Courts, Banquets, and Bedchambers: Mapping (Sub-)Genre Distinctions in Biblical Narratives Set in Foreign Imperia

Abstract

There are many stories in the Hebrew Bible that depict prominent Jews in the epicentre of a foreign imperia, and biblical scholarship essentially classifies every such narrative as court tales in terms of genre. Notwithstanding nuances and sub-categorisations (e.g., court contest and court conflict, wisdom court legend, success story of the wise courtier), to have one catch-all genre designation is imprudent and amorphous. This paper argues, using Formkritik and Gattungskritik, for three subgenres whereby foreign royal stories may be distinguished. One type of tale involves a foreign king who is either sleepless (Dan 6, Esth 6) or dreams (Gen 41, Dan 2 and 4); in the former, a king intervenes favourably for Jews in distress, while in the latter, the king’s dreams are interpreted by a wise Jewish courtier. Another type of tale is the imperial banquet, where an intoxicated gentile king orders the death of a high official (Dan 5, Esth 1, 5/7); this is wrought by a woman who exploits the king’s wine-induced disposition to effect lethal action with disastrous repercussions for the kingdom. Still another type of tale is the court tale proper; these episodes, however, are restricted to the courtly etiquette and decorum of courtiers who sagaciously advise the king, alongside its tensions with monotheism (Dan 3; Esth 3). As a result of this preliminary investigation, the typical setting of the political centre of the foreign imperium in Hebrew Bible narratives comprises three subgenres: court tales, banquet tales, and bedchamber tales. Since genres are determined by the common story forms, each distinct genre is scientifically determined by corresponding distinct narrative structures, vocabulary, and outcomes. Thus, what is proposed is a more illuminating distinction to the wide array and nebulous conglomeration of biblical stories involving Jews in prominent spaces within the foreign king’s court. Furthermore, the implications of the contended three subgenres involve calcifying religious practices, which become vital expressions of Judaism in the Second Temple period.

1. Introduction

Within biblical literature, there are many narratives set in foreign imperia wherein a Jew features prominently as a wise courtier before the gentile king. In the Hebrew Bible, these stories are concentrated in Genesis 37–50, Esther, and Daniel 1–6 (see, inter alia, Patterson 1993, pp. 445–54; Gnuse 2010, pp. 31–45; Ron 2011, pp. 169–74; Chan 2013, pp. 1–25; Hornung 2022, pp. 11–21). In the Septuagint (LXX), examples of such a story-type are present in Susanna and Bel and the Dragon (Wills 1990, pp. 76–79, 129–41; Porter 2021, pp. 78–87), 1 Esdras 3–4 (Becking 2011, pp. 61–71), and a part of Tobit (Macatangay 2011, pp. 116–17, 218; Dimant 2017, pp. 159–70). There are also tales of a wise Jew in a foreign king’s court in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Collins and Green 1998, pp. 39–50; Knight-Messenger 2022, pp. 100–35) and the New Testament.1 Further, germane legends are featured in ancient Near Eastern works, such as the Assyrian Story of Ahikar and the Egyptian Instruction of Onkhsheshonq, as well as classical Greek works like Xenophon’s Cyropaedeia and Herodotus’s Histories (Wills 1990, pp. 39–74; see also Holm 2013, pp. 45–183). Examples could be multiplied with others.2

In biblical scholarship, the genre of the wise Jew in the palatial heart of a foreign imperium is termed a court tale or court legend, which is simply “[a] story set in a royal court” (J. J. Collins 1984, p. 106). This categorisation is quite broad, though, and does not account for the significant variations in so-called court tales. Accordingly, subgenre categories have been proffered to qualify these narratives more precisely—namely, tales of court contest and tales of court conflict advanced by Humphreys (1973, p. 217) and fortified by J. J. Collins (1975, pp. 218–34).3 Court contests and conflicts, whose rhetorical effect is to prove one courtier wiser than others (cf. Niditch and Doran 1977, pp. 179–93; Humphreys 1970), have essentially been universally adopted and reiterated as designations for 50 years (see, inter alia, Towner 1984; Kirkpatrick 2005, p. 187; Newsom 2014). At times, scholarship has aimed at nuancing or redefining types of court tales;4 however, the court contests and conflicts subgenres are firmly ensconced, and yet these are still too broad or even unbefitting as labels.

Contests and conflicts will always be indicative of the lives of courtiers.5 The image of ancient colonisation conveyed in the Hebrew Bible is one where elite individuals of the variously conquered peoples are made to intellectually serve the imperium in matters of state (cf. Dan 1:1–7). Due to a diverse body of courtiers, who represent different cultures, skills, sapiential traditions, etc., each guild presents its expertise to counsel and advise the emperor. In Daniel, for example, the courtier guilds comprise magicians, enchanters, sorcerers/diviners, Chaldeans/astrologers (Dan 2, 4–5), satraps, prefects, governors, and counsellors (Dan 3, 6). Occasionally, one guild is foregrounded (Dan 2:4–5; 6:1–4), or Daniel himself is (Dan 1:19–20; 2:48; 5:29; 6:28); this seems to intimate a favoured status based on the success rate of wise counsel implemented or keen knowledge applied.6 Indeed, each courtier and every guild, whose livelihood is linked to diplomatic usefulness, has the predilection to provide a solution to the king. Therefore, competition and pursuant conflict are part and parcel of the courtier profession and do not really clarify subgenres of narrative types.7

In this article, I shall offer, by way of a preliminary examination, a case for reconceptualising the wide array of biblical narratives set in foreign imperia in the Hebrew Bible, specifically the diaspora novellas of Genesis 37–50, Esther, and Daniel 1–6 (Meinhold 1975, pp. 306–24; 1976, pp. 72–93; Wills 1995; 2011, pp. 141–65). Rather than the generic category of court tales, I wish to call this expansive kind of story (after Lawrence Wills) The Jew in the Foreign Court.8 To itemise specific types of The Jew in the Foreign Court stories, I contend for three subgenres: banquet tales (Dan 5; Esth 1, 5/7), bedchamber tales (Gen 41; Dan 2, 4, 6; Esth 6), and court tales proper (Dan 3; Esth 3).9

Instead of these subgenres merely representing different rooms in the royal palace, each type of story has its own narrative form and concomitant literary type, or genre. In short, (1) banquet tales depict an imperial banquet, where an intoxicated king orders the death of a high official which is wrought by a woman with disastrous repercussions for the kingdom; (2) bedchamber tales feature either a sleepless or dreaming king, where either the king intervenes favourably for Jews in distress or the king’s dreams are interpreted by a wise Jewish courtier; and (3) court tales are restricted to the courtly etiquette and decorum of Jewish courtiers who sagaciously advise the king, alongside its tensions with monotheism. Furthermore, the implications of the contended three subgenres involve calcifying religious practices, which become vital expressions of Judaism in the Second Temple period.

