ستارگان دروغ و خیانت
جمع آوری آراء ، نظرات ، مقالات و یادداشتهای پراکنده ناریا (آقای ناصر پورپیرار)
ستارگان دروغ و خیانت
جمع آوری آراء ، نظرات ، مقالات و یادداشتهای پراکنده ناریا (آقای ناصر پورپیرار)کتاب استر تورات و ذکر پوریم و نسل کشی ایرانیان در زمان هخامنشیان
abbas
پنجشنبه 6 مهر 1391 ساعت 04:52 AM
The Royal Book of Esther
Do we really know her place in Bible history?
Why is Esther a Royal Book? What makes it Royal? Who was Esther? Where did she come from? Of all the stories of the captivity or ancient Israel, why was this one so important that God would place it in the canon, thus making it a part of the Holy Bible? Is this book important for God’s People as we approach the end time?
The Royal Book of Esther is one of the shortest books in the entire Bible. The account began in the third year of the reign of king Ahasuerus and ended sometime during the twelfth year of his reign. The name of God is not invoked even once, nor is it to be found in the entire book (except as it appears in acrostic form in five places, and few, if any, are even aware of that). Even the Jews involved were given Persian names. Biblical scholars feel that this book and the events contained therein are related to, or associated with, the Jews who came out of the captivity of Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, but they associate no purpose to that knowledge.
Esther does indeed carry an important message for God’s end time people, but first we must see clearly the original events and participants of that time. We must understand what has come before in order to comprehend what will come after. The purpose of this article is to uncover certain historical events and personalities, which, although in plain sight for centuries, have been hidden from the scholars and the world, and in some respects, even God’s own people. Once this is done, you will be able to begin to place in proper perspective the captivity, plus the efforts in the rebuilding of the second Temple. Hopefully, this will help to provide us with a keener understanding of just what God is building today and what will transpire in the approaching "end time". You will see the hand of God intervening in the world to bring about His own will. The world has consistently refused to acknowledge God’s participation in directing the course of history. However, without acknowledging God’s intervention we are left with the historical confusion and contradictions, which exists today.
The book of Esther exists, in part, because of one particular Persian king at a particular time in history. Without this king, there is no story of Esther, no lesson and no end time prophecy. Yet, typically, the vast majority of Bible scholars attribute to this king certain character traits that are offensive, obnoxious and obscene. WHY? Does the Bible support these claims? Does the Bible truly portray this king, as so many would lead us to believe? Let’s look at the facts.
First, however, if we are to successfully uncover true history, there is one vital act we must do. We need to remember something! We need to remember what Herbert Armstrong stressed again and again? "Believe God!" The first crucial step in learning to believe God is to prove that God exists. If you are reading this, then one would hope that by now you have proven completely, without a single doubt, that there is a Supreme God who rules this universe according to His own immutable LAW. The rule that we absolutely must apply to Esther, if we are ever to understand her message for God’s people today, and in the end time, is "Believe God!" We must believe what God has written. It does not matter if every Bible scholar who has ever existed says something is a certain way. If God says it is not, then it is not! If God says something is a certain way then it does not matter if a thousand people, all with intelligent, educated minds, say otherwise. It will be exactly the way God said it had to be; no matter how unlikely, improbable or incredible it would appear.
Why all the scholars are all wrong!
Esther begins with: "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces:) 2 In those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the palace, 3 In the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him:"
Almost, without exception, the typical so-called Bible scholar will tell you that this king called "Ahasuerus" is the Persian king known to historians as "Xerxes." Xerxes I was king of the Persian Empire from 486 - 465 BC.
The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, copyright 1967, under Ahasuerus, on page 23 states:
"... King of Persia, mentioned in the book of Esther. There seems to be little doubt [emphasis and comments mine throughout - some commentators state it as absolute fact] that he is to be identified with the well known Xerxes, who reigned from 486 to 465 BC. The main support for this identification is to be found in the linguistic equivalence of the names, as noted below. In addition, a close similarity has been noted between the character of Xerxes and the character of the king of the Persians portrayed in the book of Esther. There are also historical correlations. ..."
The historical correlations have to do with the timing of preparations for an invasion of Greece and then, following the failure of the invasion, a period in Xerxes’ seventh year when he consoled himself in his harem. Thus, this would supposedly relate to the seventh year of Ahasuerus when he married Esther.
The collapse of the historical correlations will be addressed as needed later. Suffice it to say, for now, that as weak as these historical connections are, one cannot presume to establish an identity from them alone. Therefore, after the removal of the main supposition underpinning the Ahasuerus/ Xerxes connection, these historical correlations become a mute point and cease to exist.
