In Quest of the Historical Mordecai
Published in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 436-43
Paul Alexander Leroy – Haman and Mordecai 1884
In the standard works, commentaries, encyclopaedias and monographs, wherever the historicity of the Book of Esther is discussed, there is usually to be found some reference to the possible extra-Biblical evidence for Mordecai. Here is an extract from a typical encyclopaedia article in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible:
Reference must be made to a single undated cuneiform document from the Persian period, found at Borsippa, which refers to a certain Marduka who was a ?nance of?cer of some sort in the Persian court at Susa during the reign of Xerxes I. While a connection between such an individual and the Mordecai of the book of Esther is in no sense established, the possibility of such a historical event as is related in Esther cannot be dismissed out of hand./1/
Carey A. Moore, the author of the Anchor Bible commentary on Esther, is a little more positive about the implications of the reference to Marduka. This of?cial, who 'served as an accountant on an inspection tour from Susa', could be, he suggests, 'the biblical Mordecai because, in all likelihood, Mordecai was an of?cial of the king prior to his being invested in [Est.] 8.2 with the powers previously conferred on Haman'. To Moore, 'at ?rst glance all of this seems rather persuasive, if not conclusive'. While he is indeed careful to point out the uncertainties that surround the identi?cation of Marduka with Mordecai, he nevertheless concludes that
since the epigraphic evidence concerning Marduka certainly prevents us from categorically ruling out as pure ?ction the Mordecai episodes in the Book of Esther, it is safest for us to conclude that the story of Mo[r]decai may very well have to it a kernel of truth./2/
A Persian text dating from the last years of Darius I or the early years of Xerxes I mentions a government of?cial in Susa named Marduka, who served as an inspector on an of?cial tour . . . [T]he phrase y??b b??a'ar hammelekh, 'sitting in the king's gate,' which is applied to Mordecai repeatedly in the book, indicates his role as a judge or a minor of?cial in the Persian court before his elevation to the viziership.The conclusion to be drawn is rather obvious:
That there were two of?cials with the same name at the same time in the same place is scarcely likely./5/From Edwin M. Yamauchi we even gain the impression that the identi?cation of Marduka with Mordecai has now become the consensus scholarly view:
Marduk? is listed as a sip?r ('an accountant') who makes an inspection tour of Susa during the last years of Darius or early years of Xerxes. It is Ungnad's conviction that 'it is improbable that there were two Mardukas serving as high of?cials in Susa.' He therefore concludes that this individual is none other than Esther's uncle. This conclusion has been widely accepted./6/
The result of this disco[c]very has been a more favorable attitude toward the historicity of the book of Esther in recent years, as attested by several Bible dictionaries and commentaries published during the last decade./7/So secure is the identi?cation of Mordecai with Marduka in his eyes that he can even invite us to reconstruct the personal history of Mordecai on the basis of what we know about Marduka:
It is quite obvious that Mordecai, before he became gatekeeper of the palace, must already have had a history of civil service in which he had proved himself to be a trusted of?cial the trusted councillor of [t]he mighty satrap U?tannu, whom he accompanied on his of?cial journeys./8/We ourselves are bound to ask, if such far-reaching inferences are going to be drawn, How well-justi?ed is the identi?cation of Mordecai with this Marduka?
is a more general question to be raised here about
what constitutes historical evidence, in addition
to a set of more particular historical questions.
Secondly, and more importantly, the evidence of the Marduka text needs to be re-examined. In view of their comments on the text, it is hard to believe that many of those referring to it have actually consulted the original publications.
The text,/11. one of the collection of cuneiform tablets formerly in the possession of Lord Amherst of Hackney at Didlington Hall, Norfolk, was ?rst noticed by Theophilus G. Pinches in a communication to the Congress of Orientalists in Hamburg in 1902,/12. though he made no reference to the of?cial named Marduka. When, after Lord Amherst's death, the tablets were bought by the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin, the Assyriologist Arthur Ungnad noted the possible signi?cance of the Marduka reference for the Old Testament, and wrote a paragraph about it in an article in the Zeitschrift f?r die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft for 1940?41./13. In the following volume the editor printed some lines from a personal letter of Ungnad to him, in which Ungnad developed a little further his view of the signi?cance of the reference to Marduka./14. The text of the tablet (Amherst 258) was not published during Ungnad's lifetime, but appeared, along with six others of the 36 neo-Babylonian Amherst tablets, in the Archiv f?r Orientforschung for 1959?60./15.
