In short, the reason why the renowned priest and scribe Ezra is missing, seemingly inexplicably, from the list of “illustrious men” in Sirach 44-50, is because Ezra was the author of the book.
At least, that can be concluded from the following argument of mine, identifying Ezra as the author’s ben Sira.
Sirach 51:1, 2, 4:
“I will give thanks to you, Lord and King … for you have been protector and support to me, and redeemed my body from destruction … from the stifling heat which hemmed me in, from the heart of a fire which I had not kindled …”.
Saved “from the heart of a fire”, “hemmed in” by its “stifling heat”.
Could Sirach’s be a graphic description by one who had actually stood in the heart of the raging fire? – had stood inside “the burning fiery furnace” of King Nebuchednezzar? (Daniel 3:20)
Another translation (GNT) renders the vivid account of the Lord’s saving of Sirach as follows (Sirach 51:3-5): “… from the glaring hatred of my enemies, who wanted to put an end to my life; from suffocation in oppressive smoke rising from fires that I did not light; from death itself; from vicious slander reported to the king”.
According to the far more dispassionate account of the same (so I think) incident as narrated in Daniel 3:49-50:
… the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace beside Azariah and his companions; he drove the flames of the fire outwards, and fanned into them, in the heart of the furnace, a coolness such as wind and dew will bring, so that the fire did not even touch them or cause them any pain or distress.
Note that both texts refer almost identically to “the heart of the fire [the furnace]”.
Azariah – {who, unlike “his companions”, Hananiah and Mishael, is named here in Daniel} – I have identified as Ezra the scribe:
In this article I had noted that: “Ezra [is] a mostly obscure character throughout the Scriptures, despite his immense reputation and status …”. And also that: “… Azariah is always listed as the last of the trio (Daniel 1:6): “Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah”, variously as “Abednego” (cf. vv. 11, 19; 2:17, 49; 3:12-30), perhaps because he was the youngest …”.
To which comment, however, I had added, “… it is apparent that it is he [Azariah] who will take the leading part in the confession of guilt and the prayers”.
And that would make sense if Azariah were Ezra, for, as also noted in the article with reference to Ezra 7:1-5, “[Ezra was] … a priest in the line of Aaron, hence, potentially, the High Priest”.
So why might it be that the Daniel 3 text above names only “Azariah”, he perhaps being the youngest of the trio?
Well, if Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) chapter 51 has any relevance to the fiery furnace situation, if Sirach were Azariah-Ezra, then he himself appears to have been the one who had decided to appeal prayerfully to the Divine mercy for help and protection (vv. 6-12):
I was once brought face-to-face with death; enemies surrounded me everywhere. I looked for someone to help me, but there was no one there. But then, O Lord, I remembered how merciful you are and what you had done in times past. I remembered that you rescue those who rely on you, that you save them from their enemies. Then from here on earth I prayed to you to rescue me from death.I prayed, O Lord, you are my Father; do not abandon me to my troubles when I am helpless against arrogant enemies. I will always praise you and sing hymns of thanksgiving. You answered my prayer, and saved me from the threat of destruction. And so I thank you and praise you.
O Lord, I praise you!
The three young Jewish men, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, had had no hope whatsoever of obtaining any human deliverance. But once again Azariah alone will be the one to proclaim this (“Then Azariah stood still and there in the fire he prayed aloud”) (Daniel 3:32-33):
‘You have delivered us into the power of our enemies, of a lawless people, the worst of the godless, of an unjust king, the worst in the whole world; today we dare not even open our mouths, shame and dishonour are the lot of those who serve and worship You’.
Might Sirach 51 be an echo of this terrifying situation, when Sirach prays to God,
“You have redeemed me
[v. 3] from the fangs of those who would devour me, from the hands of those seeking my life
…
[v. 6] From the unclean tongue and the lying word –
The perjured tongue slandering me to the king.
….
[v. 7] They were surrounding me on every side, there was no one to support me;
I looked for someone to help – in vain”.
Now, just as it was found (in the “Ezra” article) that the name “Ezra” was related to the name “Azariah”, apparently a shortened version of the latter, so, I think, can the Hebrew (or Aramaïc) name, “Sira” (Greek Sirach), be plausibly connected with Azariah, a name that may appear in the El Amarna letters as Aziru, Azira (= Sira?),or Azaru.
Accordingly, in the New World Encyclopedia article, “Ben Sira”, we read:
The author is named in the Greek text (l. 27), “Jesus the son of Sirach of Jerusalem.” The copy owned by Saadia Gaon had the reading “Shim`on, son of Yeshua`, son of El`azar ben Sira;” and a similar reading occurs in the Hebrew manuscript. By interchanging the positions of the names “Shim`on” and “Yeshua`,” the same reading is obtained as in the other manuscripts. The correctness of the name “Shim`on” is confirmed by the Syriac version, which has “Yeshua`, son of Shim`on, surnamed Bar Asira.” The discrepancy between the two readings “Bar Asira” and “Bar Sira” is a noteworthy one, “Asira” (“prisoner”) being a popular etymology of “Sira.” The evidence seems to show that the author’s name was Yeshua, son of Shimon, son of Eleazar ben Sira. (“Jesus” is the Anglicized form of the Greek name Ιησους, the equivalent of Syriac Yeshua` and Masoretic Hebrew Yehoshua`.) ….
If the one whom we call Sirach was actually Eleazar ben Sira, as in this quote, then that would do no harm whatsoever to my identification, and would likely even enhance it.
Moreover, the name of Ezra’s father, Seraiah (Ezra 7:1), “… Ezra son of Seraiah …”, can easily be equated with Sira, which would give us the perfect equation:
Ezra (= Eleazer) son of Seraiah;
= Eleazer son of Sira(ch)
Of course any correlation between the young Azariah at the time of King Nebuchednezzar, and Sirach, estimated to have lived early in the Maccabean period, is quite unrealistic in terms of the over-extended conventional chronology.
