ACCIDENT OR ACRONYMY: THE TETRAGRAMMATON IN THE MASORETIC TEXT OF ESTHER

________________________________________________________________________________ BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 171 (October–December 2014): 440–51

ACCIDENT OR ACRONYMY: THE TETRAGRAMMATON IN THE

MASORETIC TEXT OF ESTHER

John M. Manguno Jr.

HE TALMUD RECORDS THE QUESTION “Where is there an allu-sion to Esther in the Torah?” The answer given is “And I will hide My face.”1 The verb “I will hide” in Deuteronomy 31:18

is rytsa, which contains all the consonants in the name rtsa. This bit of midrashic wordplay highlights the root of problems posed by the book of Esther, for in Esther one character is conspicuously ab-sent, Yahweh. But what if the Hebrew text of Esther did contain a reference to Yahweh, albeit a hidden one? Would that not aid in finding answers to questions that have plagued interpreters of Es-ther for many years? Whether this feature exists and was an inten-tional plan of the original author is exactly the issue that this arti-cle addresses. Many well-intentioned Bible readers have been drawn into things like Michael Drosnin’s The Bible Code or Ivan Panin’s Nu-meric Greek New Testament, and competent scholars have present-ed strong cases against these methods.2 The question of the divine name being encoded in Esther, however, has not received a similar-ly thorough treatment. When the feature is mentioned at all, it is seemingly either accepted or dismissed without discussion of the

John M. Manguno Jr. is on staff at Southwestern Assemblies of God University, Waxahachie, Texas. 1 Talmud Chullin 139b; Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz, The Megillah: The Book of Esther (Brooklyn: ArtScroll Mesorah Publications, 1986), xv; Avigdor Boncheck, What’s Bothering Rashi: A Guide to In-depth Analysis of Rashi’s Com-mentary and the Midrash (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 2005), 2. 2 For an excellent refutation of Drosnin’s methods, see Richard A. Taylor, “The Bible Code: Teaching Them [Wrong] Things,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43 (December 2000): 619–36; for a refutation of Ivan Panin’s work, see Os-wald T. Allis, Bible Numerics (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1961).

T

Accident or Acronymy: The Tetragrammaton in the Masoretic Text of Esther 441

reasoning behind deciding one way or the other. That YHWH can be found as an acronym in the text is beyond dispute, but the ques-tion of intentionality remains open. This article aims to provide sound reasoning for dismissing the appearance of YHWH in the text as an accidental feature that seems significant only because of the unique omission of the divine name elsewhere in the book.

THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

As late as the third century AD, rabbis were discussing whether Esther “defiled the hands,”3 and it fared no better among later Christian interpreters, with Martin Luther saying, “I am so hostile to this book [II Maccabees] and to Esther that I could wish they did not exist at all.”4 And the questioning concerning Esther is far from over. As Abraham Cohen points out, “Modern scholars, impressed by the absence of God’s name and by a gentile mood in the book, question its Jewish roots and religious nature.”5 Thus, Esther is an enigmatic story accused of being too Jewish and nationalistic on some fronts, while also being too gentile on others. But no matter what its communal roots, its religious nature is even more prob-lematic to establish. The lack of the name of Yahweh serves as one of the major difficulties, if not the primary one, in unlocking the puzzle which is Esther. Michael Fox summarizes the issue as follows: “God is not men-tioned in Esther yet might be there from start to end. . . . It is this ‘might be’ that is so problematic. . . . The possibility of the divine presence calls for explanation.”6 Many explanations have been of-fered that seek to change the “might be” to an absolute “is.” And while some understand the scroll to be “secular” in nature, the “great majority of commentators consider the book ‘religious,’ meaning that it teaches, or at least assumes, that God is active in

3 Jon D. Levinson, “The Scroll of Esther in Ecumenical Perspective,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies (Summer 1976): 440; Adele Berlin, Esther rtsa: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, JPS Bible Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2001), xliii–xliv. 4 Martin Luther, Alexander Chalmers, and William Hazlitt, The Table Talk. Translated and Edited by William Hazlitt. New Ed., to Which Is Added the Life of Martin Luther (London: George Bell & Sons, 1875), 11.

