Esther doesn't seem that "Biblical". No mention of God. Story of revenge. It's more of a historical telling of how the holiday of Purim originated. It seems similar to the other apocrypha books. Only book not found in the dead sea scrolls. When and why was it included in the scriptural canon?
Post Reply
1 of 1
Why are the additions to Esther apocrypha, but not Esther itself?
2,063 Views |
16 Replies |
Last: 3 days ago by codker92
Martin Q. Blank said:
Esther doesn't seem that "Biblical". No mention of God. Story of revenge. It's more of a historical telling of how the holiday of Purim originated. It seems similar to the other apocrypha books. Only book not found in the dead sea scrolls. When and why was it included in the scriptural canon?
Pesherim commentaries on the text of Esther were at Qumran, among the Dead Sea scrolls. The Esther text does some interesting stuff in the original Hebrew, such as mystically interpreting the Persian Kings palace as God's new temple. The text foretells the destruction of both the first and second temple, which hints at the fall of Persia.
The Jewish sages canonized it some time in the Second Temple period.
The lack of any explicit mention of God or prophecy was a point of controversy.
OTOH, Purim was already a major festival. And the Rabbis interpreted the book as a case of Divine providence operating behind the scenes.
The lack of any explicit mention of God or prophecy was a point of controversy.
OTOH, Purim was already a major festival. And the Rabbis interpreted the book as a case of Divine providence operating behind the scenes.
BonfireNerd04 said:
The Jewish sages canonized it some time in the Second Temple period.
The lack of any explicit mention of God or prophecy was a point of controversy.
OTOH, Purim was already a major festival. And the Rabbis interpreted the book as a case of Divine providence operating behind the scenes.
Esther Scroll probably receives more criticism than it deserves for not mentioning God explicitly. The Song of Songs does not either.
EDIT 9:43 CT 2/3/2026 -- I would like to amend this post to state that Song of Songs most definitely has God's name in it explicitly. See my post below.
The Song of Songs is an allegory. I wouldn't expect it to.
codker92 said:BonfireNerd04 said:
The Jewish sages canonized it some time in the Second Temple period.
The lack of any explicit mention of God or prophecy was a point of controversy.
OTOH, Purim was already a major festival. And the Rabbis interpreted the book as a case of Divine providence operating behind the scenes.
Esther Scroll probably receives more criticism than it deserves for not mentioning God explicitly. The Song of Songs does not either.
God has no role in the Book of Ruth.
Sapper Redux said:codker92 said:BonfireNerd04 said:
The Jewish sages canonized it some time in the Second Temple period.
The lack of any explicit mention of God or prophecy was a point of controversy.
OTOH, Purim was already a major festival. And the Rabbis interpreted the book as a case of Divine providence operating behind the scenes.
Esther Scroll probably receives more criticism than it deserves for not mentioning God explicitly. The Song of Songs does not either.
God has no role in the Book of Ruth.
God does have a role in the Book of Ruth. He placed his name in Ruth. In Hebrew the word Ruth is nearly identical to the word for dove, which is Rut. Which the dove is associated with Israel and the God's Presence. Ruth's name is literally a play on words symbolizing God's presence. God is all over the Book of Ruth overtly and secretly.
The secret is found by cross referencing the names of Judah's descendants in Chronicles Chapter 4. Those obscure Chronicles names encode the story of Ruth, identifying "Yokim / Yoash / Saraph / Yashuvi Lechem" as allusions to Elimelech, Machlon, Kilyon, Naomi, etc. while Boaz and Ruth correspond to the mysterious "potters" and the ones who "dwelt with the king". The potter language relies on the language in Genesis where GOd watered the earth and made Adam from the dirt as clay. The words "who dwelt at Neta'im and Gederah," have meaning as well. Neta'im means plantations. Gederah means sheepfold or wall. The words are potters, plantations, sheepfold and dwelling with the kind. The hebrew word for dwell there really means to sit and mediate until a conclusion is reached. Therefore, the sages concluded Boaz and Ruth were in the garden of eden with god at the time of creation.
You can read as deeply as you want and infer what you want. God is not involved in the story.
Sapper Redux said:
You can read as deeply as you want and infer what you want. God is not involved in the story.
God's presence is inside Ruth and aids her. Ruth 2:4. The dove RUT, Gods presence, is a part of RUTH and strengthens her to complete her destiny.
codker92 said:Sapper Redux said:
You can read as deeply as you want and infer what you want. God is not involved in the story.
God's presence is inside Ruth and aids her. Ruth 2:4. The dove RUT, Gods presence, is a part of RUTH and strengthens her to complete her destiny.
You have God actively involved as a figure in every other narrative book save Esther and Ruth. Period. There's nothing in the book where God is an active figure. You have pretty common expressions of greeting and piety with no divine intervention in the text.
Sapper Redux said:codker92 said:Sapper Redux said:
You can read as deeply as you want and infer what you want. God is not involved in the story.
God's presence is inside Ruth and aids her. Ruth 2:4. The dove RUT, Gods presence, is a part of RUTH and strengthens her to complete her destiny.
You have God actively involved as a figure in every other narrative book save Esther and Ruth. Period. There's nothing in the book where God is an active figure. You have pretty common expressions of greeting and piety with no divine intervention in the text.
