Was Esther Mordecai’s (Adopted) Daughter or His Wife?
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 2:41AM ;)
Edwin Long's Queen Esther (1878)Over the past few years, any time I read an Old Testament passage—whether preparing a passage myself or listening to someone else—I always compare the Hebrew Masoretic Text (which is the basis for most modern Old Testament translations) with the Septuagint (or LXX, the 2nd century BC Greek translation of the Old Testament, primarily used by New Testament and Early Church writers).
Most of the time, there’s not a significant amount of difference but the basic kind of variations to be expected when literature is translated from one language to another. However, occasionally, intriguing differences stand out, such as the one below I discovered recently.
A week ago Sunday, I was able to attend my home church in Louisiana with my mother for Mother’s Day. The sermon that morning was drawn from the second chapter of Esther, and it was v. 7 that jumped out at me when I compared it to the LXX using Accordance on my iPad. The pastor was reading from the New King James Version, which I will quote below as a decent English representation of the Hebrew text. I’ve included notes for a couple of words significant to this discussion.
“Mordecai was the legal guardian of his cousin Hadassah (that is, Esther), because she had no father or mother. The young woman had a beautiful figure and was extremely good-looking. When her father and mother died, Mordecai had adopted [לָקַח/laqach, literally “taken”] her as his own daughter [בַּת/baṯ].”
What jumped out when looking at the LXX was the replacement of בַּת (daughter) with γυνή/gynē (wife)! Mordecai had taken Esther as his wife? And technically, he had not taken Esther as his wife, but as the LXX indicates in the phrase, “ἐπαίδευσεν αὐτὴν ἑαυτῷ εἰς γυναῖκα,” Mordecai “had instructed/trained her to be a wife for himself.”
Compare the LXX with three English translations of Est 2:7—
;)
Of course, at this point, I was no longer concentrating on the sermon but scrambling to look at commentaries to see if there was any mention of this major distinction in regard to Esther’s relationship to her cousin, Mordecai. I consulted a half dozen or so current biblical commentaries in Accordance, and none of them mentioned the discrepancy between the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old Testament--until I looked at Levenson’s volume in the Old Testament Library series, where he writes,
“The Greek version and rabbinic midrashim tend to see the relationship between Mordecai and Hadassah (Esther) as one of marriage, and ancient custom does indeed know of adoption in anticipation of matrimony (cf. Ezek. 16:1–14).”
There was a footnote in Levinson’s commentary on Esther that led me to the Babylonian Talmud where Neusner translates the appropriate section (Meg 13.1) as follows:
VI.1 A. “...and when her father and mother died, Mordecai took her to himself as a daughter.”
B. One taught in the name of R. Meir: Do not read [it] “as a daughter” (le-vat), but rather as a wife (le-vayit).
C. And similarly it says, “and the poor man had nothing except one small lamb that he owned and fed, and it grew up together with him and with his children; it ate from his bread, and drank from his cup, and lay in his bosom, and it was like a daughter” (2Sa. 12:3). Because it lay in his bosom is it called a daughter (bat)? Rather [it should be called] a wife (bayit).
D. Here, too, [in Esther, the word “as a daughter” (bat) should be understood to mean] “as a wife” (bayit).
This is interesting because the rabbis are suggesting that the Hebrew, which obviously does not contain vowel pointing when they are reading it, should read Esther’s role not as daughter (בַּת/baṯ) but as wife (בַּיִת/bayit). Of course, my understanding of בַּיִת relates it to meaning house, household, or family, so perhaps this is somehow synonymous with wife as Hebrew is usually more functional than ontological in its use of language. Or perhaps I'm "reverse-transliterating" Neusner's Hebrew incorrectly. If anyone can offer insight, I’d appreciate that in the comments.
However, this matter of unpointed Hebrew would also explain why the LXX reads that Mordecai had instructed/taught (παιδεύω/paideuō) Esther rather than the Masoretic Hebrew understanding of taken (לָקַח/laqach). Obviously, the LXX translators understood the unpointed לקח as לֶקַח/leqaḥ (taught) rather than לָקַח/lāqaḥ (taken).
