Esther

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Vashti's crown - I only read that it was simply a crown, but read nothing about a veil. Adam Clark says that the Targum/Aramaic translation adds that she was naked.

Adam Clark commentary on purification:

Let their things for purification be given them - תמרקיהן tamrukeyhen, their cosmetics. What these were we are told in Est_2:12; oil of myrrh, and sweet odours. The myrrh was employed for six months, and the odours for six months more, after which the person was brought to the king. This space was sufficient to show whether the young woman had been chaste; whether she were with child or not, that the king might not be imposed on, and be obliged to father a spurious offspring, which might have been the case had not this precaution been used.
Instead of the oil or myrrh, the Targum says it was the oil of unripe olives which caused the hair to fall off, and rendered the skin delicate.

Yes I saw that same information.

I also read somewhere, can't remember off the top of my head, where the oil, and I think it was the maybe the olive oil would remove all hair. And the oil of myrrh and frankincense would remove body odors from foods that some of the "poorer" girls may have consummed.

It was either Matthew Henry or Adams can't remember which that stated she was asked to appear without her veil. Now times where different then than now but I can't see where that would have been enough of an issue to keep her from coming before the King, knowing that disobeying a king could mean death.

I am leaning toward she was requested to be naked.

What do you think?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esther

Yes I saw that same information.

I also read somewhere, can't remember off the top of my head, where the oil, and I think it was the maybe the olive oil would remove all hair. And the oil of myrrh and frankincense would remove body odors from foods that some of the "poorer" girls may have consummed.

It was either Matthew Henry or Adams can't remember which that stated she was asked to appear without her veil. Now times where different then than now but I can't see where that would have been enough of an issue to keep her from coming before the King, knowing that disobeying a king could mean death.

I am leaning toward she was requested to be naked.

What do you think?

I've always heard she was requested to be naked.

Barnes commentary says this:

Est 1:11
To bring Vashti the queen - This command, though contrary to Persian customs, is not out of harmony with the character of Xerxes; and is evidently related as something strange and unusual. Otherwise, the queen would not have refused to come.

And Gill:

to show the people and the princes her beauty; for she was fair to look upon; which was not wisely done, neither was it comely nor safe.

Not safe because she was naked and they were drunk or just because they were drunk?

[Pressing-On]

This may simply be the reason, although, it doesn't exclude her possibly being requested to appear naked.

From Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Volume II, page 2122:

According to Plutarch, Persian custom dictated that the kings would ordinarily eat with their legitimate wives, but when they wanted to "riot and drink", they would send their wives away and call in their concubines."

Being that Vashti sponsored a banquet for the women, and that she was requested to appear with her "royal crown", and refused to come shows that she was a person of importance.

So, I'm thinking he was drunk, went against propriety, would have embarrassed them both and greatly offended her.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This may simply be the reason, although, it doesn't exclude her possibly being requested to appear naked.

From Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Volume II, page 2122:

According to Plutarch, Persian custom dictated that the kings would ordinarily eat with their legitimate wives, but when they wanted to "riot and drink", they would send their wives away and call in their concubines."

Being that Vashti sponsored a banquet for the women, and that she was requested to appear with her "royal crown", and refused to come shows that she was a person of importance.

So, I'm thinking he was drunk, went against propriety, would have embarrassed them both and greatly offended her.

I had never heard the "thought" that she was requested to appear naked until I heard Sis. Vesta Mangun mention it in a message she preached many years ago. I just discovered it this week when I was doing research on it.

And you are right, it was an event that wives were not admitted too.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esther

I had never heard the "thought" that she was requested to appear naked until I heard Sis. Vesta Mangun mention it in a message she preached many years ago. I just discovered it this week when I was doing research on it.

And you are right, it was an event that wives were not admitted too.

I can't remember how long ago it was that I heard that she was requested to appear naked. Well, the commentators are saying it's in the Aramaic translation.

The only thing is that, from what I've studied, the Targum reflected "midrashic" interpretation, which means - Midrash is a way of interpreting biblical stories that goes beyond simple distillation of religious, legal or moral teachings. It fills in many gaps left in the biblical narrative regarding events and personalities that are only hinted at.

So, I'm not sure we could be conclusive about it.

I think, if I had to, I would go with Baker's take - that he would have offended her by inviting her like a common concubine.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I can't remember how long ago it was that I heard that she was requested to appear naked. Well, the commentators are saying it's in the Aramaic translation.

The only thing is that, from what I've studied, the Targum reflected "midrashic" interpretation, which means - Midrash is a way of interpreting biblical stories that goes beyond simple distillation of religious, legal or moral teachings. It fills in many gaps left in the biblical narrative regarding events and personalities that are only hinted at.

So, I'm not sure we could be conclusive about it.

I think, if I had to, I would go with Baker's take - that he would have offended her by inviting her like a common concubine.

I am not that familiar with the Targum and wondered how acturate it is???

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esther

I am not that familiar with the Targum and wondered how acturate it is???

I don't really know.

[BeenThinkin]

Esther, Just curious, but you're not contemplating appearing before "a King" are you? Just wondering'

Been Thinkin

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Esther

I am not that familiar with the Targum and wondered how acturate it is???

The Targums or Targumim were used after the Hebrew language became unfamiliar to the Jews. The Scriptures would be read in Hebrew and then would be paraphrased in Aramaic. The word Targum means translation or interpretation. The paraphrase had to be memorized, it could not be written down. Later, the Targumim were allowed to be written down and there are a couple of them available (translated into English) online.

Since they were a paraphrase they were not a translation but an interpretation of the Hebrew and in time more and more traditions, opinions, legends, etc. found their way into them.

As an example, you can read the first 6 chapters of Genesis in the two main targumim at http://targum.info/pj/pjgen1-6.htm
Just compare what is there to current translations (NKJV or NASB or JPS) and you can see that there is some extra stuff in there and how accurate they are.