My presuppositions to redefine and reclassify the kinds of stories set in foreign imperia with a prominent Jewish courtier are linked to a methodology. Based on each story-type’s consistent vocabulary, setting, and narrative outcomes, genre categorisation is inescapable. The contested configuration brings to light aspects and correspondences of narratives that have been repressed because they do not fit other structural and genre moulds. Thus, I must initially analyse sets of narratives form-critically (Formkritik) and then proceed to genre criticism (Gattungskritik).10

Form criticism determines the literary shape (Formen) of a text; this is performed in concert with other similarly structured literary units to elucidate similar, if not identical, terminology, syntactical symmetry or repetition, or other linguistic patterns. The comparison of germane texts from the ancient Near Eastern world and Hellenistic literature further corroborates similitude. Genre criticism primarily determines the literary type, viz. genre (Gattung), of texts; indeed, “[o]nly by means of the comparison of more than one Formen can a Guttung be derived” (Jonker 1996, p. 107). Such is the analysis in Section 2, Section 3 and Section 4; Section 5 addresses other aspects of genre criticism. Sitz im Leben “refers to the social usage in which a genre originates, to be distinguished from the contexts in which individual instances or applications of the genre may occur” (Buss 1978, p. 157). Each biblical text possesses an intention or purpose; “[j]ust as every genre arises in a particular situation, it also arises in order to fulfil some particular purpose, and it survives because it continues to be needed for that purpose” (Tucker 1971, p. 16).11

2. Banquet Tales: Daniel 5; Esther 1, 5/7

2.1. Form Criticism

I simultaneously examine the literary structure of Daniel 5, Esther 1, and Esther 5/7 (herein, I will take Esther 5 and 7 as banquet parts one and two), which I call the royal banquet tales (

Table 1. Literary structure of the Banquet tales.

[Elements]	Daniel 5	Esther 1	Esther 5/7
Setting	Drinking-party [חַמְרָא שָׁתֵה] (5:1)	Drinking-party [מִשְׁתֶּה] (1:3, 5, 9)	Drinking-party [מִשְׁתֵּה] (5:4–6, 8, 12, 14; 6:14; 7:2, 7–8)
King	King [מַלְכָּא] Belshazzar, coregent with father Nabonidus	King [מָלַךְ] Ahasuerus	King [מָלַךְ] Ahasuerus
Guests	1000 lords [רַבְרְבָנִין] (5:1)	Officials, ministers, army, nobles, governors (1:3); denizens of Susa (1:5–9)	King and Haman
Wine	wine-drinking [אִשְׁתִּיו חַמְרָא] (5:4), [חַמְרָא שָׁתַיִן] (5:23)/drinking [√שׁתה] (5:1–4, 23)	Wine [יַיִן] (1:7, 10)	Wine [יַיִן] (5:6)/drinking שָׁתָה (7:1)/wine-drinking מִשְׁתֵּה הַיַּיִן (7:2, 7–8)
Effect	under the influence of wine [בִּטְעֵם חַמְרָא] (v.2)	the king was merry with wine [כְּטוֹב לֵב־הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּיָּיִן] (1:10)	{intoxicated implied}
Woman	Queen [מַלְכְּתָא] mother (vv.10–12)	Queen (מַלְכָּה) Vashti	Queen (מַלְכָּה) Esther
Her appearance	-	beautiful [יְָפִי], good-looking [כִּי־טוֹבַת מַרְאֶה הִיא] (1:11)	good-looking [טוֹבוֹת מַרְאֶה] (2:2, 3, 7), pleasing [יטב] (2:4, 9), and favourable [חֶסֶד] (2:9, 17) to king
Vow	“Whoever can read this writing and tell me its interpretation shall… rank third in the kingdom.” (v.7; also in vv.16, 29)	-	“…even to the half of my kingdom.” (5:3) “Even to the half of my kingdom, it shall be fulfilled.” (7:2)
Request	King: the writing on wall be read and interpreted (vv.13–30)	King: Vashti to be brought to model before his guests (1:11)	Queen: Intervene regarding the Jewish genocide (see chs. 8–9)
Aftermath	Overthrow of Babylon, and the king killed (v.30)	Vashti is killed (see Tg. Esth I 2:1; Tg. Esth II 2:1 et passim)12	Jews vindicated; Haman and his 10 sons are killed (see chs. 8–9)

).

In these stories, the sovereign hosts a party for his/her guests. Belshazzar hosts his 1000 lords (Dan 5:1), Ahasuerus and Vashti host their own seven-day party for the denizens of Susa (Esth 1:5–9), and Esther hosts the (two) banquets with the king and Haman (Esth 5:1–8; 7:1–10) as her guests. The party is described as a drinking bout, מִשְׁתֶּה, in Esther (1:3, 5, 9; 5:4–6, 8, 12, 14; 6:14; 7:2, 7–8) and the Aramaic equivalent is present in Daniel (מִשְׁתְּיָא: 5:10) (Koehler and Baumgartner 2001, pp. 653, 1059). These parties have bounteous wine (חֲמַר: Dan 5/יַיִן: Esth) for imbibing (שׁתה: Dan 5:1–4, 23; Esth 7:1) (Yamauchi 2022, pp. 147–57).

The woman in each narrative invariably alters the course of events. Whether she arrives (queen-mother) at the party or does not (Vashti) or throws the party herself (Esther), the woman is the queen. Routinely, the featured woman is remarked to be beautiful, i.e., physically attractive; thence, there is a note of pleasure registered with the king. Esther is good-looking, pleasing, and favourable to Ahasuerus. Vashti is beautiful yet displeases the king. The element of sex appeal is absent from Daniel 5, since the queen is Belshazzar’s mother, Nabonidus’s wife (Pannkuk 2021, pp. 155–62); her appeal, though, is in her wisdom—something that is also embodied by Vashti and Esther. Thus, the queen in these stories typically both/either contrives the convivial atmosphere and/or exploits it.