Incidentally, I often hear the LXX criticized for being too interpretive of the Hebrew text, but the vowel points added to the Hebrew by the Masoretes are often just as interpretive. The LXX probably translates Esther 2:7 as it was understood in Jewish thought around 200 BC. This understanding is backed up by the later rabbinic testimony found in the Talmud. Evidently, by the time of the 10th century AD, Esther’s relationship to her cousin as wife and not daughter was either forgotten or re-interpreted when the Masoretic Hebrew text was finalized.
For the sake of modern readers, I should probably mention that there really would not have been any scandal around the idea of cousins marrying each other at this time. Race and tribe would have been the most important factor, so the fact that Esther was already part of Mordecai’s family made her a seemingly ideal mate in a time of exile. Esther is referred to as a girl in both Hebrew (נַעֲרָה/naʿarāh) and Greek (κοράσιον/korasion) versions of the story, so she was probably fairly young. Since her beauty is also mentioned, she had probably reached marriageable age by the time she is taken from Mordecai, but presumably the marriage had not been consummated yet as she was deemed a suitable canidate for Xerxes' harem.
So by this point, I believe I’ve convinced myself that Esther probably was brought up by Mordecai to be his wife as opposed to his merely being her legal guardian until she was of marriageable age. And that makes the story even more tragic, doesn’t it? This reading certainly explains Mordecai’s angst over Esther as he continually loiters outside Xerxes’ harem (a dangerous thing to do) to see if he could find out how she was doing. Mordecai had not just lost a family member to a pagan king—he had lost his betrothed, someone to whom he had invested years of care and instruction, and he had lost his future. No doubt, Mordecai loved Esther on multiple levels; but in the end, his forced loss of her to a pagan king led to the salvation of the Jewish people in Persia. Mordecai’s personal loss was his people’s gain.
Esther, Hebrew Bible, LXX in Faith & Reason
Reader Comments (8)
When I saw your title I was a little repulsed, but it makes sense to me. I'm not a scholar, but the Bible uses the same theme over and over. Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice only He could make to save us, his bride. In this case, the bride made a sacrifice for the good of her people. Is this saying that as the church, or bride of Christ, we are called to make sacrifices? That sounds better than sacrificing the orphan. Just a thought from a casual reader.
Cynthia, yes, I believe that personal sacrifice is a continuing theme throughout both Testaments of the Bible. Placing the needs of others before our own is a virtue perhaps not well understood today. And although in my last paragraph, I wrote (as a man) about Mordecai’s loss, I would not want to minimize Esther’s loss as well. She lost her freedom and her family and was forced into a situation that was tragic all by itself. Although Esther did not lose her life, her loss was still very great; but because her loss resulted in the rescuing of her people, she is certainly in the category that Jesus praises in John 15:13.
I am reminded of Luke 18:29-30: "And Jesus said to them, 'Amen, I tell you: there is no one who has left house, or wife, or brothers, or parents, or children, for the sake of the Kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more in this [present] time, and in the age to come, eternal life'" (EOB:NT, emphasis obviously added). Celibacy for the sake of the salvation of Israel. Hmmm... I need to think more about this.
The commentary you wrote is what would be typical in a society that has made marriage and sex a god. There is something grossly perverse in raising a girl to womanhood to be your wife. Mordecai is the Bible's perfect example of a single parent. His pacing, odviously you dont have children and if you do you you must not be a concerned parent or you would understand his insecurity and concern for his adopted daughter by pacing daily to see what happened to her. Like Mordecai I too am a diligent parent like that and protective of my offspring. The Bible is clear that this was an adoption by a God fearing man, who is mentioned along with Ezra and Nehamiah and whose adoption of his cousin and treating her as his own daughter is a testament of his faith. Moreover, maybe you have no empathy for single parents,, but God does, and this story is an encouragment and an example to any who have found themselves in that position.