5 Abraham D. Cohen, “Hu Ha-goral: The Religious Significance of Esther,” Juda-ism 23 (December 1974): 87–94; reprinted in Studies in the Book of Esther, ed. Car-ey A. Moore (New York: KTAV, 1982), 122. 6 Michael V. Fox, “The Religion of the Book of Esther,” Judaism 39 (Spring 1990): 135.

442 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / October–December 2014

the events that it narrates.”7 Even without engaging debates over the fictional or historical nature of the story, the dating of the text, or its ultimate genre and purpose, looking exclusively at Esther as a religious literary work still requires answering the question of God’s absence.8 The ancient versions serve only to complicate the issue by their voluminous additional material. The key difference between these versions and the Hebrew text is that the former make explicit what is missing in the later: reference to God.9 As Moore says, “The most striking addition to the Greek text is, of course, God Himself.”10 But while understanding the ancient ver-sions is a fascinating study in its own right, it is exclusively the divine-name-free Masoretic Text that would have need of a hidden acronym, and so it is to the Hebrew text that this examination now turns.

ACRONOMY IN ESTHER

In Esther 5:4, Esther requests, “Let the king and Haman come this day.” The Hebrew text behind the phrase is µwyh ˜mhw ˚lmh awby, and its initial consonants spell out the tetragrammaton when read from right to left. In 1:20, the phrase wnty µyçnh lkw ayh has the divine name spelled out using the initial consonants read left to right. Es-ther 5:13, with yl hwç wnnya hz, contains the name using the final con-sonants read left to right, and in 7:7, the name appears when read-ing right to left using the final consonants h[rh wyla htlk yk.11 The-se features have been recognized either partly or in whole in a smattering of sources both ancient and modern, with 5:4 receiving the most attention.

7 Ibid., 137. 8 Robert Gordis, “Religion, Wisdom and History in the Book of Esther—A New Solution to an Ancient Crux,” Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981): 359–88; Adele Berlin, “Esther and Ancient Storytelling,” Journal of Biblical Literature 120 (2001): 3–14. For a discussion of the textual issues, see Carey Moore, “On the Ori-gins of the LXX Additions to the Book of Esther,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 382; Lisbeth S. Fried, “Toward the UR-Text of Esther,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 88 (2000): 49–57; Michael Fox, “Three Esthers,” in The Book of Esther in Modern Research, ed. Sidnie White Crawford and Leonard J. Greenspoon (New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 52; Gregory R. Goswell, “Keeping God out of the Book of Esther,” Evangelical Quarterly 82 (April 2010): 99–110. 9 David R. Blumenthal, “Where God Is Not: The Book of Esther and Song of Songs,” Judaism 44 (January 1995): 80. 10 C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1977), 158. 11 E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible: King James Version (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), Appendix 60.


The acronym in 5:4 was noted by at least three medieval man-uscripts, which used majuscule letters to highlight this phenome-non.12 And while not mentioned in discussions on the missing name of God by Saadia or Ibn Ezra, the feature was alluded to by Zechariah ben Saruk13 and possibly by Abraham Saba.14 The fea-ture in 5:4 was also noted in the commentary of Eleazar ben Judah of Worms,15 who was among the German Hasidim of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.16 In addition, the feature in 7:7 was not-ed in Ashkenazi commentary around 1500.17 While the earliest roots of the recognition of this phenomenon remain a mystery, the amount of modern material available that mentions these features is substantial enough that an individual researching Esther is like-ly to encounter at least some mention of these acronyms. Though less common, there are hints within modern scholarly treatments of the scroll as well. The International Critical Com-mentary series volume on Esther highlights the features even though they are summarily dismissed as “mere rabbinic conceits designed to discover the name of God in the book.”18 It seems that much of the language that accompanies mention of the acrostics, if they are mentioned at all, follows Patton’s evaluation that these finds are mere coincidence. Weiland states, “The desire for God to surface in the story has been so overwhelming that some scribes claim to have found His name concealed in the book,” and the foot-note calls the features the “supposed concealment.”19 However, what if rather than dismissing outright this rabbinic observation, one allows that “subsequent Jewish treatment of a text might well represent the articulation of material that has been