Is there any linguistic equivalence? Eerdmans’ New Bible Dictionary, reprinted Jan. 1979, page 21, article Ahasuerus opens:
AHASUERUS (ahasweros, the Hebrew equivalent of the Persian khshayarsha). In the Elephantine Aramaic papyri the consonants appear as kys’rs. The resemblance of the latter to the Greek Xerxes is reasonably close, and the Babylonian version of Xerxes’ name on the Behistun inscription is close to the Hebrew as above. Xerxes I was king of Persia (485 - 465 BC).
Yes, it is close, it is very close. In fact, they are not only close, but they are the same word, just in different languages. But, just what does that prove? Let’s see what Ahasuerus meant and we will begin to see what it proves. According to the Companion Bible, page 618, item #7 it reads: "The names of some of the kings mentioned have been hitherto regarded as proper names; whereas according to Sir Henry Rawlinson, Professor Sayce, The Encyclopedia Britannica, and The Century Encyclopedia of Names, at least three of these are (?) appellatives (like Pharaoh, Abimelech, Czar, Shah, Sultan); viz. Ahasuerus, which means "the venerable king", Artaxerxes, which means "The great king", and Darius, which means "The maintainer".
Furthermore, in Appendix 57 of the Companion Bible, discussing this subject, states:
It must be noted that the confusion which has hitherto been experienced arises from the fact that appellatives have been mistaken for proper names; to say nothing of the confusion arising from their transliteration or translation into other languages.
These appellatives, like Pharaoh and Abimelech, are general titles of a line of kings, such as the modern Czar, Sultan, Shah, &c. Hence AHASUERUS means "the Mighty", and "is the name, or rather the title, of four Median and Persian monarchs" (Kitto, Bib. Encycl. I, p. 91). "In every case the identification of the person named is a matter of controversy". See The Encycl. Brit., 11th (Cambridge) edn., vol. I, p. 429.
Artaxerxes means Great King, or Kingdom, and is synonymous with Artachshast (Arta = Great, and Kshatza = Kingdom, preserved in the modern "Shah"). According to Prideaux he is identified with the Ahasuerus of Est. 1.1 (vol. I, p. 306).
So we see that Ahasuerus was not really a name, but rather a title, to be used, displayed and worn by one whose right it is, namely, the king himself. Biblical scholars have placed themselves in a corner by attributing the king Ahasuerus to a particular time in history because the king of that period was called by the same general title. How many people remember the name of the leader of Iran in 1976? Few at best, but of those who were aware of the leader of Iran in 1976, all of them would recognize his title, the Shah of Iran. The title ‘Shah’ might just as well have become ‘Xerxes’, because it was in ancient Greek. Does that mean that there were no previous "shahs" in Iran (Persia)? Of course not! What the Biblical scholars did in the case of Ahasuerus was to "label" him as "Xerxes" because "Ahasuerus" translates into "Xerxes" in the Greek. In their effort to identify "Ahasuerus" in history they have managed to conceal his true identity from the world, and from God’s people as well, by "miss-identifying" him. Although we typically know these rulers today by one particular name, they originally possessed a number of names simultaneously. For example, the King of Persia who conquered Babylon also acquired the title, "King of Babylon" as a result. Furthermore, all of the successors to his throne appropriated that title as well when they ruled over Persia and Babylon. The Bible also establishes this for us.
Nehemiah 13:6 But in all this time was not I at Jerusalem: for in the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon came I unto the king, and after certain days obtained I leave of the king:
In chapter 13, Nehemiah called a Persian king the king of Babylon. Was this king a Chaldean? Of course not, he was Persian and the king of Persia, and the king of the Medes as well! The title used depended upon which use "fits" the title.
Now, with the "main support", allegedly identifying Ahasuerus as Xerxes, discredited and therefore eliminated from consideration, the two or three events which have a similar time frame between those two titles becomes virtually useless. Also, the similarity between the character of Xerxes and the so-called character of Ahasuerus may be confronted and also discarded. The character of Ahasuerus is nothing like the character of Xerxes, but more on that later, too. The supposed similarity arises from trying to read more into some parts of what was written in Esther while ignoring other parts of what was written in an attempt to force a match between Xerxes, or whoever one wishes to insert here, and Ahasuerus. Only the Bible has the authority to provide the kingly identity, which it does, and in a very simple way.
So, who was King Ahasuerus?