The combination of the ramification of the wine-drinking by the king and the dynamic role of the queen renders an intoxicated and persuadable sovereign. Belshazzar is “[u]nder the influence of the wine” (Dan 5:2) throughout the events of Daniel 5; the queen-mother instructs him on what to do, and he follows her direction absolutely. Ahasuerus becomes “merry with wine” (Esth 1:10), and his rage is provoked by Vashti’s refusal to model before his guests; then, the king is persuaded by his courtiers to legislate according to his wounded ego. In Esther 7, a close reading suggests Ahasuerus was intoxicated during Esther’s second banquet, per her conspiring, to leverage his disposition for her intended purpose: the king turns on Haman and defends Esther and the Jews (Spoelstra 2014, pp. 285–301).

The king, in his condition, is readily ensnared—he even inadvertently entraps himself by making a rash vow, which seals destiny; as a result, there is always a high official who is murdered due to the volatile components of this typical literary structure. In Esther 5 and 7, King Ahasuerus offers to Esther: “‘even to the half of my kingdom’” (Esth 5:3; 7:2). Similarly, Belshazzar, because he is co-regent of the Babylonian Empire (alongside Nabonidus, r. 556–539 BCE), offers the most he can: to “‘rank third in the kingdom’” (Dan 5:7; 5:16; 5:29). In Esther 1, there is no equivalent. In the end, Vashti dies, Haman dies, and Belshazzar himself dies; these are all the seconds-in-command. Belshazzar is the vice-regent, Haman the prime minister, and, though queens are not typically second-in-command in patriarchal hierarchies, the death of Vashti is provocative—for, it was she who was Nebuchadnezzar’s granddaughter and therefore the rightful heiress of an empire (Tg. Esth I 1:1, II 1:12), versus Ahasuerus, who was formerly a stableboy (b. Megillah 12b).

From this comparative analysis of Daniel 5 and Esther 1 and 5/7, the form is essentially parallel.13 With ten key elements that are common and quite consistent with little variation among the three accounts, royal banquet tales have predicable results: “[t]hings tend to go wrong” (Goldingay 1989, p. 113).14 We now turn to consider the genre of these similar stories.

2.2. Genre Criticism

Based on the uniform literary structure, story setting, and narrative plotline of the banquet tales, a distinct genre is required. For the narratives of Daniel 5 and Esther 1 and 5/7, I proffer a symposium subgenre. To underpin this subgenre of biblical narratives concerning The Jew in the Foreign Court, I situate my argument within the sympotic genre that exists from the ancient Near East (Schmandt-Besserat 2001, pp. 391–403) to Late Antiquity.15 Sympotic literary traditions modulate in forms such as iconography,16 prose and poetry (Lill 2000, pp. 35–47). Composers who have contributed to said genre are historians, philosophers,17 playwrights, and novelists.18 The symposium, therefore, is both a religio-political event (Brosius 2021, pp. 141–52; Dusinberre 2013, pp. 114–40; Colburn 2019, pp. 189–220) and a genre of literature (Sick 2015, p. 6; Jazdzewska 2013, p. 303).

At this point, the elements of symposia shall be underscored in each of the banquet tales to substantiate the claim of a royal symposium subgenre in the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, in Daniel 5 and Esther 1 and 5/7, the venue for symposia, along with its related furniture and utensils, is described. Also, each symposium has its own symposiarch, i.e., the host and moderator of the symposium.19

In Daniel 5, the queen-mother enters the drinking house (לְבֵית מִשְׁתְּיָא: v.10) to behold its halted festivities. Belshazzar can be seen as the symposiarch, for he seems to set the pace of drinking (5:2), and he elevates the drinking party by introducing exotic drinking vessels from the Jerusalem Temple (5:2–4), which are used to toast the gods of various materiality (see Greer 2020, p. 103). Further, ancient historians corroborate the sympotic nature of Belshazzar’s banquet the night Babylon fell.20

In Esther 1, Ahasuerus and Vashti each fulfil the role of symposiarch for their respective symposium.21 Though the wine-to-water ratio is not known, what the king does decree is unrestricted drinking (v.8). Ahasuerus’s symposium is hosted in the court of the garden (בַּחֲצַר גִּנַּת; v.5), which is likely the same garden palace venue of Esther 7:7–8 (גִּנַּת הַבִּיתָן). Oppenheim (1965, pp. 328–33) argues this (Hebrew) bîtan, originating from Akkadian bītānu, is a small building used for royal events such as the symposion (Esth 7:7 LXX; cf. Esth 14:17).22

In Esther 7, the wine-drinking party (מִשְׁתֵּה הַיַּיִן: 7:2, 7) occurs in the wine-drinking room (מִשְׁתֵּה הַיַּיִן: 7:8). This room must have been the setting for Esther’s first banquet in Esther 5, though it is not specified. Esther is the symposiarch of her symposia (συμπόσιον in 7:7 LXX, 7:8 AT [Alpha Text]). Also, a staple piece of furniture of the symposium is the couch, and while only Esther’s couch (מִטָּה; 7:8 MT [Masoretic Text] || κλίνη; 7:8 LXX/7:10 AT) is foregrounded, the other symposiasts (Ahasuerus and Haman) must have occupied their own couch too (מִטָּה; 1:6 MT || cf. κλίνη; 1:6 LXX/AT) (Boardman 1990, pp. 112–31).

Thus, the banquet hall “setting should serve as a heuristic tool to identify the kinds of settings of genres, text-types, and texts” (Knierim 1973, pp. 465–66). It is significant that Esther, having secured the king’s oath in the throne room, wishes to usher the king into the drinking room to present her desired request. Therefore, not every important event in the palace transpires in the royal courtroom (Wahl 2000, pp. 105–12).

