My bad again having some computer issues this week so won't be posting as frequently.
On this last post indeed I have heard this before. It's indeed part of the debate of Ahasuerus identity. Indeed it is something of a conundrum whether it was Mordecai or one of his ancestors taken into captivity. The conundrum isn't solely focused on Xerxes though, for if Ahasuerus were Artaxerxes that would mean Mordecai have to be even older since Artaxerxes is Xerxes successor. Also a clear reading of the chapter does seem to indicate Kish may have been the one exiled. Another point is the secular sources cannot be trusted for an accurate duration of Xerxes reign or a gauge of his character as the secular sources come from revisionists and the ancient sources of the revisionists were the Hellenists. They serve some function I suppose, but we must be mindful they were his big enemies. Good post for the consideration though.
I will make here a counter-argument from the vantage point that Xerxes may actually be the best fit with the identity of Ahasuerus. The first hint is indeed as we've discussed earlier the first verse of the first chapter indicating this is at a time of Medo-Persian empire's height. This narrows it down to three basic Persian kings; Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. For my opinion it is actually the super short last chapter that provides some of the most compelling evidence. The first verse of chapter ten states that Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the nations of the seas, which typically means Europe. This would support the view that Ahasuerus is either Darius or Xerxes whom were both the foremost Persian kings in dealing with Europe and warring with them during their reigns. Also to note while my naive virgin self is somewhat turned off by the harem stuff, just putting those feelings to the side that also is somewhat a supporting proof as we are told in the Bible Ahasuerus had a harme and the Xerxes of secular/greek history is perhaps the most famous womanizer of all history.
The next few verses about Mordecai may be the most vital though as we are informed Mordecai is held in high esteem, perhaps even becoming something of a prime minister. The reason this is important is it is actually known that there were a few important Mordecai's in the secular proofs as part of Xerxes regime, with one of them even serving in an official capacity living in Susa/Shushan to boot. This would seem smoking gun evidence that Xerxes is indeed Ahasuerus.
The Quest for the Historical Mordecai | David Clines - Academia.edu
Though I concede the puzzle isn't over yet as there are still other contention factors such as you bring up such as whether Mordecai or his ancestor (most theorized to be Kish) was taken into captivity, the true duration of Xerxes reign, and a host of complication factors by secular sources which are mostly revisionists from thousands of years after the fact and the ancient Greeks whom were big time enemies of Xerxes and the Persians and did not write favorably about them to put it mildly. I suppose though that's what makes the study fun, it's kinda like a big intellectual jigsaw puzzle.
On this last post indeed I have heard this before. It's indeed part of the debate of Ahasuerus identity. Indeed it is something of a conundrum whether it was Mordecai or one of his ancestors taken into captivity. The conundrum isn't solely focused on Xerxes though, for if Ahasuerus were Artaxerxes that would mean Mordecai have to be even older since Artaxerxes is Xerxes successor. Also a clear reading of the chapter does seem to indicate Kish may have been the one exiled. Another point is the secular sources cannot be trusted for an accurate duration of Xerxes reign or a gauge of his character as the secular sources come from revisionists and the ancient sources of the revisionists were the Hellenists. They serve some function I suppose, but we must be mindful they were his big enemies. Good post for the consideration though.
I will make here a counter-argument from the vantage point that Xerxes may actually be the best fit with the identity of Ahasuerus. The first hint is indeed as we've discussed earlier the first verse of the first chapter indicating this is at a time of Medo-Persian empire's height. This narrows it down to three basic Persian kings; Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. For my opinion it is actually the super short last chapter that provides some of the most compelling evidence. The first verse of chapter ten states that Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the nations of the seas, which typically means Europe. This would support the view that Ahasuerus is either Darius or Xerxes whom were both the foremost Persian kings in dealing with Europe and warring with them during their reigns. Also to note while my naive virgin self is somewhat turned off by the harem stuff, just putting those feelings to the side that also is somewhat a supporting proof as we are told in the Bible Ahasuerus had a harme and the Xerxes of secular/greek history is perhaps the most famous womanizer of all history.
The next few verses about Mordecai may be the most vital though as we are informed Mordecai is held in high esteem, perhaps even becoming something of a prime minister. The reason this is important is it is actually known that there were a few important Mordecai's in the secular proofs as part of Xerxes regime, with one of them even serving in an official capacity living in Susa/Shushan to boot. This would seem smoking gun evidence that Xerxes is indeed Ahasuerus.
The Quest for the Historical Mordecai | David Clines - Academia.edu
Though I concede the puzzle isn't over yet as there are still other contention factors such as you bring up such as whether Mordecai or his ancestor (most theorized to be Kish) was taken into captivity, the true duration of Xerxes reign, and a host of complication factors by secular sources which are mostly revisionists from thousands of years after the fact and the ancient Greeks whom were big time enemies of Xerxes and the Persians and did not write favorably about them to put it mildly. I suppose though that's what makes the study fun, it's kinda like a big intellectual jigsaw puzzle.
Last edited:
It would seems that [["Artaxerxes"]] would have been a more faithful rendering. The translators of the Septuagint certainly thought so (Esther 1:1, LXX). So what happened to "The Mighty" portion during Grotefend's translation