As we have learned so far, sometimes it is easier to eliminate the men he was not. Then whoever is left, no matter how remote the likelihood, has to be the real king. Therefore, let’s first consider the clues revealed in the opening three verses of Esther.
The first clue we will consider is found in verse 2: "in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan (Susa) the palace," or as it says in the RSV, "in those days when King Ahasuerus sat on his royal throne in Susa the capital". Susa was the capital city of the Persians not the Medes. Verse 3 bears out that there were both Medes and Persians involved with this gathering. Verse 1 tells us that this Ahasuerus ruled over a vast territory or empire, which, according to its own description, included both the territories of the Medes and Persians. The clue is placing the king in his own royal capital of Susa. This gives us a beginning time frame from which an earlier date is not possible.
In Daniel 8:1-4, & 20, we find a prophecy involving Susa and a Ram with two horns of slightly different proportions. Verse 20 explains that this vision is speaking of the Medo-Persian Empire, which was soon to come on the scene. Actually, both countries were already in existence and both were already powerful at the time that Daniel received the vision. HOWEVER, when Daniel, while in Babylon in the third year of Belshazzar, saw the vision, it was the Medes who were the dominant "horn" or power. The Persians were still subject to and in confederation with the Medes. The capitol of the Medes was Ecbatana, not Susa. This places the time of Ahasuerus "within" the vision DURING the later Persian dominance, a time when the Persians included the Medes as a part of the Persian Empire. This period began in 550 BC when the Persian King Cyrus defeated Astayages, his own grandfather and king of the Medes.
At the other end of the time frame, we know that the Greeks, led by Alexander the Great, defeated the Persians in 330 BC, thus ending the Persian Empire. So, Ahasuerus had to reign somewhere between 550 BC and 330 BC. That would still leave Xerxes and Artaxerxes in the running, but not for long.
Esther 2:5-6 introduces another important clue. There was a Jew named Mordecai, in Susa, the capitol of Persia, who had originally been taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar and carried away to Babylon along with Jeconiah, king of Judah (also known as Jehoiachin in II Chron. 36 & II Kings 24) in what we know to be about 597 BC. (As a side note, Daniel went into Babylonian captivity in 605 BC, also by Nebuchadnezzar.) If Ahasuerus had been Xerxes the Great, as so many think, then Mordecai would have to have been at least 111 years old in 486 BC, assuming that he was an infant in 597 BC. When taken captive, Mordecai was young, but not an infant. He was an adolescent, or very young adult, probably in his late teens because the Bible records that Nebuchadnezzar took the princes and nobles of Judah in those first deportations. See 2 Kings 24:12 - 16; & 25:12. This creates several problems.
First of all, Mordecai was elevated to a position next to Ahasuerus in rank in the entire kingdom. This occurred sometime after the twelfth year of the reign of Ahasuerus (Est. 10) From this we could determine his age to be at least in his mid 130’s. Could he have lived to be 130 plus years old? Yes, but it would have been a remarkable event of which neither the Bible, or history has made mention of. Furthermore, if it is Xerxes, and Mordecai did live to be 140 - 150 years old by the time of his death, then we still have what would be for Ahasuerus and ourselves, a much greater problem.
What do we know about Esther? Remember that Mordecai raised her as his own child. Esther was the daughter of Mordecai’s uncle. So, his father and her father were brothers. Mordecai was apparently older and more established than Esther, otherwise how would he have been able to take care of her at all? Esther’s parents must have died sometime between 597 BC and at a time sufficiently before the third year of the reign of Ahasuerus to make it necessary and important for Mordecai to intervene on her behalf by helping to raise her.
Esther 2:7 records the fact that Esther was "fair and beautiful." Esther was a virgin, too, of course. So, how old can one be and still be in a position to compete with other "fair young virgins" as required in chapter 2, verse 3? Could she be 100 years old? 75? 50? or? Do you suppose that a "fair young virgin", to king Ahasuerus, would have been other than we might think of one today? The word young is #5291 and includes anything from infancy to adolescence. Let’s just say that this leaves age 100 out of consideration. In fact, anything (or age) with wrinkles is left out, and that is what eliminates Xerxes, too. For Esther to be Mordecai’s cousin there is just no sensible way for Mordecai to be 118 years of age or more, and still have a cousin young enough to fit the kings criteria.