12 Lewis B. Patton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908), 8.

13 Zechariah b. Joshua Ibn Saruq, Perush Megillat Ahashverosh (Venice, 1565), quoted in Barry Walfish, Esther in Medieval Garb: Jewish Interpretation of the Book of Esther in the Middle Ages (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 78. 14 Abraham Saba, Sefer Ketav yad Eshkol ha-Kofer al Megillat Rut; Sefer Ketav yad Eshkol ha-Kofer al Megillat Ester (Jerusalem: Keter, 1980), quoted in Walfish, Esther in Medieval Garb, 42.

15 Eleazer ben Judah of Worms, Sha‘arei Binah: Peirush Megillat, ’Ester (New York: Manfred and Anne Lehmann Foundation, 1981), 39.

16 Walfish, Esther in Medieval Garb, 265. 17 Boncheck, What’s Bothering Rashi, 3; Walfish, Esther in Medieval Garb, 265.

18 Patton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther, 8. 19 Forrest Weiland, “Literary Clues to God’s Providence in the Book of Esther,” Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (January–March 2003): 43.


encoded, or even repressed, in the explicit transmission of the text itself. As such, later Jewish tradition can be of significant use in understanding the full implications of a text under study”?20 The New American Commentary volume seems at least tempted by this option, as it leaves open the possibility of the intentionality of the 5:4 acronym, though it ultimately states that “the course of events is the best evidence of divine guidance and all that one needs to see the presence of God.”21 Whether or not the reader ultimately decides that there was an intentional encoding of the name of Yahweh in Esther is a mat-ter of personally weighing the evidence, but that decision should be based upon an examination of the features themselves. Therefore, this examination presents three arguments that ask the reader to consider the features as accidental, rather than a deliberate “en-coding” by the author designed to show unequivocally who was working behind the scenes of the Esther narrative. Instead of being a rhetorical device, they are merely a coincidence seized on by an audience that already perceives God’s hand in the narrative and wishes to find His name there.

VISUAL WORDPLAY IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

The first argument against the intentionality of the features in Es-ther is that they are not a recognized form of wordplay in the He-brew Bible. Studies of wordplay in the Hebrew Bible are beset with terminological problems and disagreement over what constitutes wordplay in the first place.22 While the term “paronomasia” is used

20 Daniel F. Polish, “Aspects of Esther: A Phenomenological Exploration of the Megillah of Esther and the Origins of Purim,” Journal for the Study of the Old Tes-tament (September 1999): 87; Adele Berlin does not mention the acrostic element in the JPS commentary, but she defends the appropriateness of at least examining the Jewish exegetical material. See Adele Berlin, “Writing a Commentary for a Jewish Audience,” in The Book of Esther in Modern Research, ed. Sidnie White Crawford and Leonard J. Greenspoon (New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 11.

21 Mervin Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, electronic ed., New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 339–40.

22 Isaac Nordheimer, A Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language (New York: Wiley and Putnam, 1841), 2:317–18; Immanuel M. Casanowicz, “Paronomasia in the Old Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 12 (1893): 105–67; Robert Chisholm, “Wordplay in the Eighth Century Prophets,” Bibliotheca Sacra 143 (January–March 1987): 44–52; Bill T. Arnold, “Wordplay and Narrative Techniques in Daniel 5 and 6,” Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (Fall 1993): 479–85; Scott Noegel, “Wordplay in Qoheleth,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 7 (2007): 1–28. Ronald L. An-drophy, ”Paronomasia in the Former Prophets: A Taxonomic Catalogue, Descrip-tion, and Analysis” (DHL thesis, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Graduate


