Talk:Book of Esther

Major Revision Required
In its current state, an extremely large percentage of this article (at least a third) is devoted to the "Historicity" and "Historical Reading" sections, which come across to the lay reader as an overly convoluted internal debate between warring factions. Reading this Talk section, perhaps this is a result of an edit war in 2005 between Kuratowski's Ghost, who advocated an "Esther as history" view, and and several others, including Wetman and john k, who argued that the article should reflect the scholarly consensus that Esther is properly viewed as historical fiction. (To be fair, Kuratowski's Ghost also argued that the historical view reflected the weight of scholarship.)

Whatever the cause, both sections are unwieldy and argumentative, and create the impression that the overriding question about the Book of Esther is whether it is historically accurate. Recent edits by 76.234.38.132, which include such statements as "the presumed-reliable sources with which Coogan contrasts the book of Esther are not, in fact, reliable, then Coogan's claims regarding Esther cannot be said to hold historical weight," should probably be reversed altogether. There is also a lengthy discussion of Herodotus whose relevance to the Book of Esther is several times removed.

However, although both sections are too long, the Historical Reading section contains a 5 year-old tag correctly stating that this section requires additional citations. That is still the case. That section is almost completely unsourced, and the only sources are for statements like the "Septuagint ... translates the name Ahasuerus as Artaxerxes," which do not go to the question of whether the "Historical Reading" is supported by scholarship. Indeed, much of the unsourced portion contains unsupported statements that linking a character in Esther with a historical person in history renders the Book of Esther historical. If there was scholarly support, that would be one thing. But there is none cited. It appears that this section derives largely from the independent research of contributors.

Due to the excessive length and undue importance this article gives to the historicity question in its current iteration, I would recommend collapsing the "Historicity" section into at most two paragraphs and deleting almost entirely the "Historical Reading" section.

I am also surprised that there is not a stand-alone section on the centrality of the Book of Esther to the Jewish holiday of Purim. Although this is mentioned in the Intro and occasionally in the body, there should be a section on the liturgical and ritualistic usage of this Book in Judaism (and, if applicable, Christianity, although I am not aware of this). A casual reader will not fully grasp why the Book of Esther is important, which reflects that this article is not doing its job.

I will await comments before attempting an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenEsq (talk • contribs) 07:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Hadassah (Bible)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hadassah (Bible). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Meyers
A feminist theologian (which is something else than a radical feminist) discussing a Bible book whose hero is a woman is a decent division of work. If the IP means that everyone who is not a fundamentalist or a conservative evangelical is a liberal theologian, then she is a liberal theologian. But this dodges the fact that many critical Bible scholars and many feminists actually have conservative views.

The IP should read WP:FALSEBALANCE: Wikipedia does not cater to fundamentalists. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Coogan
According to you Coogan, published at Oxford University Press is unconvincing? What do you think this is, Sunday school for Bible thumpers? tgeorgescu (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello tgeorgeschu. For what purpose would the author of the Book of Esther mention Mordecai's ancestor Kish, if it was Mordecai who was deported? From a neutral point of view, one could argue that the sentence may appear ambiguous. If it is ambiguous, is it then inaccurate or ambiguous? This is Wikipedia, right? 47.200.76.59 (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello tgeorgescu, is your comment regarding the use of the word "unconvincing" in the edit log? Should different language be used for the notes? Cheers. Poetics06 instep (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Coogan is a Bible scholar of world renown (see and ). You're in no position to second guess his works, and frankly Wikipedia does not care about your own opinions, keep your opinions to yourself. If you think that's mean: no, it isn't. This is a website based upon WP:RS, not upon the personal opinions of its editors.
 * Here are more WP:RS:


 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing those references and policy. Perhaps additional points from Coogan or others could be added besides the one discussed above in line with the heading of the article section? Poetics06 instep (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

One Roller
The photo caption that says that traditionally a Scroll of Esther is given only one roller is somewhat unclear. It obscures the fact that not every Scroll of Esther has any rollers at all, for there is no requirement that it would have even one. And, in fact, in the modern era at least, most apparently do not. (Unlike a Torah scroll that always has two rollers -- in the Ashkenazic tradition, at least.) Toddcs (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)