3. Bedchamber Tales: Genesis 41; Daniel 2, 4, 6; Esther 6

3.1. Form Criticism

There are a few stories in biblical literature of either a sleepless foreign king or a dreaming foreign king in which a Jewish courtier features prominently. The rationale for taking these two kinds of stories together is primarily because they both feature in Daniel, and there are correlative tales in Esther and Genesis.23 Furthermore, what the sleepless and dreaming king has in common is his compromised slumber (cf. Gen 41:4b–5a; Dan 2:1; 4:5) and that he promotes a Jew by the end of the predicament.24

3.1.1. The Dreaming King (Daniel 2 and 4, and Genesis 41)

First, the dreaming foreign king in Daniel 2 and 4 and Genesis 41 will be examined (

Table 2. Literary structure of the Dreaming King tales.

[Elements]	Genesis 41	Daniel 2	Daniel 4
King’s dream(s)	Pharaoh dreams; he awakes with a troubled spirit [וַתִּפָּעֶם רוּחוֹ] (vv.1–8aα)	Nebuchadnezzar has a dream, resulting in a troubled spirit [וַתִּתְפָּעֶם רוּחוֹ] (v.1)	Nebuchadnezzar dreams, leaving him frightened [דּחל] and terrified [בּהל] (v.5)
None can interpret	wise men and magicians are called to interpret the dreams, but none could (vv.8aβ–b, 24b)	wise men are called to relate and interpret the dream, but none could (vv.2–11)	wise men are called to interpret the dream; none could (vv.6–7)
Protagonist	A Hebrew is identified (by the cupbearer) who can interpret dreams (vv.9–13)	A Jewish exile is identified (by the executioner) who can interpret dreams (vv.12–24)	-
Presentation	Joseph present, by the cupbearer, to Pharaoh (v.14)	Daniel presented, by Achior, to Nebuchadnezzar (v.25)	Daniel presents himself to the king to interpret the dream (v.8).
Ability	“Can you interpret it?” “Not I, but God can” (vv.15–16)	“Can you interpret it?” “No one can, but God can” (vv.26–28)	Daniel endowed with a spirit of the holy gods to interpret (v.9).
Dream(s) interpreted	Pharaoh relays the dreams (vv.17–24a); Joseph interprets them (vv.25–32)	Daniel relates what the dream is and then interprets it (vv.29–45)	King relays the dream (vv.10–18); Daniel interprets it (vv.19–26)
Advisement	Counsel given based on dream (vv.33–36)	-	Advice given based on dream (v.27)
Fulfilment	Events portended by Pharaoh’s dreams take place (vv.47–57)	-	Events portended by King’s dream take place (vv.28–36)
YHWH praised	-	King of Heaven is extolled by Nebuchadnezzar (vv.46–47)	King of Heaven is extolled by Nebuchadnezzar (vv.1–3, 37)
Promotion of Jew(s)	Joseph promoted to second-in-command, prospers (vv.38–46)	Daniel (and three friends) promoted, prosper (vv.48–49)	-

).

When the foreign king dreams, he becomes troubled in spirit (רוּחוֹ √פעם; Gen 41:8; Dan 2:1) or frightened (√דּחל; Dan 4:5) and terrified (√בּהל; Dan 4:5). He calls his courtiers to interpret his dream, but invariably none of them are able to do so. In Genesis 41 (vv.8aβ-b, 24b), the guilds include wise men and magicians; in Daniel 2 (vv.2–11) and 4 (vv.6–7), the guilds are the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and Chaldeans. However, an intermediary typically identifies someone to the king who can interpret his dream(s). In Genesis 41, the cupbearer commends Joseph, a young Hebrew prisoner; in Daniel 2, Arioch, the chief executioner, brings forward Daniel, one of the Judean exiles. These individuals are then presented before the king; in Daniel 4, Daniel presents himself presumably because he is already known to Nebuchadnezzar. By way of vetting the Hebrew, the foreign king inquires whether they have the capability to interpret dreams. Joseph and Daniel forthrightly deny such abilities as inherent; though, they quickly follow up this denial with the confession that their God can bestow dreams and grant interpretation for the benefit of humankind. This interview is not present in Daniel 4, because the king already knows Daniel is “endowed with a spirit of the holy gods” (vv.8, 9), rendering “no mystery too difficult” (v.9).

At this point, the king divulges his dream to the respective Jew, who adeptly deciphers it to the satisfaction of the foreign monarch. This is the case for Genesis 41 and Daniel 4, at least; in Daniel 2, the extra test, issued by Nebuchadnezzar, is to both relate the dream and then render its meaning, which Daniel accomplishes.25 Often, based upon the gravity of the portents of the king’s dream, the Hebrew/Jew offers counsel to best navigate the respective dilemma. Joseph advises a famine relief programme (Gen 41:33–36), which the pharaoh implements (Gen 41:47–57); and Daniel advises the great king to “atone for your sins with righteousness, and your iniquities with mercy to the oppressed, so that your prosperity may be prolonged” (Dan 4:27), which he does not heed (Dan 4:28–36). Once the fulfilment of the dream is realised, the king typically professes YHWH, i.e., the King of Heaven, as the supreme God (Dan 2:46–47; 4:1–3, 37). Standard is also the promotion of the Hebrew/Jew who has benefited the great king. He is typically promoted to second-in-command, lavished with gifts, and prospers (Gen 41:38–46; Dan 2:48–49); if this is not registered (Dan 4), it is because Daniel already enjoys these accolades and commodities.

3.1.2. The Sleepless King (Daniel 6; Esther 6)

Next, we consider the tales of sleepless foreign kings; these are Darius in Daniel 6 and Ahasuerus in Esther 6.26 The anterior and posterior context—also analogous in form—provide the impetus and aftermath for the structurally germane tales (

Table 3. Literary structure of the Sleepless King tales.