in biblical scholarship as a description for all manner of rhetorical elements based on the sound of words, there exists some confusion over what aural features constitute wordplay. The question of “vis-ual wordplay” is even more problematic. Casanowicz’s seminal study in paronomasia deals exclusively with the “sound” element of words and departs from the traditional strict definition of paronomasia, as used in earlier rhetoric, by in-cluding all sound figures such as “alliteration, assonance, and other forms of rhyme.”23 However, Casanowicz makes no mention at all of “visual” elements. Gluck expanded upon Casanowicz’s work by developing categories for paronomastic interpretation, but he also does not mention visual wordplay.24 Sasson, in the Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary, does include a category for “visual wordplay” for elements like gematria, notrikon, acrostics, atbash, anastrophe, and epanastrophe.25 This recognition of visual wordplay is also ac-cepted by Cherry, who allows for visual paronomasia while admit-ting that visual word play is associated with “a lack of interest” and “perceived triviality.”26 Cherry defends the idea of visual wordplay based upon the work of Sasson and Beitzel, but he does not mention any visual wordplay in Esther. Neither Greenstein in The Anchor Bible Dictionary nor Heim in Dictionary of the Old Tes-tament has a category for visual wordplay, though Heim does allow that “wordplays can have aesthetic functions.”27 Even with this expansion of the idea of wordplay to accept vis-ual elements, however, the examples in Esther still would not clearly fall into any category listed by Sasson because they do not

School, 2011); Hans Ausloos and Valérie Kabergs, “Paronomasia or Wordplay? A Babel-Like Confusion: Towards a Definition of Hebrew Wordplay,” Biblica 93 (2012): 1–20.

23 Ausloos and Kabergs, “Paronomasia or Wordplay?” 4. 24 J. J. Gluck, “Paronomasia in Biblical Literature,” Semitics 1 (1970): 50–78.

25 J. M. Sasson, “Wordplay in the OT,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Sup-plementary Volume (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976), 969; Gary A. Rendsburg, “Wordplay in Biblical Hebrew: An Eclectic Collection,” in Puns and Pundits: Word-play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature, ed. Scott B. Noegel (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2000), 137–62. 26 R. T. Cherry, “Paranomasia and Proper Names in the Old Testament: Rhetorical Function and Literary Effect” (doctoral dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1988), 18.

27 Edward L. Greenstein, “Wordplay, Hebrew,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 968–71; K. Heim, “WordPlay,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry and Writings, ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008), 925–29.


appear at the beginning or ending of a line and, therefore, are not proper acrostics or teleostics. Interestingly enough, there are Baby-lonian examples of acrostics that are used to spell out a god’s name, but these acrostics begin lines in the same way the alphabetic acrostics in the Hebrew Bible do.28 Only in Beitzel’s term “acron-ymy,” for which he uses Esther 5:4 as the sole “beautiful” example, is there an explicit recognition and separate classification of this type of feature.29 Thus, the idea of intentional acronymy in the He-brew text as a recognized form of Hebrew wordplay seems tenuous at best. However, with acknowledgment of limited recognition of the term, “acronymy” is adopted here to describe the supposed fea-ture in Esther in order to differentiate this feature from the more widely recognized feature of acrostics, and in order to avoid the negative connotation associated with the word “code.”

EVIDENCE FROM OTHER BIBLICAL BOOKS

Having highlighted that acronymy is a questionable category of visual wordplay, the next step is to examine in more detail the ex-amples in Esther and determine just how unique a feature they are. Clearly the sequences exist, but the Hebrew Bible has no shortage of words that begin or end with vav, heh, or yod. Is this same phenomenon observable in other Hebrew texts? The answer is yes.30 The methods used to discover the examples in Esther work

