\u00a0Testament books, like the Book of Revelation); on the other hand, the famous Jewish medieval commentator Maimonides believed Esther was \u201cnext to the Law of Moses in importance.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what about point 2? \u201cThe Dead Sea Scrolls have copies (in whole or part) of every book of the Hebrew Bible except Esther.\u201d This is an often-cited \u201cfact.\u201d The Dead Sea Scrolls, an enormous trove of preserved and partially-preserved works, contains a total of some 800 scrolls; roughly 30 percent constitute to biblical texts. As Stephen Curto wrote in \u201cShould She Stay or Should She Go? The Canonicity of Esther\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

[This] objection, that Esther is absent from the Dead Sea Scrolls, is a more worthwhile argument for those who oppose canonicity. The Dead Sea Scrolls is easily the most significant archaeological discovery of the past century, and possibly millennium. It is the most comprehensive collection of Old Testament manuscripts discovered to date. \u2026 There were fragments from every single Old Testament book found at Qumran, the location of the discovery, except Esther.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

–<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Great Isaiah Scroll, one of the 2000 year old scrolls found at the northern edge of the Dead Sea. Public Domain<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One recourse of explanation in defense of Esther, however, is that numerous Dead Sea Scroll fragments\u2014charred, disintegrated and faded\u2014are entirely unreadable, and thus may have contained Esther material after all. There is also the inferiority of the argument of silence, as Curto noted: Just because something hasn\u2019t been discovered, doesn\u2019t mean it doesn\u2019t exist. (The same position has been held for the likes of biblical kings David and Belshazzar and, rather embarrassingly, even for the existence of the Hittite\u00a0empire<\/em>\u2014until they were later discovered by archaeologists.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another explanation is that the book of Esther is in itself a small work, which would leave less of a \u201cfootprint\u201d among the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Technically, the same could be said of the book of Nehemiah, a work of similar length\u00a0also not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/em>\u00a0However, the reason this book is not similarly counted is because Ezra and Nehemiah originally were combined as a single text, and fragments of text within the Ezra portion\u00a0have<\/em>\u00a0been found.) Another explanation is that, since the book of Esther does not contain the name of God, it did not need to be ritually preserved or buried (a traditional Jewish practice derived from Deuteronomy 12:3-4, to prevent damage to the \u201cname of God\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, there is an \u201celephant in the room\u201d\u2014the Qumran community were themselves designated as a group of \u201creligious wackos,\u201d monastic desert pariahs from the central Jewish communities and sects, with numerous fringe beliefs (including an entirely different solar calendar); thus, they should not be seen as representative, consequential preservers of scripture or doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are all valid points\u2014but\u00a0what if none of them are necessary?<\/em>\u00a0For despite the lack of direct evidence of an Esther scroll itself, certain other manuscript discoveries from Qumran\u00a0do<\/em>\u00a0indicate that the community was not only aware of, but was entirely conversant with, the book of Esther.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1QapGen<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The rather mundanely-named Dead Sea Scroll fragments 1QapGen and 4QprEsth ar constitute apocryphal, late Aramaic fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1QapGen (the \u201cGenesis Apocryphon\u201d) expounds on an incident at Pharaoh\u2019s court involving Abraham and Sarah, using remarkably similar language to the account of Esther and Mordecai in the court of Ahaseurus. And 4QprEsth ar constitutes six fragment clusters relating to some relatively obscure apocryphal story set in the Persian period, with like linguistic similarities to the Book of Esther.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

—<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The similarities compound. In the Aramaic 1QapGen, \u201c\u05d1\u05d5\u05e5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d2\u05e0\u05d5\u05d0\u05df\u201d is mentioned; properly, this is a very specific term referring to a fine linen of purple (as\u00a0explained\u00a0in Shemarayahu Talmon\u2019s 1995 article \u201cWas the Book of Esther Known at Qumran?\u201d). The Aramaic account records this material was given by the ruler to Abraham when he was sent forth from the court. This word combination is\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0found, among the books of the Bible,\u00a0in the book of Esther,<\/em>\u00a0and in two places\u2014Esther 1:6 and 8:15\u2014describing royal apparel specifically bequeathed\u00a0by the king to Mordecai when he was sent forth from the court<\/em>\u00a0(with the exact Hebrew equivalent \u201c\u05d1\u05d5\u05e5 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e8\u05d2\u05de\u05df\u201d)! What\u2019s more, in the veritable ocean of rabbinic literature, this word combination is again\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0found in commentaries relating to Esther!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Individually, each of these parallels make for interesting speculation.\u00a0Collectively,<\/em>\u00a0however, they speak to Finkel\u2019s only logical<\/s> conclusion, that the author of the apocryphal Dead Sea scroll Qumran 1QapGen\u00a0must<\/s><\/em> [could]\u00a0have had a knowledge of and drew from the existing book of Esther.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4QprEsth ar<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Research of the small Aramaic 4QprEsth ar fragments was conducted by J. T. Milik and published in 1992. Likewise, similarities were noted between the biblical text of Esther and this enigmatic work, indicating a connection or understanding between the two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4QprEsth ard<\/sup> ii 6 reads: \u201c[H]is wickedness will return on his own [head \u2026].\u201d This parallels Esther 9:25: \u201c[H]is wicked device, which he had devised against the Jews, should return upon his own head.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4QprEsth ard<\/sup> ii 3 describes honor being given to a queen, in the form of a \u201c[royal \u2026] crown of go[ld upon] her [he]ad.\u201d This parallels Esther 2:17: \u201c[H]e set the royal crown upon her head.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4QprEsth ara<\/sup> 3-5 reads, in part: \u201cAt that same hour the temper of the king was stretched [\u2026 the bo]oks of his father should be read to him and among the books was found a scroll \u2026 it was found written within \u2026.\u201d This parallels Esther 6:1-2: \u201cOn that night could not the king sleep; and he commanded to bring the book of records of the chronicles, and they were read before the king. And it was found written \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4QprEsth ard<\/sup>\u00a0I iv 2-3 describe: \u201cA man of Judah, one of the nobles of Benjam[in \u2026] an exile \u2026.\u201d This parallels Esther 2:5-6: \u201c[A] certain Jew \u2026 a Benjamite, who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captives.\u201d And in a line of text near this reference, Milik proposes the following reconstruction: \u201c[\u05d0\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e1[\u05ea\u05e8\u201d \u201c[\u2026 as for] me, Es[ther].\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But Wait\u2014There\u2019s More<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Besides the parallels in 1QapGen and 4QprEsth ar, Shemarayahu Talmon (in his aforementioned article) offers numerous additional examples to show the Qumran community\u2019s familiarity with the book of Esther. He writes that \u201chapax legomena<\/em> [terms that are only found once] in the Hebrew Bible, which are extant exclusively in the book of Esther<\/em> and are quoted verbatim in Qumran texts,<\/em> which were unquestionably authored by members of the \u05d9\u05d7\u05d3 [Qumran community], evince the dependence of the latter on the former\u201d (emphasis added throughout). These include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n