Talk:Esther
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Esther article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ahasuerus
[edit]well, the Xerxes article mentions the connection, the Artaxerxes one doesn't. What is the basis for either identification? The Herodotus reference of course relies on the identification with Xerxes. dab (ᛏ) 07:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The identification with Xerxes I is based on the fact that the most plausible explanation of the name Ahasurus is that it is derived from Khshayarsha as is Xerxes. Xerxes II is too late therefore Xerxes I. Artaxerxes II based on the fact that the Septuagint version of Esther calls him Artaxerxes as does Josephus plus the description of the extent of his empire which doesn't fit Artaxerxes I. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Besides these most popular identifications there are several other theories including identifications with various Cyaxares, Cyrus, Camyses, Darius, Arses etc. The information from Greek historians is problematic and is by no means certain that they name the kings consistently, one historians Artaxerxes III appears to match anothers Artaxerxes II for example (can't remember the details off hand) the bottom line is that not enough information is known to be certain about which king was which in Greek sources let alone which king matches Ahasuerus. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the POV comments that Esther's family didn't avail themselves of the opportunity to return under Cyrus' decree. Nothing like that is stated in the Book of Esther. Perhaps they were prevented from returning against their will. It is not even agreed that the events happen after the decree. If one interpets the statement about exile under Nebuchadnezzar as referring to Mordecai himself not to his ancestor Kish (as many do) then Mordercai is a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar. If that is the case then Ahasuerus is most likely identical to the Ahasuerus mentioned in Tobit as an ally of Nebuchanezzar. This Ahasuerus is also called Achiachar generally considered indentical to Cyaxares (Akhuwakhshtra), placing the events long before Cyrus decree before the conquest of Babylon by the Persians in fact. Some will point to the description of Ahasuerus ruling from Cush to India which seems to contradict the idea that this occurs while the Babylonian empire still existed, but it is not certain which Cush this refers to - Cush in Sudan/Ethiopia or Cush in Iran. Even if Sudan is intended this could merely be a biased view of history in which Nebuchnezzar is being deliberately snubbed and portrayed as a vassal of his ally Ahasuerus. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Reversing the edict
[edit]The antisemitic edict was never reversed per-se, as occurs with Daniel and praying to false Gods elsewhere in the Bible, Persian royal decrees were irreversible. Ahasuares simply issued a contrary, but not exactly opposite, decree. I have editted the article to note this.
Vandalims
[edit]There is a lot of vandalims. I have gone back about 15 edits and still haven't found where the last non-vandalism edit starts. Could an admin help out.
Quote box under "Esther's rhetoric in practice"?
[edit]Does anyone know why the box is there about the paragraph on Christine de Pizan and how to get rid of it?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayloraapplegate (talk • contribs)
Esther’s mother
[edit]Abihail was Esther’s mother, not father 2603:7000:2405:E4D7:DD44:75D9:B9FD:7052 (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Not. Abihail was the father of Queen Esther and uncle of Mordecai. (Esther 2:15; Esther 9:29) Rafaelosornio (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Apparently there were five Abihails, three female and two male. Achar Sva (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Historicity
[edit]To the assertions in “Historicity” and in the note c: “Persian kings did not marry outside of seven Persian noble families, making it unlikely that there was a Jewish queen Esther“ and „Xerxes could not have wed a Jewess because this was contrary to the practices of Persian monarchs who married only into one of the seven leading Persian families.“ - - - Claudius Aelianus reports: Aspasia, a Greek girl from Phocaea, became the wife of the Persian Prince Cyrus, son of Darius, and after his death she became the first of the wifes of his brother, the Persian King Artaxerxes II. 91.89.11.105 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please use modern academic sources - using ancient sources like this is what Wikipedia calls original research, and is discouraged. Achar Sva (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Opinion is presented here over logic.
[edit]It is not logically acceptable to claim without investigation that the Book of Esther is a "novella rather than history." There is no proof of this, or proof that it is not true. SO rather than claiming it as an absolute fact, it should have been presented as one belief as opposed to various others. For instance, "The Book of Esther is BELIEVED BY SOME to be more of a novella than history. THE REASONS FOR THIS VIEWPOINT ARE AS FOLLOWS:..." To claim outright that it isn't history is offensive and illogical. You need to examine other perspectives, as well. There are plenty of logical explanations for why it WOULD be history, despite APPARENT contradictions. There is always a way to represent BOTH sides of the argument. 73.1.239.131 (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree!!! The story of Esther is in the Bible which is considered historically sound by millions.Many disagree but that is also an OPINION. And the way the disagreement was expressed is offensive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.120.132 (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Proof is for math and whisky.
- The opinions of WP:BESTSOURCES are what Wikipedia is made of. See WP:VERECUNDIAM.
- See also WP:CRYBLASPHEMY and WP:NOTTHEOCRACY. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use Oxford spelling
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- C-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- C-Class Bible articles
- Top-importance Bible articles
- WikiProject Bible articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (royalty) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
- Royalty work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Judaism articles
- Top-importance Judaism articles
- C-Class Iran articles
- Mid-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- C-Class Christianity articles
- High-importance Christianity articles
- C-Class Saints articles
- High-importance Saints articles
- WikiProject Saints articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- C-Class Women's History articles
- Mid-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- C-Class Women in Religion articles
- Top-importance Women in Religion articles
- C-Class Ancient Near East articles
- Top-importance Ancient Near East articles
- Ancient Near East articles by assessment