My above-mentioned article on “Ezra”, though, suggests that this is possible, with the holy man living to as late as the wars of Judas Maccabeus.
While the Book of Daniel (chapter 3) will recount the story of the three young men in the burning fiery furnace in a somewhat objective and dispassionate fashion, presenting the three young heroes there as respectfully defiant before the Great King, Sirach, on the other hand, reads like a dramatic eye-witness window into the utter fearfulness and terror of the situation – a young man, who had actually experienced it, having been filled with the anxiety of expecting that he was about to lose his life in a most horrifying fashion.
In the March/April 2014 issue of BAR, I wrote an article on 50 people in the Hebrew Bible whose existence has been confirmed by archaeology.a At the end of the article, in a box, I also listed seven additional people. They had not three, but only two, attributes matching the Biblical person, so their identifications were not certain but were reasonable hypotheses.
Now I am pleased to report on three new people added to the 50 confirmed (of whom two have already been mentioned in BARb), and three new people added to the seven uncertain but reasonable identifications. At the end are a few interesting non-identifications.
Strongly Identified
The first real person to be added to the original list of 50 is the Biblical Tattenai (also translated Tatnai or Sisinnes), mentioned in Ezra 5:3, etc. He was the Persian governor of the province of Trans-Euphrates—literally, “Beyond-the-River,” which for the Persians meant their territory west of the Euphrates River. There are strong grounds for identifying Biblical Tattenai in a tablet of Darius I the Great, king of Persia, which can be dated to exactly June 5, 502 B.C.E. First, the letter on this tablet, which was recovered from Babylon, has long been accepted as authentic.
Second, the setting (time and place) of the Tattenai in the tablet was in Trans-Euphrates during the reign of Darius I (r. 520–486 B.C.E.). That territory included Yehud (roughly equivalent to Judah, but under Persian rule), which matches the setting of the Tattenai in the Book of Ezra chapters 5 and 6. Ezra’s Tattenai appears in Jerusalem during the last few years before the completion of the Second Temple around 516 B.C.E. Third, only one person named Tattenai would have been the Persian governor of Trans-Euphrates between 520 and 502 B.C.E. It is extremely unlikely that two different men having exactly the same name would both be governors over Trans-Euphrates, and specifically Yehud, during this very narrow time period, so that possibility is negligible. Therefore, the identification of the Biblical Tattenai in Darius I’s letter of 502 is based on singularity: One and only one person qualifies. ….
Is there archaeological evidence supporting the Bible record? In 2014 an article in the magazine Biblical Archaeology Review addressed the question:
“How many people in the Hebrew Bible have been confirmed archaeologically?” The answer given: “At least 50!” One man who did not make the list in that article was Tattenai. Who was he? Let us review his brief role in the Bible record.
Jerusalem was once part of a vast Persian Empire. The city lay in an area that the Persians called Across-the-River, that is, to the west of the Euphrates. After conquering Babylonia, the Persians released Jewish captives and authorized them to rebuild Jehovah’s temple in Jerusalem. (Ezra 1:1-4) Enemies of the Jews, however, opposed the project and used it as a pretext to accuse the Jews of rebelling against Persia. (Ezra 4:4-16) During the reign of Darius I (522-486 B.C.E.), a Persian official named Tattenai led an inquiry into the matter. The Bible calls him “the governor of the region Beyond the River.”—Ezra 5:3-7.
A number of cuneiform tablets bearing the name Tattenai have survived as part of what may have been a family archive. The tablet that links one member of this family to the Bible character is a promissory note dated to the 20th year of Darius I, 502 B.C.E. It identifies a witness to the transaction as a servant of “Tattannu, governor of Across-the-River”—the same Tattenai who appears in the Bible book of Ezra.
What was this man’s role? In 535 B.C.E., Cyrus the Great reorganized his dominions into provinces, one of which was called Babylon and Across-the-River. The province was later split into two parts, one of which was simply called Across-the-River. It included Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, Samaria, and Judah and was likely ruled from Damascus. Tattenai governed this region from about 520 to 502 B.C.E.
After traveling to Jerusalem to investigate the accusation of rebellion, Tattenai reported to Darius that the Jews claimed to have received authorization from Cyrus to rebuild Jehovah’s temple. Investigations in the royal archives substantiated that claim. (Ezra 5:6, 7, 11-13; 6:1-3) So Tattenai was ordered not to interfere, and he obeyed.—Ezra 6:6, 7, 13.
To be sure, “Tattenai the governor of the region Beyond the River” merits only a footnote in history. Note, though, that the Scriptures mention him and apply to him exactly the right title. That fact gives us yet another bit of evidence that archaeology repeatedly supports the Bible’s historical accuracy.
What is even more remarkable is the name of the man who accompanied Tattenai to Jerusalem, Sether-Bozana, has also been found in … records from Nippur, dating to the 38th year of Artaxerxes I (427-426 B.C.) [sic]
In the Collection of the Babylonian Section, Philadelphia, Artifacts #CBS 5174+12893 Illustration Figure 13 Line 25` mentions the man, Sether-Bozana: …. Another mention of Sether-Bozana is found in the records from Nippur dating to the 41st year of King Artaxerxes I (424 B.C.) [sic], just two years before the Biblical story in Ezra during king Darius II reign [sic]. Located in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum – Part of the Nippur tablet Collection, Artifact (Ni.528) mentions Sether-Bozana (Sa-ta-bar-za-na) Figure 18 Line 26. ….
“As a dreamer, and especially as a dream interpreter, Mordecai is brought
in line with Daniel and, more importantly, with their predecessor Joseph”.
Aaron Koller
A reader has written (e-mail):
…. The crest on the door of the Vatican is a Dragon. I think that is a clue to what is inside. ….
Damien Mackey’s response:
Then you’d have trouble with the Book of Esther, in which the holy Mordecai, the Jew, is depicted as a great dragon.