28 Sasson, “Wordplay in the OT,” 969; W. M. Soll, “Acrostic,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 58; Han-an Eshel and John Strugnell, “Alphabetical Acrostics in Pre-Tannaitic Hebrew,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (July 2000): 441–58; Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, “Prov-erbs 29.22–27: Another Unnoticed Alphabetic Acrostic,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 92 (2001): 121–25. 29 Barry Beitzel, “Exodus 33:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Parono-masia,” Trinity Journal 1 NS (1980): 7. 30 This seems to be the main thing lacking in previous references to this phenome-non. With the exception of “Esther–Irony and Providence,” by Donald E. Curtis (http://bible.org/seriespage/esther-8211-irony-and-providence), where the author states, “To my knowledge, no other such acrostics exist in the Old Testament,” it seems that the acrostic is typically either dismissed or accepted without concern over whether it occurs elsewhere. Laurence A. Turner, however, saw the need and explores the topic in “Desperately Seeking YHWH: Finding God in Esther’s ‘Acros-tics,’ ” in Interested Readers: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David J. A. Clines, ed. James K. Aitken, Jeremy M. S. Clines, and Christl M. Maier (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013). His work had not been published when the present article was written and accepted for publication. In his essay Turner exam-ines the question of whether the phenomenon appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and shows it does, providing additional examples and exploring different sec-ondary literature.


also in other biblical books in which there is no reason to “encode” the divine name. The results are laid out in the charts below.31 TABLE 1. YHWH read left to right using initial consonants, as in Esther 1:20

Exod. 4:16 hyhy awh hyhw µ[h Lev. 8:15 qxy µdhAtaw jbzmh

Lev. 9:9 qxy µdhAtaw jbzmh

Num. 1:51 tmwy brqh rzhw µywlh

Deut. 20:8 ˚ly bblh ˚rw aryh

Josh. 11:16 larçy rhAtaw hbr[h

Josh. 18:28 µlçwry ayh yswbyhw !lah

Josh 24:18 bçy yrmahAtaw µym[h

2 Sam. 18:4 waxy µ[hAlkw r[çh

1 Kings 18:3 ary hyh whydb[w tybh

2 Kings 7:2 hwhy hnh rmayw µyhlah

Isa. 30:26 hyhy hmjh rwaw hmjh

Isa. 35:2 wary hmh ˜wrçhw lmrkh

Isa. 45:20 wdjy wçgnth wabw wxbqh

Jer. 31:7 hwhy [çwh wrmaw wllh

Zech. 1:5 wyjy µlw[lh µyabnhw µh

Zech. 8:19 hyhy yryç[h µwxw y[ybçh

Ps. 96:11 µ[ry "rah lgtw µymçh

Ruth 1:21 hwhy ynbyçh µqyrw ytklh

Eccles. 3:17 fpçy [çrhAtaw qydxh

Esth. 1:20 wnty µyçnhAlkw ayh

1 Chron. 27:30 whydjy twntahAl[w yl[mçyh

2 Chron. 23:6 wrmçy µ[hAlkw hmh

31 All searches were completed using Logos Bible Software in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit Morphology, Logos Bible Software, 2006.


TABLE 2. YHWH read right to left using initial consonants, as in Esther 5:4

Gen. 19:25 hmdah jmxw µyr[h ybçy Exod. 4:14 hnh µgw awh rbdy Num. 13:32 µ[hAlkw awh hybçwy 2 Sam. 18:4 µ[hAlkw r[çh dy 1 Kings 18:37 tbsh htaw µyhlah hwhy 2 Kings 10:1 µynmahAlaw µynqzh la[rzy Isa. 45:18 awh hç[w "rah rxy Ps. 96:11 "rah lgtw µymçh wjmçy 1 Chron. 5:12 hnçmh µpçw çarh lawy 1 Chron. 8:39 yçlçh flpylaw ynçh çw[y 1 Chron. 16:31 "rah lgtw µymçh wjmçy 1 Chron. 18:8 µydwm[hAtaw tçjnh µy 1 Chron. 22:18 "rah hçbknw "rah ybçy 1 Chron. 23:11 ynçh hzyzw çarh tjy 1 Chron. 23:19 y[ybrh µ[mqyw yçylçh layzjy 1 Chron. 26:4 y[ybrh rkçw yçlçh jawy 2 Chron. 20:34 µnh µynrjahw µynçarh fpçwhy