I get what you mean if by "active figure" you mean visible theophany / God speaking on-stage / overt miracles. Ruth doesn't read like Exodus. It is not meant to read like Exodus. Ruth is its own text and was widely read, commented on, and canonized before the church fathers even existed.
Saying God has no role in Ruth isn't what the text itself says. Ruth names YHWH repeatedly, and the narrator directly attributes key turning points to Him, not polite greetings. God does appear literally as a figure outside the character's sights. Ruth 1:6: Naomi hears that YHWH had visited His people and given them food (that's narrative framing, not a greeting). The text says Ruth takes refuge in God. Ruth 2:12: Boaz explicitly describes Ruth as coming to take refuge under YHWH's wings (the theology of the story is right there). YHWH enabled Ruth to conceive. Ruth 4:13: the text outright says YHWH gave her conception. God's providence in Ruth is more subtle because he is not leading armies, he is doing everyday things, so it is easy to miss his active role. Ruth absolutely portrays God as an actor in the story's outcome.
Martin Q. Blank said:
The Song of Songs is an allegory. I wouldn't expect it to.
The text is not merely an allegory. The Tetragrammaton is hidden because the Name was in exile and the Song is process by which the name returns.
Martin Q. Blank said:
Esther doesn't seem that "Biblical". No mention of God. Story of revenge. It's more of a historical telling of how the holiday of Purim originated. It seems similar to the other apocrypha books. Only book not found in the dead sea scrolls. When and why was it included in the scriptural canon?
In Esther today for our reading plan.
Haman is described as a "Agagite" in 3:1....
1 Samuel 15:9 describes Saul disobeying the command of God to utterly destroy the Amalekites and spared King Agag.
Likely cannot prove that Haman is in fact a descendent of this specific King Agag, but it certainly would align with some of the consequences Israel faced by not obeying the LORD.
Yes, of course. God is all over Esther. When Mordecai and Esther fast and pray for one another. When Esther for some reason does not disclose that she is Jewish. The Amalekite descendant and Mordecai. The casting of lots in the 1st month, with the date landing in the 12th month. The restless sleep of the king between the first and second banquet, when the chronicles of Mordecai's exploits are read to him. The conversion of many people to Judaism once the 2nd decree is issued. The wearing of the signet ring by Mordecai. The booked is literally bathed in God's presence and action.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
Amen!
codker92 said:Martin Q. Blank said:
The Song of Songs is an allegory. I wouldn't expect it to.
The text is not merely an allegory. The Tetragrammaton is hidden because the Name was in exile and the Song is process by which the name returns.
I would love an elaboration of this post.
Silent For Too Long said:codker92 said:Martin Q. Blank said:
The Song of Songs is an allegory. I wouldn't expect it to.
The text is not merely an allegory. The Tetragrammaton is hidden because the Name was in exile and the Song is process by which the name returns.
I would love an elaboration of this post.
The idea is rooted in Exodus 17:16 where the throne word is written intentionally defective ("kes Yah" / ) rather than kisei YHWH. English translations don't usually show this. The name literally appears only as Yah, not the full Tetragrammaton. This lead midrashim to conclude God went into exile (because part of God -- the missing hei andd vav from YHWH -- was missing) with Israel and would be with them in redemption as well. In the Song of Songs when God's presence is in exile the vav (W) and final heh (H) of YHWH is separated and the Name is not "whole".
In the Song of Songs the same abbreviated Yah appears once in Song of Songs 8:6 -- a Yah flame or . All of Psalms 104-150 use Yah instead of Tetragrammaton. In Psalm 68:5 …
English: "Sing to God… Yah is His Name". God is literally a consuming fire. Hebrews 12:29 and Deut: 4:24.
That name (Yah) does not appear at all until Song of Songs chapter 8. There is no other mention of God's name until then. This must mean the missing vav and Heh () are found in the prior six chapters looking to come out of exile and reunited with (Yah) . The missing letters in exile walk though seven chapters (tracking seven days of creation in Genesis) before reaching their other exiled letters and reunited. Scholars learned Song of Songs as a recapitulation and repair of Creation, chapter by chapter, not as a strict one-to-one allegory, but as a progressive re-ordering of the cosmos through love.
In each Chapter of Song of Songs God is repairing the brokenness in creation. God's exiled letters walk through creation. E.g Song of Solomon 1:5-6 talks about darkness and shining sun. This tracks back to God creating the sun and light and separating light and darkness. Eg. Song of Solomon 2:11-14 discuss the rain passing and dove in the cleft of rocks. That is literally the flood. I could go on but I don't have time. When you read the book in Hebrew you are reading the missing letters from Yah, which are vav and hei, which are at the beginning and throughout the entire book and reading them following and looking for the exiled letters in Chapter 8. Along the way the vav and hei heal creation along the way.
Featured Stories
See All
Undersized Aggies face heightened test vs. towering Gators
by Olin Buchanan
10:36
2h ago
580
Setting the Scene: Aggies switch to 'dark mode' vs. No. 17 Gators
by Luke Evangelist
7 Days 'til: Shortcomings served as catalyst for Earley's offseason changes
by Ryan Brauninger
Scouting Report: Texas A&M vs. No. 17 Florida
by Tom Schuberth
11:51
1h ago
876
Munnerlyn fans eight as Edwards notches three hits in Friday win
by Emily Dreger
UrbanDecay
Greg Sankey says Bediako should not be eligible to play
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
50