Mordecai in his dream (Apocr. Esth. i. 4-11) sees two dragons coming to fight each other (representing Mordecai and Haman, ib. vi. 4); the nations make ready to destroy the “people of the righteous,” but the tears of the righteous well up in a little spring that grows into a mighty stream (comp. Ezek. xlvii. 3-12; according to Apocr. Esth. vi. 3, the spring symbolizes Esther, who rose from a poor Jewess to be a Persian queen).
The sun now rises, and those who had hitherto been suppressed “devoured those who till then had been honored” (comp. Esth. ix. 1-17).
A Vatican emblem is a dragon, but this has nothing to do with Satan. The Bible says Yahweh spews fire from his mouth and smoke from his nostrils in II Samuel, that he has enormous wings in Psalms. In Numbers, he orders Moses to make a bronze fiery serpent image. Etc.
… It has often been suggested — and by often, I mean every single Pagan I have ever talked to has mentioned it, and half of the Jews who knew anything about Judaism have said it to me, personally, at least once– that the Book of Ester [Esther] actually a veiled myth about Marduk and Ishtar.
Can you blame them?
Purim is widely known to be a Jewish adaptation of a Babylonian drinking holiday. Just listen to the names, too. Mordechai and Esther. They sound like the [names] of those two deities.
I decided to do some investigation into this Babylonian drinking holiday, and was lead [sic] back to an ancient Babylonian tale about how the hero, Marduk, defeated Tiamat. In it, there are indeed many similarities to the Purim story.
The antagonist, Tiamat, is terrorizing the good gods (or the ones that the reader is supposed to be rooting for). In the third tablet we learn,
“All the gods have turned to her,
“With those, whom ye created, they go at her side.
”They are banded together, and at the side of Tiamat they advance;
20 . “They are furious, they devise mischief without resting night and day.
”They prepare for battle, fuming and raging;
“They have joined their forces and are making war.”
“The gods” here are sort of a faceless multitude.
Likewise, in the Book of Ester, there is a faceless multitude waiting to do evil to the Jews:
“And the letters were sent by posts into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.” (Esther, 3:13)
In both, there is also a wine feast that is instrumental in swinging the tide of history over to the side of the “good guys.”
In the Enuma Elish, Tablet 3:
They made ready for the feast, at the banquet [they sat];
They ate bread, they mixed [sesame-wine].
The sweet drink, the mead, confused their […],
They were drunk with drinking, their bodies were filled.
They were wholly at ease, their spirit was exalted;
Then for Marduk, their avenger, did they decree the fate.
and in the Book of Esther:
“Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king’s house, over against the king’s house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the house.
And it was so, when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she obtained favour in his sight: and the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre that was in his hand. So Esther drew near, and touched the top of the sceptre.
Then said the king unto her, What wilt thou, queen Esther? and what is thy request? it shall be even given thee to the half of the kingdom.
And Esther answered, If it seem good unto the king, let the king and Haman come this day unto the banquet that I have prepared for him.” (Esther, 5:1-4)
An aside: Scepter? Do you mean his staff? His power rod? The big long thing he likes to have in his hand? Yeah. It’s tip. She touched it. Oh yes, the Jewish people went there.
The stories also have a very similar ending, too.
From the Enumah Elish (fourth tablet):
When the gods, his fathers, beheld (the fulfilment of) his word,
They rejoiced, and they did homage (unto him, saying), “Marduk is king!”
They bestowed upon him the sceptre, and the throne, and the ring,
and then,
He seized the spear and burst her belly,
He severed her inward parts, he pierced (her) heart.
He overcame her and cut off her life;
He cast down her body and stood upon it.
When he had slain Tiamat, the leader,
Her might was broken, her host was scattered.
And the gods her helpers, who marched by her side,
Trembled, and were afraid, and turned back.
They took to flight to save their lives;
But they were surrounded, so that they could not escape.
He took them captive, he broke their weapons;
In the net they were caught and in the snare they sat down.
The […] … of the world they filled with cries of grief.
And in the book of Ester:
“8:1 On that day did the king Ahasuerus give the house of Haman the Jews’ enemy unto Esther the queen. And Mordecai came before the king; for Esther had told what he was unto her.
8:2 And the king took off his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it unto Mordecai. And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman.”
and then,
“8:17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king’s commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.”
and then, just in case the Hebrew Mythos left it unclear as to who, exactly, is wearing the pants:
“And the king said unto Esther the queen, The Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the palace, and the ten sons of Haman; what have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces? now what is thy petition? and it shall be granted thee: or what is thy request further? and it shall be done.
Then said Esther, If it please the king, let it be granted to the Jews which are in Shushan to do to morrow also according unto this day’s decree, and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged upon the gallows.” (Esther, 9:12-13)
As a dreamer, and especially as a dream interpreter, Mordecai is brought in line with Daniel and, more importantly, with their predecessor Joseph. …. This not only established Mordecai as reminiscent of earlier biblical heroes, but also establishes his religious bona fides: he, like Joseph and Daniel, was the recipient of divine revelation and (by implication) divine approval. Certainly, the author of Addition A was biblically-oriented: the dream contains many intertextual references to other biblical books. These include use of the imagery of the dragon, fountain, battle, and the contrast between dark and light from Jeremiah 28. ….
[End of quote]
The titanic struggle
“In the second year of the reign of Ahasuerus the Great …. Mordecai … of the tribe of Benjamin, had a dream. He was a Jew in the city of Susa, a great man serving in the court of the king. He was one of the captives whom Nebuchednezzar king of Babylon had brought from Jerusalem with Jeconiah king of Judea. And this was his dream:
‘Behold, noise and confusion, thunders and earthquake, tumult upon the earth! And behold, two great dragons came forward, both ready to fight, and they roared terribly. And at their roaring every nation prepared for war, to fight against the nation of the righteous. And behold, a day of darkness and gloom, tribulation and distress, affliction and great tumult upon the earth! And the whole righteous nation was troubled; they feared the evils that threatened them, and were ready to perish. Then they cried to God; and from their cry, as though from a tiny spring, there came a great river, with abundant water; light came, and the sun rose, and the lowly were exalted and consumed those held in honour’.
