The second dimension is of course
the more momentous: it continues to fuel the progress of the story well beyond
the time when the conflict of Haman and Mordecai has ceased, with Haman impaled
on the pole prepared for Mordecai (7.10). (David J. A. Clines, The Esther
Scroll: The Story of a Story [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 12)
Haman is the only enemy the Jews
have. Even his family are not portrayed as anti-Jewish, just anti-Mordecai.
Zeresh his wife indeed recommends that Haman should arrange for Mordecai to be
impaled on a 75-foot pole in their courtyard (5.14), but this advice seems more
to humour her husband who confesses that every honour does him no good, 'so
long as I see Mordecai sitting at the king's gate' (5.13), rather than out of
any settled hatred of the Jewish people as such. (Ibid., 43)
But the important point, which
the commentators miss, is that Haman's associates evince no indelible
anti-Jewish sentiment but capitulate to the Jewish side as soon as Haman
suffers no more than a symbolic rejection. They were eager enough to have
Mordecai impaled when Mordecai's continued tenure of office was taking the edge
off Haman's delight in hobnobbing with the royals (5.13f.), but the moment
Haman tells them of the rather farcical charade in which he—still 'one of the
king's most noble princes' according to his own job description (6.9)—has
paraded Mordecai through the streets they meekly accept that their patron has
no chance before the unstoppable Jewish people. Haman is out in the cold, where
he has always really been, the enemy of the Jews, their one and only. (Ibid.,
44)
In the narrative, unlike the
summary, the king did not give orders 'in writing' for the execution of Haman
or the impalement of Haman and his sons. . . . Of lesser significance is the
fact that the summary gives the impression that Haman and his sons were impaled
at the same time, whereas in the narrative some months have intervened between
the two events. The compression of the two events is understandable in a
summary. (Ibid., 53)
The plot-element of the threat to
Mordecai has been essentially located within the court: it has been the king's
servants at the king's gate who in the first place noticed his insubordination
to Haman (3.3), and it has been only at home with his wife and confidants that
the fate of Mordecai has been discussed. An eunuch in attendance on the king
has discovered that the pole in Haman's courtyard has been prepared for the
impalement of Mordecai (7.9). (Ibid., 64)
In MT, of course, the Jews slay
the sons of Haman in the course of the massacre they carry out on Adar 13; and
there Esther's request to the king is only that—after their death—Haman's sons
should be impaled, and so, presumably, meet the same fate as their father
already has. (Ibid., 80)
The king's command to hang/impale
Haman on his own gallows/stake (AT 8.13; MT 7.10) is now followed by a report:
'So they impaled Haman on the pole which he had prepared for Mordecai'. (Ibid.,
99)
The second half of ch. 5 (vv.
9-14) must belong to the Mordecai source since it depicts Raman's wrath against
Mordecai, and puts forward the idea that Mordecai should be impaled by Haman;
and these verses are necessarily preceded by some account of a banquet given by
Esther. (Ibid., 120)
I have earlier (section II above)
voiced the suspicion that at MT 7.8 the Esther source gave some account of
Haman's end—which has now been supplanted by the much more fitting punishment
of impalement on the very pole that he had destined for Mordecai. The MT of 7.8
is far from clear, but the AT does give a hint of a more explicit account of
Haman's end. After exclaiming 'Does he also rape my wife before my eyes?', in
the AT (8.1 If.) the king commands, 'Let Haman be taken away, and let him not
seek (? mercy)' (απαχθητω Αμαν και μη ζητω)—to
which is added, 'And so he was led away' (και ουτως απηγετο). (Ibid., 129)
A eunuch reveals to the king that
Haman has been preparing to impale Mordecai on a pole in his courtyard.3 Such a
crime against the man who 'spoke good concerning the king' (AT 8.12) can only
be correctly punished by the principle of talion. So Haman is impaled, and
Mordecai is installed in Haman's place (AT 8.15; MT 8.2); perhaps also some
more formal installation of Mordecai as vizier, such as we have in MT 8.15,
concluded the tale, but the notice of such an event as we have it in AT 8.39-40
does not appear to be original to the AT but dependent on the MT shape of the
story. (Ibid., 142)
In the LXX of Esther also, at two
critical junctures, we read that 'God changed the spirit of the king to
gentleness' (καί μετέβαλεν ό θεός τό πνεύμα τού βασιλέως είς πραύτητα) when
Esther entered his presence (D8 = 15.8); and that on the crucial night before
the planned impalement of Mordecai, 'the Lord kept sleep from the king' (ό δέ
κύριος άπέστησεν τόν ύπνον άπό τού βασιλέως, 6.1). (Ibid., 170)
In this particular AT 8.37 agrees
with Addition E (AT 8.28 = LXX 16.18); but the relationship between this
element of AT and Addition E is not very clear. It may be added that Addition E
contradicts the MT and LXX on another aspect of this episode: according to MT,
Haman was impaled on the twenty-third of the third month (8.9), but his sons
were not impaled until the fourteenth of the twelfth month (9.13). (Ibid., 189
n. 28)