The facts about the tablet are these: 1. Unlike several other tablets in the collection, no place of composition is mentioned; but according to Ungnad, it is probably Borsippa near Babylon,/16. as is the case with the other tablets. 2. Unlike many of the other tablets, it bears no date; but judging from the persons mentioned it must come from the last years of Darius I/17. or the early years of Xerxes./ 18. Its contents are a list of payments, both in silver and in kind, made to Persian of?cials and their retainers./ 19. Among them is one Marduka, who is referred to as the sipir of Ushtannu (line 9; in line 14 he is 'the sipir Marduka'). While Ungnad argued that sipir meant speci?cally 'accountant', the term (preferably to be written sep?ru or spiru) is agreed to have simply a more general meaning of 'scribe' or 'administrative functionary'/20/; but the matter is of little consequence for the present purpose./21/). 5. Ushtannu is well known as the satrap of the province of Babylon and Beyond the River (Abar Nahara)./ 22. There is a reference at the very end of the tablet (line 26) to 'the land of Susa': 'Altogether 29 and 1/2 minas. Of which 5 minas 56 shekels the portion of Nabu-ittannu, apart from 5 shekels of silver from the land of Susa (m?t ?u-??-an-na)'.
following assertions and inferences were made by
Ungnad: 1. The Persian of?cials were probably in
Borsippa on a tour of inspection from the palace
in Susa./ 23. It is improbable that there should
have been two high of?cials by the name of Marduka
in Susa./ 24. Marduka is therefore certainly
(gewiss) the Mordecai known from the Book of
Esther, Esther's uncle./25.
What is of even greater importance for the supposed identity of Marduka with Mordecai-and the fact has not generally been recognised-is that Marduka is some kind of of?cial in the entourage of the satrap Ushtannu. Since the headquarters of the satrap are of necessity in the principal city of his satrapy, Marduka is, in the absence of countervailing evidence, to be located there also. This means that what we can af?rm with a high degree of probability is that Marduka is not a resident of Susa.
It is therefore incorrect to say that Marduka was an of?cial in the court at Susa (Dahlberg, Horn), or was a government of?cial in Susa (Gordis, Eissfeldt/26/), or was an accountant from Susa (Berg), or to state as a fact that he came on an inspection tour from Susa (Moore/27/), still less that he made an inspection tour of Susa (Yamauchi) or in Susa (Gordis/28/)! And it should not be claimed that 'the discovery of the Marduk? tablet has given at least Mordecai historical respectability' (Horn/29/), since it has no relevance whatsoever to the ?gure of Mordecai depicted in the Book of Esther.
The substantive question, whether or not there was a historical Mordecai, is very much more dif?cult to answer than those who have appealed to the Marduka tablet have allowed. For the curious thing about the Book of Esther is that, although it has all the hallmarks of a romance, with its string of coincidences, its artfully told narrative, and its engaging characterisations, it can at no point be unequivocally faulted on historical grounds (which cannot, incidentally, be said in the least of the Greek Book of Esther). Much of its historical detail can in fact be substantiated, and the supposed errors it contains can be quite satisfactorily explained./30. On the other hand, its story-line is a string of improbable coincidences. Historians are compelled in such circumstances to trust their own judgment of the kind of literature that lies before them, in the absence of any speci?c data that settle the question one way or the other.
Mordecai not Bow Down to Haman?
Dr. Rachel Adelman
Introduction: Mordecai’s Risky Defiance
The Book of Esther is fraught with anxiety as it tells the story of the precarious existence of Jews in the Diaspora. The drama hinges on a perplexing conundrum: Why does Mordecai, who is known as “the Jew,” refuse to bow down to Haman, putting his people in peril?
Mordecai’s defiance provides Haman with grounds for the genocidal decree, describing the Jews as having “laws different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king’s laws, so that it is not appropriate for the king to tolerate them” (3:8). This leads to Ahasuerus’ genocidal decree against the Jews, the “Final Solution,” though he does not know the precise cause or even the identity of the people. Surely, as a wise courtier, Mordecai would be wary of the king’s arbitrary ways. What was so problematic about bowing to Haman that it could lead Mordecai to take such a terrible risk?
The Masoretic text (MT)—i.e., the Hebrew megillah we have today—is obscure. Mordecai gives no answer to the King’s servants’ question: “Why do you disobey the king’s command?” (3:3). All he presumably told them was that he was a Jew (v. 4).
The exegetical tradition suggests two distinct lines of thought. The first is that Mordecai refuses to bow down on religious principles – obeisance to Haman is an expression of idolatry. The second points to an ethnic vendetta – the refusal serves as a pretext for the eternal battle between Amalek and Israel.
|FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Pegasus Research Consortium distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.|
|~ MENU ~|
Webpages © 2001-2015
Blue Knight Productions