Mordecai saw in this dream what God had determined to do, and after he awoke he had it on his mind and sought all day to understand it in every detail” (Esther 11:1-12).
According to the unusual arrangement of the Book of Esther, this section from chapter 11 is situated at the very beginning of the narrative. It is, however, a most fitting introduction to the story since it sets the scene for the main drama to follow, presenting a symbolic account of it to the reader in prophetic form. In the ‘denouement’, or resolution of the drama, at the end of the Book of Esther in chapter 10, Mordecai explains all the various parts of his dream, whose meaning had become fully known to him as the events unfolded. It depicts the titanic struggle between good and evil as a fight between “two great dragons”.
More specifically, as Mordecai finally reveals to us in chapter 10,
“The two dragons are Haman and myself” (10:7).
Mordecai’s apocalyptic dream is also a perfect back-drop for the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima. She came upon the earth in 1917, when all nations were involved in the Great War (1914-1918). It was indeed a time of “darkness and gloom, tribulation and distress, affliction and great tumult upon the earth”. Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922), the then reigning Pontiff, had used all the diplomatic resources at his disposal to bring an end to the hostilities, the shock of whose advent may well have killed his holy predecessor, Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914). But seeing that his efforts were in vain, pope Benedict XV turned his eyes to Heaven, and on the 5th of May 1917 he ordered that recourse be had to the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, adding to the Litany of Loreto a new invocation: “Regina pacis, ora pro nobis”, that is, “Queen of Peace, pray for us”.
And thus again, as in the case of Mordecai’s dream, a great “dragon” had begun to “roar” loudly on behalf of “the whole righteous nation”. But in this case it was the Supreme Pontiff of the chosen nation of the holy Catholic Church who cried to God and who ordered that all Catholics do the same.
The response from Heaven was immediate.
On the 13th of May, 1917, a mere eight days after the Holy Father had begun his plea to Heaven, the Blessed Virgin Mary visited the troubled earth, appearing to three innocent children, Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco, at Fatima in Portugal. The precise place to which the Queen of Peace came at Fatima was one completely unknown, not only in Portugal and in the world, but even to the majority of the inhabitants of Fatima. Its name is Cova da Iria, a word which is derived from the Greek term eirene, meaning ‘peace’.
The graphic images of noise, tumult, affliction and wholesale confusion upon the earth, ‘with every nation preparing for war’, as described in Mordecai’s dream, anticipate not only the Great War during which Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima first appeared, and the many wars that have followed, but even more significantly they recall to mind that relentless and on-going struggle for souls. The latter is, of course, a spiritual warfare between the forces of good and evil, the “two great dragons” of the Book of Esther. In the past two to three centuries this struggle has visibly assumed a more global aspect; a bitter fight to the death between the holy Catholic Church and the forces of a world-wide conspiracy for global conquest and the formation of a “One-World ‘Church’,” (Pope St. Pius X) masterminded by the Devil, and set in motion initially through the agency of the secret societies of Freemasonry.
The conspirators of evil were already in the midst of laying down their plans to unleash the “great red dragon” of Communism (cf. Revelation 12:3) upon Russia in 1917, when Heaven went into action. With Lenin and Trotsky in Petrograd, preparing to give orientation to the Bolshevist revolution which they directed, there came from Heaven, from the east, a Lady of Light, to Fatima. She was the same “Woman clothed with the sun” who – as the Evangelist had predicted long ago – would be opposed to this great red dragon (Revelation 12:3-5). She came solemnly to remind us of the unique and infallible means of salvation, strengthening our Faith in God, inviting us to prayer and penance and to flee sin, asking us to recite the Rosary daily and to consecrate ourselves to Her Immaculate Heart.
It was only after Our Lady of Fatima’s six apparitions in 1917 had run their course from May to October that, on the 7th of November of that year, the Bolshevist faction triumphed first at Petrograd, then at Moscow.
As Fr. J. DaCruz put it, whilst at the eastern end of Europe the spirit of Antichrist was being “unloosed, not only against true religion, but even against the very idea of God and against civil society, the most terrible onslaught in all history, at the same moment there appeared in splendour at the western extremity, the Great and Eternal Enemy of the infernal serpent!” [More about Fatima and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, p. 54].
The Thirteenth Day of the Month
To appreciate why Heaven has placed such special emphasis on the 13th day of the month, making it the intended day of each of the six apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Fatima, we need to refer again to the pages of the Book of Esther.
It is an important point and one that has been made before.
Mordecai the Jew had been raised to prominence in the court of the King of Medo-Persia because he, having become cognizant of a plot by two of the king’s eunuchs to assassinate their master, had duly informed the king and had thus saved his life.
We also learn about Mordecai that he had brought up Hadassah, that is Esther, the daughter of his uncle; for, after both her parents had died, Mordecai had adopted the girl as his own daughter (Esther 11:3; 12:1; 2:7). [Actually, she became Mordecai’s wife].
This Mordecai is therefore a key player in the whole drama.
Into the midst of this tranquil scenario steps the sinister Haman.
For reasons unexplained, the king so advances this foreign guest of his (Esther 16:10) as to set him above all the princes and make him second in the kingdom (cf. e.g. 3:1-2 and 16:11). This means that all the king’s servants were expected to bow down to Haman. The fact that Mordecai would not bow down filled Haman with fury. He thereupon resolved “to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus. But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai himself” (3:1, 6).
There is more to Haman than first meets the eye, and it gradually becomes apparent that his intentions are conspiratorial. Because of his extreme cunning, Haman has no difficulty insinuating his way into great prominence in the kingdom of Medo-Persia; his ultimate purpose being, as he speedily rose to become “the person second to the royal throne” (16:11), to get rid of the king. For, as it turned out, even the eunuchs’ plot to assassinate king Ahasuerus had been masterminded by Haman (12:16). A chastened king Ahasuerus would later testify that this Haman, who “was called our father and was continually bowed down to by all”, had thought to “transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians” [sic] (16:12, 14).