TABLE 3. YHWH read left to right using final consonants, as in Esther 5:13

Exod. 25:23 yxjw hmaw wbjr hmaw Exod. 37:10 yxjw hmaw wbjr hmaw Jer. 2:15 ylbm htxn wyr[ hmçl

TABLE 4. YHWH read right to left using final consonants, as in Esther 7:7

Exod. 3:13 hm wmçAhm yl Deut. 31:29 hç[mb wsy[khl hwhy yny[b Judg. 20:41 h[rh wyl[ h[gnAyk Jer. 51:31 hxqm wry[ hdklnAyk Ezek. 31:15 hpl[ wyl[ hdçh yx[ Zech. 9:17 hmw wbwfAhm yk Ps. 107:24 hlwxmb wytwalpnw hwhy yç[m


In terms of putting the acrostics in Esther on trial, these oc-currences represent the most compelling evidence that the feature is accidental. While a great deal may be made of the occurrences in Esther, in these other instances the “encoded” nature of the divine name loses its luster. In fact, in many of these examples, YHWH appears as one of the words making up the acrostic itself. So not only is acronymy a questionable category of wordplay, but in this case, other examples of the same acronym hurt the ar-gument for its intentionality. In the argument for intentionality, more is not better when the other examples are divorced from rhe-torical impact. However, this alone is not enough to dismiss com-pletely the feature as accidental. Even if YHWH as an acronym occurs unintentionally elsewhere, it could occur intentionally in Esther.

ACRONOMY AND RHETORICAL STRATEGY

In order to evaluate the intentionality of the acronyms in Esther, an area to consider is the author’s deliberate avoidance of God and religious themes in the scroll. While the acronyms in Esther may not be unique, there is something unique about Esther—its lack of the religious elements that one expects to find there. Robert Gordis observes that Esther has an “all-but-total absence of any religious motif.”32 This is a distinct contrast from another Jewish heroine whose story in the apocryphal book of Judith shares many similar themes with Esther but has decidedly religious content.33 What is gained by God’s absence in Esther in comparison with all other ca-nonical and apocryphal accounts in which He is named explicitly? Esther’s acceptance in the Jewish and Christian canon shows that enough readers have found God within the story, even without His name appearing. As Fox says, “The commentators who believe that God is hidden in the book of Esther do not think that He is very well hidden, for they have no doubts that the author had [no] doubts that God is nigh.”34 Patton argues that the name was omit-ted due to the frivolity of Purim.35 Saadia argues that if God’s

32 Gordis, “Religion, Wisdom and History in the Book of Esther: A New Solution to an Ancient Crux,” 360. 33 Ibid.; and Sidnie White Crawford, “Esther and Judith: Contrasts in Character,” in The Book of Esther in Modern Research, ed. Sidnie White Crawford and Leonard J. Greenspoon (New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 61–76. 34 Fox, “The Religion of the Book of Esther,” 138. 35 Patton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther, 95; Fox, “The Religion of the Book of Esther,” 138.


name had been used in the scroll, “heretics would have erased it and substituted the names of their gods.”36 While there are a num-ber of theories about why the name is absent, it seems most likely that the omission of God is an intentional literary technique em-ployed by the author. “God’s noticeable absence in the book of Es-ther is a deliberate authorial strategy, and the story is not to be rehabilitated for pious use by reinserting God into the story.”37 Fox states, “The attention that the Scroll’s readers have given to its silence about God shows that the silence speaks louder than a whole string of pious prayers and protestations.”38 In fact, the uncertainty of the story is one element that makes Esther such a remarkable piece of the biblical corpus. In many ways, it mirrors the experience of everyday people of faith. The-ophanies and prophetic announcements certainly have their place in the narrative of God, but most readers lack any analogy by which to compare them. They have not been invited up the moun-tain to see God’s face as Moses was. Instead, they remain in the camp below, wondering if the sounds carried on the wind are the voice of God echoing or merely distant thunder. It is the absence of God’s name that makes Esther so relatable to hearers both modern and ancient. When one adopts this understanding of the design of the book of Esther, there is little place for a deliberately hidden acrostic of the name of God. After taking pains to tell a “religious” story without any religious elements, why hide the divine name in a way that is too obscure to be noted by anyone hearing the text and that is difficult to find even in the written text?