Just applying the "can’t be’s" we have looked at so far narrows our possibilities to a finite number of kings. If we eliminate Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, because his reign (529 - 522 BC) did not go but 7 years, we are left with only two possibilities. Only Cyrus the Great who ruled over Persia and Media from 550 BC to his death in 529 BC, and Darius I (or Darius Hystaspis) who ruled the Medo-Persian empire between 521 and 486 BC remain as contenders. It was not Darius as he had a different role to play in history. Furthermore, Esther would have to be over age 50, hardly a fair young virgin of marriageable age, as was the requirement. The only king left to consider is Cyrus the Great. To my knowledge, not a single scholar has ever associated Cyrus with Ahasuerus, yet we have just demonstrated that it could not have been any other king. We are left with no other choice; Ahasuerus must have been Cyrus the Great!
Now, let’s line up the years of Cyrus with the years of Ahasuerus.
550 BC This year is the year of accession and is not included in Persian or Babylonian reckoning. This is the year Cyrus conquered the Medes.
549 BC This would be counted as the first year of the reign of Cyrus king of Persia (see footnote concerning the explanation of 2 Chron. 36:22 & Ezra 1:1).
548 BC 2nd year of Cyrus
547 BC 3rd " " " Vashti banished for disobedience.
546 BC 4th " " "
545 BC 5th " " "
544 BC 6th " " "
543 BC 7th " " " Esther becomes Queen, tenth month, Tebeth.
542 BC 8th " " "
541 BC 9th " " "
540 BC 10th " " "
539 BC 11th " " " Babylon falls to Cyrus’ Persian empire. Daniel 5
538 BC 12th " " " The events of Esther 3:7 onward. Haman’s plot, etc.
Special expanded view of 539 & 538 BC:
539 BC Persian reckoning also counts, or begins their year from spring to spring
Hence Nisan 1, as opposed to, for example, Egyptian reckoning which determined their years from January 1st through December 31st as we do today. Therefore, something could occur in a particular year of a king’s reign, but fall into a later year on our calendar. This occurs in a number of places in and around the building of the second temple, and determining dates using Darius I (Darius Hystaspis) are excellent examples of this circumstance.
539 BC, In the fall of this year, the Persians diverted the river that went through Babylon and on October 16 (the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, 539 BC) completed the capture of the city. Darius the Mede received the Kingdom for Cyrus. On October 29th Cyrus entered the city in the role of a liberator of the people (they had been suppressed under Nabonidus).
538 BC, Cyrus the Great makes famous proclamation allowing Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. This occurred in the first year of Cyrus’ reign over Babylon. Since he defeated Babylon in October of 539 BC, his first year would be counted as beginning on Nisan 1 of 538 BC. He could have announced this edict anytime after October 29, 539 BC, but it would be recorded as occurring in the first year of his reign either way. It must have occurred slightly before Nisan 13 because Esther 3:15 says..."the city Shushan was perplexed." (or confused, see note below)
538 BC, In Nisan, Haman hatched his plot to exterminate the Jews. The edict was officially recorded and announced on the 13th of Nisan and sent to all Provinces of the Empire. (Esther 3:12)
538 BC, In Sivan 23, Mordecai’s edict was issued and sent to all 127 provinces of the kingdom. Esther 8:9
537 BC, On Adar 13, the Jews defeated their enemies. After this, Mordecai instituted Adar 14 & 15 to be celebrated by the Jews as the days the Jews got relief from their enemies, etc. (see Esther 9:20 - ff.)
Notes of interest:
1) It is 70 days from Nisan 13 through Sivan 23.
2) Esther 3:15 relates that when Haman’s edict went out "the city (people) Shushan was perplexed." (Esther 3:15) Why? Why would the inhabitants of Shushan be perplexed (#943 used only in Ex. 14:3 & Joel 1:18), or "be entangled," or better yet, be "confused," as the word means. There was nothing confusing in the decree of Haman. It was a death warrant for the Jews, plain and simple. The city could only be "confused" because there was another decree that had been decreed earlier than Haman’s, a decree that was favorable to the Jews. There had to be confusion coming out of the palace itself for the city to be confused. The only decree that fits the requirement, the only decree which would have a bearing or benefit to the Jews, the only decree which would leave a Persian confused upon hearing the second decree (from Haman, but under the king’s ring) is the decree of Cyrus allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple and return to Jerusalem!
3) The decree of Cyrus was issued after the defeat of Babylon (October 29th, 539 BC). It would have officially been announced sometime after Oct. 29th, but certainly before Nisan 13 of 538 BC. Due to Persian reckoning, the twelfth year of the reign of Cyrus began Nisan 1, 538 BC.