No doubt Haman intended for himself (and/or perhaps for one of his ten sons) to be the ruler over this united kingdom of east and west. Only one obstacle remained, and it was in the form of his rival colleague, Mordecai; the one man of rank in the kingdom who was neither deceived by Haman’s guile nor would bow down to him. Inasmuch as Mordecai had unmasked the plotting of the eunuchs to kill the king, and had made a written account of it (12:4), Haman had good reason to be wary of him. Unable, therefore, to vent his antagonistic spleen upon Mordecai directly, Haman felt that he could harm him through his race. Firstly destroy the Jews, he probably reasoned, and deal with Mordecai later, perhaps after King Ahasuerus himself had been dispatched.
It is here that we come across the significance of the 13th day of the month.
It did not take much for the astute Haman to persuade Ahasuerus that the Jews, with their “different” laws and customs, and their flouting of the king’s laws – as Haman had claimed – were not profitable for the king to tolerate, and so ought to be destroyed (3:8). Haman’s offer to the king of the enormous sum of ten thousand talents of silver (3:9) was an added incentive.
“So the king took the signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman … the enemy of the Jews. And the king said to Haman, ‘the money is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you’.” (13:10-11).
Lots (purim)had been cast before Haman, “day after day” and “month after month till the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar” (3:7), presumably to determine the most propitious time to act.
Next the king, after having agreed to Haman’s wicked counsel, summoned his secretaries “on the thirteenth day of the first month, and an edict, according to all that Haman commanded, was written to the king’s satraps and to the governors over all the provinces and to the princes of all the peoples, to every province in its own script and every people in its own language; it was written in the name of king Ahasuerus and sealed with the king’s ring. Letters were sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to slay, and to annihilate all Jews, young and old, women and children, in one day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to plunder their goods” (13:12-13).
That is the significance of the thirteenth day of the month. The central drama in the Book of Esther is played out in its entirety between that thirteenth day of the first month, when Haman persuaded the king that the Jews must be annihilated for the common good, and the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the intended date for the full realisation of Haman’s terrible plan.
The Lady of Light
In the biblical story it is Queen Esther who comes to the rescue of her people. The “cry” of the whole righteous nation, praying that God might deliver it from the evils that were threatening to engulf it, is symbolized in Mordecai’s dream as no more than “a tiny spring”; for the small Jewish nation meant absolutely nothing to the king of Medo-Persia. The profound difference, in the eyes of the king, made by Esther’s intercession on behalf of her people, is exemplified in Mordecai’s retrospective explanation of this part of his dream (10:6):
“The tiny spring which became a river, and there was light and the sun and abundant water … the river is Esther whom the king married and made queen”.
For God’s chosen people of today, it is of course the Blessed Virgin Mary who makes all the difference to their feeble prayers of supplication. It is She who, as Mediatrix before the sublime King of Heaven, adds the necessary weight to these prayers to ensure that He will listen to them. Like Esther of old, the Queen of Peace entered into the midst of the fray, because again a righteous nation, led by its chief prince – in this case the Holy Father – had begun to implore Heaven to send down its peace and protection.
“We can see some superficial similarities in Job’s and Habakkuk’s
respective theophanies, but the differences are clear also”.
Hayyim Obadyah
Venerable Fulton J. Sheen told this story about the prophet Habakkuk in a London Lecture of March 16, 1970:
I know of a Biblical lecturer who had as his subject the 12 minor prophets. After one hour and 45 minutes, he had finished three. He had a dim sense that maybe the audience was getting tired and perhaps he should introduce the next one with some degree of histrionics. He said, “And now … and now … Where shall I place Habakkuk?” Someone got up in the back and said, “He can take my seat”.
Habakkuk no doubt deserves much better than that.
And I think that the prophet may become far more interesting when enhanced with a famous alter ego, as I have done now in the case of various of the so-called “12 minor prophets”, e.g.:
God can raise up prophets at will – even from a shepherd of Simeon
And I believe that I have found a solid match, too, in Tobias son of Tobit, for the righteous Job, with whom Habakkuk’s metaphysical outlook can often be likened:
Mis-aligning potential alter egos, though, can lead one right up the garden path.
For a time, I had tried to fix the prophet Zephaniah to Shallum (also a prophet), the husband of Huldah (2 Chronicles 34:22), before I became firmly settled upon (the reputedly Simeonite) Zephaniah (or Sophonias) as the definitely Simeonite Amos (= Micah).
(See first article above)
Now, in the case of Habakkuk – despite similarities with Job that had even made me wonder, on and off, if Habakkuk were Job – I had eventually come to what I thought was a neat conclusion, that Habakkuk was actually Elihu, the young man who would act as an intermediary between Job and the Lord. This Elihu, so I had come to think, had (as Habakkuk) already grappled with the very same problem of evil as would Job, but had emerged from the struggle even more enlightened on the issue than Job would be after his own theophany. Elihu, consequently, so I had imagined, knew that he was now Divinely empowered to counsel Job most wisely concerning an issue that had also deeply troubled himself.
Upon further consideration, though, and with the benefit of the added information provided by the story of Habakkuk’s intervention to feed Daniel in the den of lions (Daniel 14:33-39), my firm (hopefully) conclusion has become, at last, that Habakkuk was Job.
Articles showing similarities between Job and Habakkuk appear to be quite common – though these proceed as if (and just as I had thought) that Job and Habakkuk were separate individuals. Here follow just a few examples of such comparisons:
Job and Habakkuk both deal with a person of God questioning God’s justice.
Job was “blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil”. Habakkuk questioned why God allowed evil in Israel and became more puzzled when God told him that He would use the “ruthless” Babylonians (1:6) to “execute judgment” (1:12) on a people “more righteous than themselves” (1:13).