36 Saadia ben Joseph quoted in Yehuda Ratzaby, “Mi-peirush R. Se‘adyah li-Megillat ’Ester,” in Sefer yovel li-khevod Yosef Dov ha-Levi Soloveis’iq [Soloveitchik], ed. Sha’ul Yisre’eli, Nahum Lam [Norman Lamm] and Yishaq Refa’el [Yitzhak Raphael], 1153–78, quoted in Walfish, Esther in Medieval Garb, 76; English transla-tions of fragments of Saadia’s commentary are available in Michael Wechsler, “Ten Newly Identified Fragments of Saadia’s Commentary on the Book of Esther: Intro-duction and Translation,” in Pesher Nahum: Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature from Antiquity through the Middle Ages, Presented to Norman (Na-hum) Golb, ed. J. L. Kraemer and M. G. Wechsler (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2012); a full English translation of Saadia’s commen-tary is scheduled to be published by Michael Wechsler, The Book of Conviviality in Exile (Kit!b al-"n!s bi-’l-jalwa): The Judaeo-Arabic Translation and Commentary on the Book of Esther by Saadia ben Joseph Gaon.

37 Gregory R. Goswell, “Keeping God out of the Book of Esther,” Evangelical Quar-terly 82 (2010): 109.

38 Fox, “The Religion of the Book of Esther,”144.


CONCLUSION

If this were an actual trial, this would be where “the prosecution rests.” And in the closing arguments, the analogy of baseball would be brought up to the jury. Visual wordplay in the Hebrew Bible is almost completely unrecognized. Save for one mention, even the categories that recognize visual wordplay do not identify acronyms as they appear in Esther as a valid rhetorical feature. Strike One. Secondly, the feature is not unique. It appears in other parts of the Hebrew Bible where it has no rhetorical value and in which the name of Yahweh figures prominently. Strike Two. Finally, the ab-sence of the divine name in cases where it would normally be ex-pected highlights that the author of Esther intentionally did not mention God. Thus it would seem counter intuitive to hide the di-vine name when it was left out elsewhere throughout the text. Strike Three. Out. By linguistic happenstance, the name YHWH can be found in the Hebrew text of Esther, and this feature was noticed and latched onto because of the unique character of the sto-ry of Esther. Does all of this, however, represent absolute proof beyond any reasonable doubt? Unfortunately, no. Visual wordplay is not a widely recognized feature, but that does not mean it does not exist. As the scholars discussing paronomasia make clear, much work remains to be done in recognizing and evaluating all elements of wordplay in the Hebrew Bible. And even if a category of acronymy is largely dismissed, that does not mean it could not happen once. The acronym for YHWH appears elsewhere in the Hebrew text, but what happens accidentally in one place does not affect intentionali-ty in another. To say that the feature is not unique is saying some-thing very different from saying it is unintentional. Finally, the theological point that seems to permeate interpretation of Esther is that God is indeed there, even if He is not readily apparent. When viewed from one angle, hiding the name of God seems to go against the ultimate rhetorical strategy of the author, but from only a slightly different viewpoint, it seems to represent the culmination of the author’s intended communication: God can be found there even when He is apparently hidden. The reader sits in the “jury box.” Is it more likely than not that the acronyms in Esther are accidental? If this were a criminal case, there could be no conviction, because a reasonable doubt can cer-tainly be brought to mind. However, it is hoped that the evidence presented here will allow the reader to make an informed decision that results in dismissing belief that the author intentionally hid God’s name within the Hebrew text of Esther.

ACCIDENT OR ACRONYMY: THE TETRAGRAMMATON IN THE MASORETIC TEXT OF ESTHER

Documents

Transcript of ACCIDENT OR ACRONYMY: THE TETRAGRAMMATON IN THE MASORETIC TEXT OF ESTHER