If I hadn’t known this was from Wikipedia, I’d have been sure it was Purim Torah.
Now that I know it isn’t Purim Torah, it looks like a paragraph taken from the Da’at Emet website—and maybe the claims don’t actually contradict anything, and the Da’at Emet website is one giant piece of Purim Torah.
On the substance of the matter, it seems bizarre to me to raise such a priori speculations and on that basis reject a tradition so deeply rooted in the people, especially when it contains no open miracles and the like.
I’ll address them one by one:

1) “For example, according to Herodotus, the wife of Ahasuerus was neither Esther nor Vashti, but Amestris. Herodotus also claims that the queen had to be chosen from among the seven Persian noble families, although an examination of the queens who actually served casts doubt on that limitation.” — Well then, we’ve already seen that Herodotus isn’t reliable regarding the conditions for being chosen queen, and from that the objection from his other statements—that Ahasuerus’s wife was Amestris—falls away too. Besides, names change over time and place, so why couldn’t Esther be Amestris (like Michael is Michael)? To me it actually sounds remarkably similar.

2) “In addition, according to the historical record, when Esther was taken to Ahasuerus’s palace he was not in Susa at all, but at war with Greece.” I see that the researchers know how to date the Book of Esther precisely. A bit odd, considering that in their opinion the story never happened at all. Besides, can’t the king return to his palace from time to time? And in general, if we’re allowed to raise such bizarre a priori speculations, then I’ll say that it’s not reasonable that the information about the king himself being at war is true, because it’s not reasonable for a king to be absent from the palace during wartime; he’s supposed to send soldiers and generals and manage everything from the ivory tower.
3) “Likewise, the number of ‘provinces’ (satrapies) in the Persian Empire was 20 and not 127 as stated in the Scroll.” Come on—who guarantees that what the Scroll defines as a province is what research defines as one? The same way the United States can be considered one country and can also be considered dozens of states.
4) “A lavish feast lasting 180 days; Queen Vashti’s public refusal of the king’s command;” Allow me to add more bizarre speculations, as my imagination sees fit: clearly the story of the Scroll isn’t true—it’s inconceivable that they would offer a woman perfumes and cosmetics and she would refuse them, as it says about Esther, and therefore the whole story never happened. “So Mordecai passed on and did exactly what Esther had commanded him.” Is it conceivable that a woman would command a man? And in general, the Six-Day War never happened; strange that a small country defeated several armies, each one stronger than it. Aryeh Deri also has conclusive proof that he didn’t take a bribe: “Is it conceivable that someone who was already caught in a financial crime and sat in prison would fail again and not be afraid?” Reality surpasses all imagination, and these bizarre claims pose no difficulty at all for the reliability of the Scroll. What’s so strange about Vashti’s refusal? By the same token you could reject any report of an event that departs from rain and traffic accidents (do you really think a judge would text with the prosecutor and coordinate positions?).
5) “The decree ordering that ‘every man should rule in his own house’” — ?????? What?!
6) “The sending of decrees throughout the kingdom ‘to every province in its own script and to every people in its own language,’ instead of in Aramaic, the empire’s official language” — what’s strange about that? When you speak to someone, you speak in his language. But maybe I’m mistaken and it’s actually better to speak to a Chinese person in Hebrew and to a Hebrew speaker in Chinese. Even when the IDF sends leaflets to warn residents, does it send them in Hebrew and not in Arabic? Did I already say Purim Torah?
7) “The rule that the king’s laws cannot be revoked is not documented by the historians, and it is not plausible that a kingdom could function that way.” First of all, not having seen something is not proof. Second, who said this was a rule? It could be that this was simply Ahasuerus’s way and did not stem from any general rule or law. And Rashi already wrote on the Scroll: “ ‘Cannot be revoked’—it is not fitting to revoke it and make the king’s document into a forgery (another version: a disgrace).” And you can point to lots of stupid and bureaucratic things in a state and say “a kingdom can’t function like this.” See also the High Court.

In short, a marvelous collection of delusions.

With God’s help, Shushan Purim 5778

Regarding the claim of 127 provinces versus 20 satrapies, the answer is simple. The satrapies were large units, each headed by a satrap. Within each satrapy were several provinces, each headed by a governor. Thus, for example, the province of Yehud was a governorship within the satrapy of Beyond the River.

Most of the events in the Scroll took place behind the scenes. For example, Vashti’s refusal took place only in the presence of the seven eunuchs. The Scroll explicitly says that Ahasuerus’s advisers feared that the story would become publicly known, bringing “contempt and wrath.” Vashti’s removal too was not done with thunder and lightning. An order was given that she should not come before the king, and her fate was like that of hundreds of women and concubines who were swallowed up in the harem. Anyone who did not have connections at “the king’s gate” knew nothing of the women’s fate or status in the harem. The only thing that was publicized was the law that every man should rule in his own house, a trivial law in those days.

The decree to destroy the Jews was likewise not publicized broadly, but sent to the satraps, governors, and princes of the peoples. To the general public there was published only a vague copy of the edict calling on all the peoples “to be ready for that day,” on which something important would happen. The concealment was important in order to prevent the Jews from preparing, whether through intercession or through defensive measures. Mordecai “upset the cards” by publicizing the plan openly, so that the Jews would not fall asleep and would use their connections to get the decree canceled.

And regarding Herodotus and the Persian chronicles from which he drew, there are several limitations. Every chronicle highlights what fits its agenda. A chronicle connected to the monarchy will highlight the king’s wars, victories, and great deeds—not his defeats and not his weaknesses. The exception is the Hebrew Bible, which does not hide even the failings of its heroes. A Persian chronicle would blur, as much as possible, embarrassing episodes such as the conflict between Ahasuerus and Vashti or the peripheral origins of the queen and the viceroy.

The fate of the Jews is of great interest to the Jews, and of no interest at all to foreign historians. Herodotus knows almost nothing about the Jews except for the story about Syrians in Palestine who circumcise their sons under Egyptian influence. About their monotheistic faith and their Torah, which is entirely repelled by Egyptian culture and spirit, Herodotus knows nothing. So apart from the caution one should exercise regarding all the information he brings—with regard to the Jewish people one must be especially cautious, and certainly a tradition shared by Jews “from India to Cush” is more reliable than the testimony of a foreigner at second hand.

With blessings,
S. Tz. Levinger

Ahasuerus’s defeat in the war against the Greeks in “the sixth year of his reign,” which is not mentioned in the Scroll, may teach us about the motive of Ahasuerus’s advisers when they initiated the carnival of searching for a new queen and the coronation festivities—to distract public opinion from the defeat.

The defeat in Greece and the feasts of debauchery, which greatly depleted the royal treasury and lowered the king’s standing, could have been a good reason for Haman’s move: inventing a weak enemy that could be easily eliminated, and appropriating a substantial part of its spoils in order to refill the depleted treasury.

The fall of Haman and the rise of Mordecai brought a turning point in the conduct of the kingdom. Wasteful and reckless conduct came to an end, conduct that supposedly benefited everyone but undermined the foundations of the kingdom. The kingdom recovered economically, and with the improvement in the economic situation, the political situation improved as well. Ahasuerus succeeded in strengthening his rule “over the land and the islands of the sea”; now there were also “the acts of his power and might” that could glorify “the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia,” as explained in my response “A New Spring in the Persian Kingdom” on the “Land of the Hebrews” website.

.

G