In the end, we see both that 1) good people suffer (under God’s direct control) 2) Job & Habakkuk both have a change of heart while not having their original questions answered.
42 Then Job replied to the Lord:
2 “I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 3 You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.
4 “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.’ 5 My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. 6 Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”
—
17 Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, 18yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my Savior.
—
The NIV Study Bible notes on Habakkuk 3:17 states “Probably anticipates the awful results of the imminent Babylonian invasion and devastation. This verse demonstrates that bad things can and do happen to good people.”
The NIV Application commentary for Job makes the point that the Retribution Principle (i.e., “the righteous prosper and the wicked suffer”) should not be applied to theodicy (“explaining evil in the world”) but to theology (“the nature of God”). It states the point of Job is to trust in God’s wisdom rather than focus on God’s justice (as we can understand it).
What’s interesting to me is that both Job and Habakkuk did not have their original questions answered yet had a radical change of heart. My understanding is that they were given faith in God’s wisdom. For people who are suffering, even though we can’t help but pray for the suffering to end, this may be a helpful perspective. ….
Again, Hayyim Obadyah, “Contextual Theophanies: Ezekiel and Habakkuk”:
Like Job, Habakkuk challenges God about bad things happening to good people. As in Job, God’s theophany is a response to that challenge. A response – but not an answer to the question asked.
We can see some superficial similarities in Job’s and Habakkuk’s respective theophanies, but the differences are clear also.
The two books have a few interesting parallels in language. After the theophany Job says (42:5) $יִ תְּ עַ מְ שׁ ןֶ זֹא- עַ מֵ שְׁ ל” I had heard of You by hearsay”, while Habakkuk starts out by saying (3:2), $ ֲעְ מִ שׁ יִ תְּ עַ מָ שׁ” I have heard report of You.”
In Job (38:82 וַ יָּסֶ ,( םָי םִיַ תָ לְ דִ בּ” who shut up the sea with doors?” seems to reflect an orderly process of creation, while Habakkuk says (3:153 Your with trampled You “דָּ רַ כְ תָּ בַ יָּם סוּסֶ י$ : ,( horses through the sea”, which may suggest a creation that is a triumph of order over chaos.
The Different Reactions of Job and Habakkuk
A fundamental difference between the two is the response of the two protagonists. Job is awed and humbled
So I spoke but did not understand, wonders beyond me I did not know ….
Therefore I recant and regret, in the dust and ash.
While God appears to Job and communicates with him, Habakkuk does not simply have a conversation with God. He experiences a vision of God not just making an appearance but acting within history. So, his reaction is very different from Job’s. In verse 16, Habbakuk describes this reaction to God’s appearance.
I heard, and my guts heaved; at the sound my lips quivered; rot penetrated my bones; and I quaked in place; where I composed myself for the day of trouble, to go up against the people assaulting us.
Habakkuk, like Job, is awed, but his response is visceral. Even though in Habakkuk’s case, the lesson to be learned is not as clearly spelled out as it is in Job, Habakkuk’s response goes far beyond Job’s because Habakkuk feels assured of God taking action – even though he may not understand that action. Therefore, rather than simply acknowledging the error of challenging God, Habakkuk rejoices!
… As for me, I exult in Adonai! I am glad in God my Victory, Adonai is my powerful Suzerain, places my feet like deer, and has me tread on heights …
The Meaning of Habakkuk’s Theophany
Job’s challenges collapse before the transcendence of God that is far beyond our comprehension, but Habakkuk embraces that transcendence. He is not intimidated by the overwhelming reality of God that is unchallengeable, but instead is comforted by the unmediated experience of God as an active, engaged player in the world. When Habakkuk learns that it is folly to expect that God should explain divine actions or to expect to understand why God does what God does, that is when he is able to reach the core of his prophecy and experience a profound joy of faith in God’s relevance.
In the end, Habakkuk learns that the response he receives from God is far better than the explanation he sought.
By engaging with the numinous experience of encountering God, the prophet has regained the solid foundation he needs. The troubles surrounding him, whether of injustice or oppression, however distressing, cannot overcome his confidence that God both is above all and does act in the world. This is the culmination not only of the psalm, but of the prophetic book. Habakkuk’s challenges earlier in the book have been satisfied not by logical explanation but through experience.
In the context of the book, Habakkuk’s theophany can only come at the end. Like that of Job, it resolves all that has come before. ….
Unsurprisingly, the problem of evil is as relevant in the Old Testament culture as it is today. In classic postmodern fashion, the existence of evil is given as one of the greatest arguments against God’s existence. Obviously, those who advocate such an argument forget that evil is a metaphysical reality, thus, validating the existence of the supernatural. In that light, the problem of evil should not be concerned with the existence of God, but rather the consistency of God’s character with evil. The word theodicy is used to describe the tension between the existence of evil and God’s character as righteous, just, and sovereign.
To the finite mind, a contradiction seems unavoidable. The books of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Habakkuk share the common thread of addressing the issue of theodicy, and thus, will be compared and contrasted to discover the Old Testament perspective.
Job
The book of Job is arguably the primary treatment of theodicy in the Bible. Brilliantly, Job addresses the common pitfalls of most theodicy arguments. To understand how the topic of theodicy is addressed in Job, understanding the historical context around the original reader of Job is imperative.
Many of the near-eastern societies in the ancient world believed in a retribution principle. The basic idea of the principle is that the righteous receive blessing while the wicked receive suffering. Thus, if someone experienced great suffering and loss, it was because they were guilty of some great wrong. The common retribution ideology is expressed by the four friends of Job in the narrative. Their answer to the question of evil is simple; those who suffer receive justice for wicked behavior, while those who do not prove to be righteous. In their eyes, Job is guilty of unrighteous behavior (Jb 4:7-8).