[Elements]	Daniel 6	Esther 6
Deceitful Legislation	Decree (קְיָם) to kill anyone who prays to one other than Darius for 30 days (vv.7–9)	Law (דָּת) to annihilate people who follow other laws, are hostile to kingdom (3:8–15)
Jewish Reaction	Daniel continues to pray to YHWH thrice daily (v.10)	Mordecai mourns in sackcloth and ashes continuously (4:1–3; cf. 5:9; 6:12a)
Predicament	Loyal (Jewish) courtier faces imminent death in the lion’s den (vv.13–17)	Loyal (Jewish) courtier faces imminent death on Haman’s gibbet (5:14)
Sleeplessness of the King	Sleep fled (נדד) from Darius; He fasted all night without entertainment (v.18)	Sleep fled (נדד) from Ahasuerus; He has the royal annals read to him (vv.1–3)
Early Morning Recourse	At daybreak, the king hurried (בּהל) to the lion’s den to check on Daniel’s welfare (v.19)	Ahasuerus has Haman quickly (מהר; v.10a) reward Mordecai (vv.4–9)
Jew Rescued	Daniel is delivered (vv.20–23)	Mordecai is honoured, delivered (vv.10b–11)
Enemy Executed	Daniel’s enemies are executed along with their families (v.24)	Mordecai’s enemy is shamed (vv.12–14) and later executed among family (7:10; 9:13–14)
Counter-Edict	Decree (טְעֵם) is issued (vv.25–27): to “tremble and fear before the God of Daniel” (v.26)	Decree (דָּת) is issued: the Jews may defend themselves (8:3–14)
Promotion/Prospering of Jew	Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius (v.28; cf. vv.1–3)	Mordecai is promoted to grand vizier (8:1–2, 15–17)

).

Both Ahasuerus and Darius had been deceitfully persuaded by (a) high official(s) to pass a law (דָּת; Esth 3:15) or decree (קְיָם; Dan 6:7) that directly endangers a Jew or the Jews at large. In Daniel, the loyal Jewish courtier faces imminent death in the lion’s den (6:13–17); nevertheless, Daniel continues to pray to YHWH (6:10), the very act that will get him killed. In Esther, Mordecai publicly mourns in sackcloth and ashes concerning the Jewish genocidal edict (4:1–3); further, though Mordecai knows it not, the loyal Jewish courtier faces imminent death on Haman’s gibbet (5:14). This prefaces the king’s sleepless night (cf. Gruen 2016, pp. 237–43). Sleep fled (נדד) from Darius; he fasted all night and abstained from entertainment (Dan 6:18).27 Sleep fled (נדד) from Ahasuerus; so, he had the royal annals read to him (Esth 6:1–3).28 Each king’s mind is occupied with their Jewish courtier.

In the morning, the king intervenes. While Darius acts at daybreak (בְּנָגְהָא…בִּשְׁפַּרְפָּרָא; Dan 6:20a), it is presumed that Ahasuerus has Mordecai honoured in the morning, not during the night, for the citizenry to witness the honouring. Moreover, each king acts in haste. Darius rose and went hurriedly (בּהל; Dan 6:19) to the lion’s den to check on Daniel’s welfare, and Ahasuerus ordered Haman to quickly (מהר; Esth 6:10) execute what he advised to rectify the king’s oversight in rewarding Mordecai. In both cases of recourse, the Jewish courtier is rescued from death. Since there was beguiling on the part of the other courtiers, the villain is executed along with their families. This is immediately the case for the satraps, and their wives and children (Dan 6:24); for Haman, he dies directly (Esth 7:10), and then his sons later follow in the same fate (Esth 9:13–14).29 There is, further, a lex talionis concerning the execution: the rival satrap courtiers die in the lion’s den, and Haman dies on his own gibbet.

Henceforth, a countermand is issued by the foreign king, which serves as a corrective and confession. Darius issues a decree (טְעֵם) (Dan 6:25–27): to “tremble and fear before the God of Daniel” (Dan 6:26). Mordecai and Esther ghostwrite a law (דָּת) that the Jews may defend themselves against the legalised violence (Esth 8:3–14). As an afterword, a statement of the promotion or prosperity of the Jewish courtier is registered. Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius (Dan 6:28; cf. Dan 6:1–3); Mordecai is promoted to grand vizier (Esth 8:1–2, 15–17).

The bedchamber tales (Gen 41; Dan 2, 4, 6; Esth 6), thus, depict a foreign king passing the night with compromised sleep, either partially (dreams) or entirely (insomnia). If he dreams, the Jew offers interpretation via oneiromancy, and the dilemma is assuaged. If he cannot sleep, the king utters a declaration, which, functioning like an omen or prophecy, has a direct future fulfilment that preserves the life of the endangered Jew(s). In the end, a Jew is honoured and elevated.

3.2. Genre Criticism

To contend for a distinct bedchamber tale subgenre in biblical literature, I shall ground my argument within established germane genres from ancient Near Eastern literature based upon cultic practices as well as Greek classics. Within the rubric of divination (Cryer 1994; Jeffers 1996; Fincke 2016; Steinert 2018; Jacobus et al. 2019; Nigosian 2022), the genre of dream interpretation and oneiromancy is well-established and does not need any further elaboration (Kessels 1969, pp. 389–424; Jeffers 1990, pp. 167–83; King 2013, pp. 81–111; Hamori and Stökl 2018); however, I shall argue that the sleepless king story-type is an ilk of the divinatory omen genre; indeed, these two types of tales are more closely related than they at first may appear. Consequently, I shall rely on Homeric literature to substantiate this classification.30

In The Odyssey, Odysseus and Penelope both experience a restless night, dreaming and sleepless alternately (20.1–132). At first, Odysseus is sleepless as he broods over how to kill his enemies, the rival suitors of his wife, without himself getting killed; then, he dozes off, and “in a waking dream he seemed to see her beside him with the light of recognition in her eyes” (Od. 20.93–94).31 Penelope initially dreams that Odysseus is lying in bed with her; she subsequently awakes and expresses her anguish through prayer, calling out to the gods to kill her. Both states of restless nights are parallel. Their dreams are indicative of oneiromancy, for the very next night Odysseus and Penelope do bed together. In their insomnia, Odysseus and Penelope both ruminate over death (their own and that of others); this too is fulfilled the very next day as their enemies are murdered. Consequently, the restless night of Odysseus, King of Ithaca, precipitates a reversal of fortunes.

In The Iliad, King Priam is near Troy, returning his son Hector’s body for funeral rites over a twelve-day truce from war (24.642–804). On the night before his return home, “while all other gods and men…were slumbering the whole night through, overcome by soft sleep”, Priam and his herald were awake “with deep thoughts in their heads”, yet eventually fell asleep (Il. 24.673–684) (Homer 1999, p. 613; see also Homer 1950, p. 455). But Hermes was awake all night, deliberating how to expeditiously and safely convey Hector’s corpse to its resting place. Hermes woke Priam, who woke his herald, and the three travelled through the night with the horses and mules carrying the dead body. In the early morning, they arrived at Troy and commenced the twelve-day funeral rites as planned.