There is even more to the story. You have to dig deep into the the rabbis commentaries but the belief was that Esther was able to regenerate and become younger. For instance, when she joined the harem the story is that she was actually much older than the other women but she regenerated to look younger miraculously. It is also believed that she would physically turn back into a virgin each time she was called back to be with Xerxes. This is why he favored her above other women. He attributed his military victories to his marriage to Esther as well. Also, the rabbinic belief is that Mordecai and Esther were already intimate and married. That she was a lesser wife that he never fully acknowledged after adopting her. Like a concubine. It’s also suggested that she was a child bride initially.
The topic of this write up is catchy. It arouses agitation and desire for evidences for confirmation. From my study of the scripture, no one would voluntarily give away his heartthrob to a pagan king, as posited by this write up. Abraham, denied his wife as well as Isaac to be taken over by a pagan king respectively because of fear of death by these kings. and when they were inquired, they clearly declared them as their wife. So, Mordecai would not have requested Esther to join the contest, if she was his wife.
Moreover, the Babylonian Talmud where Neusner translates the appropriate section (Meg 13.1) as contained in this write up, #c states that:
"... and the poor man had nothing except one small lamb that he owned and fed, and it grew up together with him and with his
children; it ate from his bread, and drank from his cup, and lay in his bosom, and it was like a daughter”
If Esther grew up with Mordecai's children, then, she should not have been his wife. Perhaps, being in exile, Mordecai's wife might not had been taken along to exile with her husband, hence, her identity was not known. I strongly agree that Mordecai was just a God fearing, single parent man who took care of Esther after her parents' demise and mentored her to achieve her life purpose. However, this godly act paid him off eventually, both personally and his people. So, Esther was not Mordecai's wife but his adopted daughter. This is my submission.
In addition, Esther was 14 years old when she married King Ahasuerus, hence, she should not have given birth to the Mordecai's children she grew up with. This clearly shows that she was an adopted daughter of Mordecai.
Very interesting article. Thank you for writing this. Some of the comments here are also interesting--but in a different way.
Although I was once a single parent and therefore have empathy for that position, I just have to say that reading an ancient Eastern book with contemporary lenses and applying modern western cultural sensitivities, as seen in one particular comment here, is not profitable for understanding the book's purpose and in fact, only serves for eisegesis.
Whether or not Mordecai was training Esther to be a spouse (which would have not been scandalous) or not, we must remember that these young women that were taken for King Xerxes contest were not necessarily given willingly and any parents that objected would not have had power to prevent the abductions. It's a plausible theory that Mordecai's risky proximity to the harem may indicate a particularly unusual relationship he may have had with Esther--especially since no other parents were also pacing around yet hundreds of girls were taken for this contest. Hundreds of girls that, after this "sex lottery," would have been sent to the harem and treated more or less as widows for the rest of their lives, as they could not go back to their families, marry, or have a normal life after being with the king. I'm sure those parents loved their girls, yet the text doesn't mention any others pacing. Marriage isn't made "into a god" by our culture or this ancient culture: it was and is simply the natural, God-decreed way of human flourishing and replication. Singleness is not sinful, but it is not elevated in scripture.
Lastly, nowhere does it mention Mordecai's spiritual views-- if he was especially "God-fearing," one would assume that he would have returned to Jerusalem with the other exiles. It's almost that it wasn't just Esther, but also Mordecai's entire existence in Persia was also for a "time such as this." HIs motivation in adopting Esther and his reason for hating Haman isn't clearly given--only that as a Benjaminite, he would have hated an Agagite, and vice versa.
But back to the article, which was though-provoking: knowing a small amount of Hebrew, I am not convinced that the rabbinical commentaries have justification for interpreting לְבַֽת as "house" rather than "daughter"-- here or in 2Sa12:3 (which would make that verse rather disgusting!) Also, although the words "taken" and "taught" have identical consonants, the very next verse uses the same root consonants for Esther being taken to the palace. I'd lean towards the book's author utilizing the repetition to illustrate Esther's lack of autonomy. While I can't say that it isn't possible that Esther was being taught to be a wife, I don't think it's probable. The LXX is good for analyzing Hebrew words rendered into Greek in order to shed light on the NT, but I don't know if I would weigh it heavier than the Masoretes helpful pointing considering their commitment to accuracy.
But this is a very interesting proposal!