The beginning of the book reveals essential information. First, the reader is given the insight that Job is indeed righteous (Jb 1:1). Second, the reader is presented with another aspect of the retribution principle, namely, that blessing from righteousness will create improper motives for pursuing righteousness (Jb 1:9-11).
Satan asserts that Job is righteous because he receives blessing and reward, not because he is truly good. To keep the reader from solving the problem of evil by reducing God’s control, God initiates the conversation with Satan and allows Satan to enact his plan (Jb 1:8,12; 2:3,6).
Once the book closes, five things are clear. God is in control of all events, both good and evil (Jb 2:10; 42:11). Suffering and evil are not reserved for the wicked; the righteous shall also suffer. True righteousness is not motivated by blessing, but by love for God. God remains just while ordaining the suffering of the righteous. Finally, God’s use of evil is according to His infinite wisdom; thus, man cannot comprehend the harmony between God’s character and control over evil. In a condensed format, with clearer historical figures and events, the book of Habakkuk reveals the same answer to theodicy.
Habakkuk
Nearing the end of the reign of Josiah, the Babylonian empire began to rise as the preeminent power. Egypt, likely fearing Babylon’s conquest, sought to aid the failing Assyrian empire to uphold a buffer between Babylon and Egypt. For Egypt to reach Assyria, a trip through Judah was required. However, Josiah was unwilling to allow such an event; thus, he met Egypt in battle.
Judah was defeated, and Josiah was killed. In the aftermath, Josiah’s wicked son Eliakim (2 Kgs 24:4), renamed Jehoiakim, was placed on the throne by Pharaoh Necho II.
The historical events serve as the backdrop for Habakkuk’s cry out to God to bring justice to Judah’s wickedness under Jehoiakim (Hb 1:2-4). Hints of the retribution principle are seen in Habakkuk’s plea; he was confused at why the righteous fell and wicked prospered (Hb 2:4). God’s response was unexpected. God told Habakkuk that He was raising up the Chaldeans as a rod of justice towards Judah (Hb 1:6). Habakkuk was shocked, unable to harmonize God’s righteous character with His use of a wicked nation like Babylon.
Much like Job, Habakkuk contends with God. Habakkuk argues using God’s character against Him (Hb 1:12-17). However, unlike Job, who argues for his innocence, Habakkuk admits the sin of Judah. God’s response seems unsatisfactory. God says He is in control. Amazingly, Habakkuk responds by trusting God. He sees no reason to limit God’s sovereignty or question His character. Job and Habakkuk serve as models for a proper response to the issues of theodicy – trusting God and living by faith (Hb 2:4).
Ecclesiastes
The book of Ecclesiastes is not centered on the question of theodicy as clearly as Job and Habakkuk. However, the book does provide insight into the failure of the retribution principle (Eccl 7:15), and thus finds comparison with Job. The form of the book is much like Psalms and Proverbs as a collection of literary types.
The main idea of Ecclesiastes is the meaninglessness of temporal things, and therefore, the meaningfulness of knowing God.
In Job, Satan sought to show how Job’s righteousness was a product of perpetual material blessings. Ecclesiastes shows the folly in Satan’s idea; all of the accomplishments of a king are disappointing (Eccl 1:12-4:16). Evil and suffering can come to anyone. Ultimately, death comes to the righteous and unrighteous (Eccl 8:9-9:10). Similar to Job and Habakkuk, Ecclesiastes upholds the sovereignty of God. God is said to set the seasons and times; therefore, all events are unchangeable (Eccl 3:1-15).
Conclusion
Scripture does not seek to harmonize God’s character with His control over evil. Often weak men, unable to live in the tension, compromise on one of two truths. First, God’s sovereignty is reduced to put evil outside of God’s control in efforts to protect His righteousness. Second, God’s control is upheld, but His justice is reduced, resulting in a god who is no longer perfectly good.
Neither compromises are biblically validated. Job and Habakkuk serve as the model men who trust God by faith, relying on His infinite wisdom to harmonize the seeming contradiction.
The New Testament continues with the same answer to theodicy; however, the reader is given a deeper insight into the secret wisdom of God. The answer to the problem of evil is that God, in His sovereign control, uses evil for good. The cross is the ultimate example. Acts 4:27-28 asserts that all the evil that came against Christ was ordained and controlled by God. However, the crucifixion was the greatest good as it resulted in the salvation of many. The crucifixion of Christ also destroys the retribution principle in that Christ, the spotless lamb, suffered in the place of sinners, and thus, sets an example of righteous suffering (1 Pt 2:21-25). ….
Habakkuk, Job, grappled with the same major problem of evil.
The Lord will spectacularly intervene to resolve the issue.
Habakkuk was Job.
Belonging to the era of Chaldean ascendancy
These two clues, Chaldeans and likeness to Book of Jeremiah, would seem to set
the Job incident to much later than most commentators would tend to accept,
to the Chaldean era, and, hence, contemporaneous with the prophet Jeremiah.
Without the benefit of the Book of Tobit – {which book, I believe, absolutely fixes Job and his father, respectively, Tobias and Tobit, to the late neo-Assyrian and to the Chaldean period} – perhaps the key clue to the historical era of Job is this text about the rampaging Chaldeans (Job 1:17): “While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, ‘The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and made off with them. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!’”
Job-Tobias had grown up with his family during the late neo-Assyrian era of kings Shalmaneser and Sennacherib (Tobit 1:9-21, GNT).
Esarhaddon, who then succeeded Sennacherib after the latter’s assassination, though said to have been a “son” of Sennacherib’s, was not actually a direct son of the Assyrian king, but was of Chaldean stock.
Esarhaddon, who inaugurated the Chaldean dynasty, was none other than king Nebuchednezzar himself:
Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar
Life would now significantly improve for the beleaguered Tobit and his family under Esarhaddon (Tobit 1:21-22):
About six weeks later, two of Sennacherib’s sons assassinated him and then escaped to the mountains of Ararat. Another son, Esarhaddon, became emperor and put Ahikar, my brother Anael’s son, in charge of all the financial affairs of the empire. This was actually the second time Ahikar was appointed to this position, for when Sennacherib was emperor of Assyria, Ahikar had been wine steward, treasurer, and accountant, and had been in charge of the official seal. Since Ahikar was my nephew, he put in a good word for me with the emperor, and I was allowed to return to Nineveh.