The Homeric restless night stories of King Odysseus and King Priam are analogous to the biblical foreign king when he either sleeps fitfully in dreams (Gen 41:4b–5a; Dan 2:1; 4:5) or passes the night in sleeplessness (Dan 6; Esth 6) (cf. Schnepel 2005, pp. 209–20). Just as the dreams foretell the near future, so too is there an omen surrounding sleeplessness, which is also fulfilled early the next morning (cf. Kitz 2003, pp. 22–42; Nissinen 2019). Odysseus prays to Zeus for a “word of omen [φήμην]” (Od. 20.100) to signify success in his forthcoming vengeance; immediately, a clap of thunder sounds and a handmaiden speaks a “word of omen [φήμην/κληδών]” (Od. 20.105/120) which corresponds exactly to Odysseus’s aim.32 The word of omen which Priam receives comes from Hermes, portending a life-threatening outcome unless the king follows the god through the night to safety; rather than staying with Achilles, Priam favoured Hermes’ counsel to flee the ships and elude the gatekeepers (Il. 24.677–690).

In the Hebrew Bible, too, there is a portentous utterance surrounding sleeplessness which fortuitously transpires in the early morning. Though YHWH is not ever said to cause the king’s sleeplessness or awaken the king, or even be involved in the impartation or transmission of a word of omen to humans, like in Homer,33 there is, nonetheless, an analogous phenomenon in the Writings.34 In Daniel 6, Darius speaks the omen himself: “The king said to Daniel, ‘May your God, whom you faithfully serve, deliver you!’” (6:16); and this is exactly what happened (6:20–22). In Esther 6, Ahasuerus also speaks the word of omen: “the king said to [Haman], ‘What shall be done for the man whom the king wishes to honour?’” (6:6a); and what is presaged transpires (6:7–11).

Based on this analysis, therefore, it is concluded that not only what is dreamed is prophetic but also what is declared in a sleepless night is portentous.35 Further, due to what transpires during the king’s restless night, altered events are catalysed in the morning and culminate in the immediate future. Thus, whether via oneiromancy or omen, the preservation of life for some and the death of others seems to be (pre)determined by the foreign king’s fitful night of sleep/lessness.

4. Court Tales (Proper): Daniel 3; Esther 3

4.1. Form Criticism

We now come to the court tale proper. Having argued for and bracketed out banquet tales and bedchamber tales, the remaining stories in the diaspora novellas, which also feature the prominence of a Jewish courtier, take on new light. As will be evidenced, the court tales proper are not as uniform in structure as banquet tales and bedchamber tales; nevertheless, their themes are consistent, and the narrative results are undeviating. Typically, the court tales in the diaspora novellas centre around the crisis of proskynesis (see below); this is the case for Daniel 3 and Esther 3. Although many of these are part and parcel of the book’s major dilemma (Esth 8–9) and contain germane elements, they do not conform well enough for a form-critical analysis (Gen 42–44) and are thus not presently examined (

Table 4. Literary structure of the Court tales (proper).

[Elements]	Daniel 3	Esther 3
King’s Law or Command	Nebuchadnezzar commands (אֲמַר) prostration and paying homage (סגד + נפל) to his statue (vv.1–7; cf. טְעֵם in v.10)	Ahasuerus commands (צָוָה; v.2/מִצְוָה; v.3) prostration before and do obeisance to (כרע + חוה) Haman (v.2a–bα [v.5a])
Official Enforcers	The Chaldeans report Jewish defiance (vv.8–12)	The king’s servants report the defiance of Mordecai the Jew (v.4)
Jewish Defiance	“certain Jews … do not serve your gods … [or] worship the golden statue” (v.12)	“But Mordecai did not bow down or do obeisance” (v.2bβ)
Anger of King or Surrogate	Nebuchadnezzar became infuriated (בִּרְגַז וַחֲמָה; v.13 [see further v.19])	Haman became enraged (וַיִּמָּלֵא הָמָן חֵמָה; v.5b [see also 5:9b])
Refusal of Proskynesis	“… we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue …” (v.18)	Mordecai continued to not genuflect before Haman (5:9a)
Punishment	Three youths are commanded (אֲמַר; vv.19, 20) to be thrown into fiery furnace (vv.19–23)	A genocidal decree (דָּת; v.14) for Mordecai and all Jews is published (vv.6–15a)
Rescue	Delivered through an unexpected turn of events (vv.24–27)	Delivered through an unexpected turn of events (chs.5–7)
New Law or Command	Decree (טְעֵם) is made prohibiting blasphemy of Lord God (v.29)	Counter-decree (דָּת) is issued allowing Jews to defend themselves (8:3–14)
Promotion/Prospering of Jew(s)	“the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon” (v.30)	Mordecai and Esther promoted and/or prosperous (8:1–3; 9:23–32; 10:1–3)

).36

At the outset of these stories, the king commands (אֲמַר; Dan 3:4/צָוָה; Esth 3:2) the realm to bow down and do obeisance or pay homage (סגד + נפל; Dan 3:5–6/כרע + חוה; Esth 3:2) to a representation of the king; in Daniel, the object of veneration is a statue of gold made in the king’s image; and in Esther, it is Haman, the second-in-command and surrogate of the king. The command, moreover, has the force of a decree (טְעֵם; Dan 3:29/מִצְוָה; Esth 3:3).

While the king’s command is generally obeyed (Dan 3:7/Esth 3:3), there is noncompliance on the part of the Jew/s (Dan 3:12/Esth 3:2bβ). The defiance is then reported to the king or his surrogate; in Daniel, the Chaldeans denounce the Jews (Dan 3:8–12), and in Esther, the king’s servants alert Haman to Mordecai’s insolence (Esth 3:4). This disobedience infuriates the king (בִּרְגַז וַחֲמָה; Dan 3:13) or his surrogate (חֵמָה…וַיִּמָּלֵא; Esth 3:5b), who thence seek to destroy the Jew/s by way of punishment (Dan 3:6, 11) or out of retaliation (Esth 3:6).