4) Adar 14 & 15 are to be kept by all Jews and their descendants, and all those who would enjoin themselves to the Jews, that without fail they would keep these two days according to what is written and at the time appointed every year, from year to year. (see Esther 9:27 - 32)
5) Most Biblical scholars depict Ahasuerus as a drunken, sensual slob of a king. This is the result of trying to attribute actual historical traits that were exhibited by Xerxes (486 - 465 BC) to Ahasuerus of the book of Esther. However, they are in complete error. The attribution of Xerxes’ traits, being transferred to Ahasuerus, comes from these Biblical scholars own misunderstanding of scripture. (Esther 1:7, 10, 11)
Notice Esther 1:8: ALL the drinking was according to the law; none did compel. What was the law? That one could, should and would drink only as much as they were able to without losing control of their faculties, nor to become drunk. If a person only wanted to have two glasses of wine, then he would only drink two glasses. If he became drunk then he would be in violation of the law. This was definitely not a "drunk fest". This was simply a feast. Social graces were to be expected, EXACTLY as God allows us to drink in moderation at the Feast of Tabernacles while still exhibiting exemplary behavior!
Some consider the beckoning of Vashti in verse 11 to be for lewd purposes. That assertion is not supported by verse 11. What is supported is that the king had a very beautiful wife in whom he, up until then, was well pleased. Some say that Vashti was upset by the method that the king used to call her, the sending of the chamberlains. Yet, this was the standard way to beckon the queen. She would have taken no offense at that. There was another reason for her refusal, but it was not any of the reasons the Biblical scholars have ever discovered.
As for Vashti, some Biblical scholars try to compare her to, or identify her as, Amestris, daughter of Otanes. Amestris was the queen of Xerxes and was not banished. This gives these "scholars" considerable consternation, yet they continue to try to fit a round peg into a square hole, lest they be forced to admit that God exists and believe God.
6) 2 Chron. 36:22 & Ezra 1:1 speak of the proclamation occurring in the FIRST year of Cyrus. This is impossible if it is referring to 550 BC, since the Jews were still in captivity under Babylonian rule. However, it does fit 539 -538 BC, when we consider that this is the first year of Cyrus as king of Babylon, and it was from Babylon that the Jews were freed to return to Jerusalem. These scriptures simply denote the time, in view of the geographical place, of the reign of Cyrus and offer no contradiction to the Bible, or to history.
7) Consider this one last point. At the time that the edict of Mordecai went out to the kingdom there were 127 provinces. In Esther 1:1 this quantity is used to identify which king Ahasuerus the author was referring to. It does not mean, or infer, that at anytime prior to the twelfth year of Ahasuerus there were 127 provinces, only that at sometime during the reign of Ahasuerus there were 127 provinces. We do know that there were 127 provinces in the reference to Esther 8:9, the twelfth year of Ahasuerus.
Towards the end of the eleventh year of Cyrus, his kingdom experienced a growth surge. Ahasuerus had seven princes over the Medo-Persian Empire, but what did he do with the addition of the Babylonian Empire? In Daniel 6:1 Darius set 120 princes, or satraps, over the former Babylonian kingdom. Is it simply a coincidence that 120 plus 7 equals 127? Is it only a coincidence that this occurred just prior to the twelfth year of the reign of Cyrus over the Medo-Persian Empire? Is it just an accident of history that all the successors to Cyrus had different numbers of princes? Finally, did it just, "turn out" that Cambyses, Darius I, and Xerxes all enlarged the kingdom from the previous ruler? Only Cyrus matched the criteria necessary to be Ahasuerus, what a coincidence!
If you have any questions or would like to correspond with me concerning this article you may do so by contacting Richard Fix at the following e-mail address: rfix@hyperusa.com Although the research that went into producing this article was exhaustive, the article is, by comparison, only a brief synopsis. There is a considerable amount of documentation, Biblical and otherwise, that was not included. If you feel that you have found a flaw or an "oversight", or a "contradiction" of some kind please contact me and allow me the opportunity to provide any relative specifics as might be necessary. You input and questions are appreciated.
We hope that you have enjoyed reading this article and that it will add to your understanding, love, and awe of our God and Father.
Richard Fix
January 1998
پاسخ:
آقای عباس. در این کتاب مفصلی که زحمت کشیده و فرستاده اید کدام حرف نوی زده اند.
آقای عباس. در این کتاب مفصلی که زحمت کشیده و فرستاده اید کدام حرف نوی زده اند.
آمون : این محتوای شگفت انگیز، از لینک مندرج در صفحه زیر است و مرتبط با آن:
ایمیل شما بعد از ثبت نمایش داده نخواهد شد