The trials of Job, though, would apparently commence somewhere during this Chaldean era.
And this is the approximate historical point at which we also encounter Habakkuk.
The Rabbis began the Pesikta passage with a comparison between Job and Jeremiah. Both bewailed their birth … as a result of the unbearable pain life forced them to endure. But, whereas Job is generally viewed as the epitome of suffering, the portrait of Jeremiah’s pathos presented in this midrash is perhaps even more painful. Job’s suffering is personal, and despite his protestations, he endures and is granted a second life. Jeremiah, in contrast, is unconsoled, and bewails the suffering which he is forced to unwillingly inflict upon those closest to him.
The textual springboard for the Pesikta is Jer 20:14-18, wherein Jeremiah fulminates about his ineluctable fate, using words unmatched in their harshness:
Accursed be the day that I was born! Let not the day be blessed when my mother bore me! Accursed be the man who brought my father the news and said, “A boy is born to you,” and gave him such joy! Let that man become like the cities which the Lord overthrew without relenting! Let him hear shrieks in the morning and battle shouts at noontide! Because he did not kill me before birth, so that my mother might be my grave, and her womb big [with me] for all time. Why did I ever issue from the womb to see misery and woe, to spend all my days in shame …?
This image conflates the death wish with the healing and comfort offered by the mother’s womb ….. Such imagery is described by Freud as follows:
To some people the idea of being buried alive by mistake is the most uncanny thing of all. And yet psycho-analysis has taught us that this terrifying phantasy is only a transformation of another phantasy which had originally nothing terrifying about it at all, but was qualified by a certain lasciviousness — the phantasy, I mean, of intra-uterine existence ….
The womb/tomb metaphor accentuates the analogy with Job, with which the midrash began.
Job, too, speaks of returning to the womb when he is clearly talking about death: “He said, ‘Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return there; the Lord has given, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord’.” (Job 1:21) …. The irony in Jeremiah’s use of this metaphor, is, of course, that God has informed him that he has already been singled out for his mission in utero. Even staying in the womb will not save him from his excruciating destiny as the prophet of doom ….
….
These two clues, Chaldeans and likeness to Book of Jeremiah, would seem to set the Job incident to much later than most commentators would tend to accept, to the Chaldean era, and, hence, contemporaneous with the prophet Jeremiah.
Many commentators wrongly suggest that the prophet Job had belonged to Patriarchal times.
And, with the colossal assistance of the Book of Tobit, we can know that Tobit and his son, Tobias (= Job), had lived on into the Chaldean period.
This would make Job, a contemporary of Jeremiah (likewise a contemporary of Habakkuk).
A statement made by Habakkuk pertaining to geography had reminded me of a similar one made by the young Tobias (my Job).
At that particular time I had been wondering if Habakkuk could have been Job.
Tobias (= Job), when asked by his father Tobit to travel to “Media” (corrected by Heb. Londinii to “Midian”) to collect money from a relative, dutifully replies (Tobit 5:1-2): ‘I’ll do everything you told me. But how can I get the money back from Gabael? We have never even met each other. How can I prove to him who I am, so that he will trust me and give me the money? Besides that, I don’t know how to get to Media’.
Likewise Habakkuk, when instructed by the Lord to take a bowl of stew and bread to Daniel in the den of lions in Babylon (Daniel 14:34-35): “… the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk, ‘Take the food that you have to Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions’ den’, replied: ‘Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den’.”
In both instances, an angel of the Lord will intervene to guide the apparently travel-shy holy man to the intended destination, and then back home again.
The angel will be Raphael in the case of Tobias (= Job).
So presumably the angel who will dramatically assist Habakkuk (Daniel 14:36-39):
Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head and carried him by his hair; with the speed of the wind he set him down in Babylon, right over the den. Then Habakkuk shouted, ‘Daniel, Daniel! Take the food that God has sent you’. Daniel said, ‘You have remembered me, O God, and have not forsaken those who love you’. So Daniel got up and ate. And the angel of God immediately returned Habakkuk to his own place [,]
will again be Raphael.
Presumably this Raphael was Job’s very “Advocate” in heaven (Job 16:19), a possible reason for why Job had become a bit too familiar and forward in his dealings with the Lord.
His years spent in Assyrian Nineveh would also account for another aspect of Habakkuk, the prophet’s very Akkadian name: “Habakkuk appears to derive from Akkadianḫabbaququ, the name of a garden plant” (J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary, 1991, p. 86).
Apart from contemporaneity and metaphysical convergences of thought, etc., Job, Habakkuk, can further be linked. For example, there are common language idiosyncrasies.
Job (3:23) – Habakkuk (3:3) uses a less usual term for the Lord, Eloah.
And we recall from earlier in this article:
The two books have a few interesting parallels in language. After the theophany Job says (42:5) $יִ תְּ עַ מְ שׁ ןֶ זֹא- עַ מֵ שְׁ ל” I had heard of You by hearsay”, while Habakkuk starts out by saying (3:2), $ ֲעְ מִ שׁ יִ תְּ עַ מָ שׁ” I have heard report of You.”
In Job (38:82 וַ יָּסֶ ,( םָי םִיַ תָ לְ דִ בּ” who shut up the sea with doors?” seems to reflect an orderly process of creation, while Habakkuk says (3:153 Your with trampled You “דָּ רַ כְ תָּ בַ יָּם סוּסֶ י$ : ,( horses through the sea”, which may suggest a creation that is a triumph of order over chaos. ….
Nor does that exhaust the list of linguistic connections between the books of Job and Habakkuk.
Daniel returned to Jerusalem as governor Nehemiah 