A direct confrontation ensues, giving the Jew/s a chance to reform their behaviour. However, the three youths profess: “…we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue…” (Dan 3:18), and Mordecai, remaining unaltered despite the king’s servants’ efforts to persuade him “day after day” (Esth 3:4), persists in not genuflecting before Haman (Esth 5:9a). At this point, another legal measure is advanced—a lethal one. The three youths are commanded (אֲמַר; vv.19, 20) by Nebuchadnezzar to be thrown into a fiery furnace (Dan 3:19–23); and Mordecai and all Jews are to be exterminated, per the edict (דָּת; v.14) written by Haman with the king’s authority (Esth 3:6–15a). In each case, however, the Jews are delivered through an unexpected turn of events; in Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were miraculously not immolated because of a saving angel (Dan 3:24–28), and, in Esther, through the queen’s banquet(s) and the king’s sleepless night (Esth 5–7), “the tables were turned and the Jews got the upper hand over those who hated them” (Esth 9:1 NIV).

Henceforth, additional legislation is published and proliferated. Nebuchadnezzar decrees (טְעֵם) the prohibition of blasphemy against the God of the Jews (Dan 3:29); Mordecai, the new second-in-command and surrogate of the great king, issues a counter-decree (דָּת; v.10) allowing all Jews to defend themselves (Esth 8:3–14). In the end, the Jews in question are promoted and/or prosper. Nebuchadnezzar “promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon” (Dan 3:30); Mordecai was promoted, and along with Esther, prospered in the king’s court (Esth 8:1–3; 9:23–32; 10:1–3).

4.2. Genre Criticism

Though the court tale is a well-established genre, it is worthwhile delimiting a subgenre since our aim herein is to provide distinction to the large swath of variegated stories which usually fall under the broad label of court tales. Consequently, we argue that court tales in late biblical narratives have specifically to do with the foreign empire’s court protocols and how these customs stand in religio-cultural opposition to diasporic Jews and so render controversy. Thus, Persian and Greek perspectives of proskynesis vis-à-vis divine kingship are the fitting background to orient our argument for a biblical subgenre of court tale, as the books of Daniel and Esther were written in those eras, respectively (see, e.g., Beyerle 2002, pp. 205–28; Middlemas 2019, pp. 149–68).

Throughout time, paying respect, reverence, and even veneration to royalty through various gestures has always been part of court life (J. A. Scott 1922, pp. 403–4; Briant 2002, pp. 255–301; Duindam 2011, pp. 1–23). Generally speaking, Persians performed proskynesis unto kings and other royal elites out of respect, while Greeks reserved proskynesis for the gods out of worship; these two spheres, though, overlay and intersect, since the great king was often perceived as embodying divine sonship and manifesting a divine rulership (Ross Taylor 1927, pp. 53–62; Richards 1934, pp. 168–70; cf. Bowden 2013, pp. 55–77). Alexander (356–323 BCE) may be seen as a figure who galvanised this amalgamation, since, as a Greek (Macedonian), he conquered Persia and melded cultural expressions (Hellenism) (Parrilla Martínez 2017, pp. 60–62).This conflation of identity and ceremonial prostration comes into contention in the incident of Callisthenes’ omission of proskynesis before Alexander, as recorded by Arrian and Plutarch (see Brown 1949, pp. 225–48).Thus, the debate concerning the scope and nature of proskynesis, its correct performance and appropriate recipients, lies in the historical, cultural, and literary background of biblical literature composed/edited during the Hellenistic era.37

The Jewish refusal to perform proskynesis, in Daniel 3 and Esther 3 (and elsewhere), is critical because it is tantamount to idolatry—chief prohibitions of the Decalogue (see Exod 20:3–7//Deut 5:7–11). Nebuchadnezzar sees himself as a divine sovereign (Dan 3:28); also, it is “entirely possible that Esth 3:1–5 is to be understood as implying that Haman in fact claimed a quasi-divine status for himself by way of the proskynesis” (Ego 2010, p. 290).38 Consequently, (observant) Jews must not bow down or worship anything or anyone other than YHWH.

Ostensibly, an honouring gesture unto a regal authority, requisite of the great king’s subjects, does not seem to impinge upon idolatry; however, the hidden transcripts of the books of Daniel and Esther would state otherwise (J. Scott 1990; cf. also Portier-Young 2011, pp. 258–62). In Daniel 3, there is a subtle grammatical shift with a significant theological implication. When the order is given, the realm is to prostrate and do obedience ([προσκυνέω LXX/TH] סגד + נפל; vv.5–7, 10–11, 15) to the statue; yet, when the youths are reported, confronted, and make their profession, and when Nebuchadnezzar later gives his confession, the terminology is to serve and pay homage (סגד + [λατρεύω LXX/TH] פּלח; vv.12, 14, 18, 28). In fact, like Daniel in Daniel 6, the three Hebrew youths are commended by the foreign monarch for serving and worshipping their God alone in the face of persecution (Dan 3:28; 6:17, 21). In Esther, Mordecai’s refusal may seem to be stubborn excessiveness in the MT. However, Mordecai’s motivation, as the LXX (an open transcript) divulges, are religious: “…you know, O Lord, that it was not in insolence or pride or for any love of glory that I…refused to bow down to this proud Haman; for I would have been willing to kiss the soles of his feet to save Israel! But I did this so that I might not set human glory above the glory of God, and I will not bow down to anyone but you, who are my Lord…” (Esth 13:12–14). So, veneration expressed by genuflection was viewed as a transgression in these instances.39

Biblical court tales, naturally, are interested specifically in (Hebrew/Israelite/)Jewish courtiers in the nucleus of foreign imperia and in direct contact with the gentile king. Particularly through the subgenre of court tales concerning protocol vis-à-vis proskynesis, Daniel 3 and Esther 3 (among other examples) show how diametrically opposed loyalties can coexist in diaspora. It takes courage and faithfulness to God, as well as tactfulness and shrewdness in court, to be in the king’s employ while worshipping YHWH alone.

5. Implications

The Sitz im Leben, or “the social usage in which a genre originates” (Buss 1978, p. 157), of the various biblical The Jew in the Foreign Court stories can be assigned, naturally, to the diaspora. The life-setting of Daniel 1–6 and Esther is the eastern diaspora, and Genesis 37–50 probably found its initial context of usage in the Jewish diasporic community in the southern Levant, Ptolemaic Egypt.40 The “typical communication situations” (Blum 2003, p. 35) of The Jew in the Foreign Court stories are not likely meant only for the upper echelon of society, such as those positions occupied by Esther, Mordecai, Daniel, and Joseph. Rather, as Mills (2006, pp. 408–20) has argued, the foreign courts in Daniel and Esther represent the moral universe that is pertinent to the whole populace; further, Mills (2006, p. 414) argues that the various courts, chambers, tables, and thresholds of the palatial structure in the books of Daniel and Esther are refractions of domestic images of household and table as well as the necessity for crossing various social boundaries. In fact, the biblical diaspora novellas contain several scenes around the table (Dan 1:8–20; Esth 5:5b–8; 7:1–10; Dan 5:1–4; Gen 43:31b–34), in the bedchambers (Dan 6:18–19; Esth 6:1–6; Gen 43:30b–31a; 48:1–2), or in the home generally (Esth 5:10–14; 6:12–13; Gen 39:1–18; 43:43:26–30a). Consequently, The Jew in the Foreign Court stories is “a vehicle for conveying a wider political and social message” (Mills 2006, p. 410). The social location that gave shape to this genre of literature through its social usage (Sitz im Leben), therefore, was most probably the domicile of the diasporic Jew. The imperial court affects the entire realm, not just the bureaucratic level; thus, commoners were interested in and speculated about the goings-on of the royal elite—perhaps especially amongst its marginalised population, such as the Jewish exiles/dispersion—and so processed their experiences and strategies for (circum)navigating the occupying empire with storytelling in the home (Davies 1985, p. 89; cf. Honigman 2020, pp. 145–83).

The function or purpose that the various sub-types of stories of wise Jews in the epicentre of foreign imperia have, ostensibly, is to galvanise religious practices that become vital expressions of (Second Temple) Judaism(s). Indeed, the banquet tales (Dan 5; Esth 1, 5/7), bedchamber tales (Gen 41; Dan 2, 4, 6; Esth 6), and court tales proper (Dan 3; Esth 3) depict a crucible for praxes such as the avoidance of drunkenness (Dan 5; Esth 1, 5/7),41 along with commitment to kosher (Dan 1) and fasting (Esth 4; cf. Dan 6), prayer to and profession of God as Sovereign (Dan 2:20–23; 3:16–18; 6:21–22), and not worshipping or venerating (i.e., proskynesis) any god or king, image or representative other than YHWH (Esth 3; Dan 3);42 there are even indications of conversion to Judaism (Dan 2:47; 3:28–29; 4:1–3, 34–37; 6:25–27; Esth 8:17b).43 Therefore, beyond the argumentation for subgenres of The Jew in the Foreign Court narratives, what is also realised in these tales are the compatibility and vitality of (a new kind of) Judaism for diasporic living.44

6. Conclusions

Many stories in the Hebrew Bible depict prominent Jews in the government of foreign imperia, particularly in the diaspora novellas of Genesis 37–50, Esther, and Daniel 1–6. These narratives all feature foreign monarchs who issue laws for their entire realm, for such is the unilateral sovereignty and responsibility of the great king (or to whomever he delegates). Typically, however, after a dynamic interaction with a Jewish courtier, the great king generates new laws—countermands and simultaneously conflicting edicts45—because of the wisdom and/or revelation disseminated from the heavenly realm, transmitted by the Jew to the king; and the king usually professes the high sovereignty of YHWH, the god of the Jews. This narrative outcome is the result of essentially every story related to The Jew in the Foreign Court genre, whether borne from the great king’s banquet, restless night of either dreaming or sleeplessness, or an ultimatum to worship, venerate, and/or pray to a god or king (or a figure who maintains he is so) other than the LORD God. Now, the court of the king is indeed an appropriate place where matters of justice are meted out, and bureaucratic rulings are made; yet legislation is also spawned from seemingly unofficial contexts such as the king’s symposia and bedchambers. In the end, when the Jew is devoted to YHWH while faithfully serving the foreign empire, then he/she is elevated and honoured by the gentile king, causing the Jew to be promoted and/or prosper (while the adversaries of the Jews are usually demoted/marginalised, punished, or executed).

Three subgenres of The Jew in the Foreign Court narrative type have been argued. Amid the general themes of the aforementioned narrative arch, there are particular literary types or subgenres derived from the analytical methods of Formkritik and Gattungskritik. The following has been proffered. Banquet tales (Dan 5; Esth 1, 5/7): These feature an intoxicated gentile king at a royal symposium who orders the death of a high official, and this is wrought by a woman who exploits or falls victim to the king’s wine-induced disposition to enact lethal action with disastrous repercussions for the kingdom. Bedchamber tales (Gen 41; Dan 2, 4, 6; Esth 6): These tales involve a foreign king who is either sleepless (Dan 6, Esth 6) or dreams (Gen 41, Dan 2 and 4); in the former, a king intervenes favourably for Jews in distress, while in the latter the king’s dreams are interpreted by a wise Jewish courtier. Court tales proper (Dan 3; Esth 3): These episodes convey court etiquette and the decorum of courtiers who sagaciously advise the king in the face of life-threatening dilemmas stemming from monotheistic loyalties, namely not performing proskynesis.

Though narratives of The Jew in the Foreign Court genre are filled with (court) conflict and (court) contest, these qualifiers are at best themes and do not provide substantial subgenre distinctions. Moreover, what comes to light with the subgenre categorisation of the banquets tales, bedchamber tales, and court tales (proper) are religious practices forged in the crucible of exile/diaspora, which become galvanised expressions of Judaism in post-monarchic and post-exilic eras. These include wisdom concerning diet, kosher, and fasting; prayer to and worship of God alone; and not committing idolatry via the veneration of or proskynesis to any image, person, or other god; additionally, conversion to Judaism emerges as a consistent prospect in The Jew in the Foreign Court genre. Consequently, though this article contends for a reclassification of so-called court tales, the interest herein is not merely taxonomical; rather, due to the re-conceptualisation of subgenres, issues of navigating a life of faith in diaspora amidst religious tensions, dilemmas, and disputes, as well as models of resistance, shrewdness, and wisdom, are illuminated by these subgenres.