This article was first published on the Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) online platform.

1, INTRODUCTION

It has long been said that if one repeats a lie often enough and convinces oneself that it is the truth, that lie will eventually become reality. Undoubtedly, many, particularly Iranians, have heard the story of Esther and Purim, as well as the story of the massacre of Iranians by Jews during the Achaemenid era. However, few are aware that Purim is not a historical event but rather a Babylonian children’s myth that, through centuries of repetition, Jews have transformed into a historical occurrence, both for themselves and for the world.

 

This paper seeks to uncover this falsehood using historical sources and evidence. It demonstrates that no woman named Esther ever existed in history to become the wife and queen of Xerxes I, nor did a premier named Haman or a figure named Mordecai exist. More importantly, it establishes that Purim, in its entirety, never took place in history and is nothing more than a remarkably successful historical fabrication.

 

This paper will also examine how political actors have weaponised the Purim myth to attack Jews or propagate Zionism alike.

 

 

2, FROM MYTH TO HISTORICAL FABRICATION AND A JEWISH IDENTIFY

The Book of Esther is one of the five Megillot (Scrolls) and forms part of the Ketuvim (Writings), the final section of the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh. The authorship of the book remains unknown; however, modern academic scholarship, employing critical methods to analyse its composition, cultural context, and theological themes, dates its creation to the 2nd century BCE, during the early Parthian period. In contemporary interpretation, Jewish scholars often regard the book as a diasporic narrative, reflecting Jewish life and identity under foreign dominion.

 

The Book of Esther recounts the story as follows:

“The King of Persia, named Ahasuerus (Achashverosh in Hebrew, whom many identify as Xerxes I, son of Darius the Great and grandson of Cyrus the Great [1]), divorces his wife, Vashti. While searching for a new consort worthy of becoming the queen of the Achaemenid Empire, he encounters an orphaned Hebrew girl named Esther, who is under the guardianship of her uncle, Mordecai. According to the Book of Esther (2:11), Mordecai was a servant at Xerxes’ court and advised Esther to conceal her Jewish identity and faith from the Persian king in order to secure her position as queen.”

 

And continues:

“After Esther becomes Xerxes’ wife and is crowned queen of the Achaemenid Empire, Mordecai is also appointed as an adviser to the king. Meanwhile, Xerxes has a prime minister named Haman, who is a non-Persian of unknown origin identified as an Agagite (potentially linked to the biblical Gog). However, a deep enmity arises between Haman and Mordecai because the latter refuses to bow before him (Esther 3:5). Enraged by this act of defiance, Haman plots to annihilate all the Jews within the Persian Empire. To accomplish this, he deceitfully tells Xerxes that the Jews are conspiring to rebel against the empire. Upon hearing this, Xerxes becomes furious and grants Haman permission to exterminate them. Haman immediately dispatches messengers across all the satrapies (provinces) of Persia, ordering that on the 13th day of the Hebrew month of Adar, all Jews should be slaughtered.”

 

The Book of Esther further states:

“When Mordecai learns of Haman’s plot and Xerxes’ decree for the massacre of the Jews, he urges Esther to intercede on behalf of her people and plead for their survival. At this critical moment, Esther is forced to reveal her true identity as a Hebrew. She confesses to the king that she is Jewish and that Haman’s motive for exterminating the Jewish people stems from Mordecai’s refusal to bow to him due to his religious beliefs. Upon learning of this conspiracy, the king becomes furious and orders that, instead of the Jews being executed, Haman himself, along with his family and supporters, be put to death. According to the Book of Esther, in the city of Susa, the Achaemenid capital, Haman and 500 others, including his ten sons, are killed, and at Esther’s request, their corpses are publicly hanged throughout the city for all to see.”

 

 

3, BUT WHY IS THIS STORY FALSE?

Before delving into the Babylonian origins of this myth and explaining why it could not have taken place during Xerxes’ reign or even in Achaemenid Persia, the following points must be considered:

 

3.1, Xerxes’ Religious Beliefs and the Impossibility of a Non-Zoroastrian Empress

According to the Book of Esther, she managed to conceal her faith from Xerxes and revealed it only when forced to do so in order to save her people. This claim, however, represents a central flaw in the narrative when examined through the lens of logic and historical context. The analysis considers whether it would have been feasible for Xerxes, a devout adherent of the Zoroastrian religion, to remain unaware of his queen’s non-Zoroastrian faith, particularly given the Achaemenids’ perception of non-Zoroastrian faiths as inferior or even demonic.

 

Although the Achaemenid Empire was tolerant of other religions, whether they worshipped gods or idols, the Zoroastrian religion was the official religion of the Persian Imperial Court and deeply intertwined with its political and cultural fabric. Xerxes I, like his father Darius the Great, was a staunch follower of the Zoroastrian religion, and his inscriptions reveal not only his pride in his Aryan lineage but also his theological commitment to Zoroastrian principles.

 

In the seventh line of the XPh inscription at Persepolis, Xerxes explicitly asks Ahuramazda to protect him from ‘daivā’ (evil, false gods, or, according to Herzfeld (1937: 70ff), idols), a term often used to describe non-Zoroastrians:

“mām uramazdā pātu hacā gastā utamai viθam utā imam dahyāvam.”

[Translation: “May Ahuramazda protect me from daivā, and my palace and this land.”]

 

This inscription underscores Xerxes’ deep religious conviction and his view of non-Zoroastrians as worshippers of false gods or demons, further highlighting the improbability of his remaining unaware of Esther’s non-Zoroastrian identity.

 

Additionally, the King of Kings, as the representative of Ahura Mazda, the supreme God, was expected to uphold religious orthodoxy and ensure the court’s alignment with divine principles. Non-Zoroastrians, particularly those adhering to religions with distinct practices and deities, were often viewed with suspicion or outright hostility within the court, as their beliefs were seen as contrary to the cosmic order established by Ahura Mazda. In such a context, the religious identity of the queen would have held notable political and symbolic importance, making it unlikely that a non-Zoroastrian queen could escape notice. For Esther to have concealed her Jewish identity successfully, she would have needed to navigate a highly scrutinised and hierarchical court environment. Judaism, with its distinct practices such as dietary laws, Sabbath observance, and ritual purity, would have posed notable challenges to concealment. The Persian imperial court was a tightly controlled institution, with extensive protocols, spies, and advisors tasked with monitoring the behaviour and background of its members. As queen, Esther would have been expected to participate in state religious ceremonies and rituals, making it difficult to avoid behaviours that might reveal her true faith. Moreover, the queen’s role was not merely ceremonial; she was a public figure whose actions and affiliations would have been subject to intense scrutiny. Any deviation from expected norms, whether in religious observance or social conduct, could have raised suspicions. Thus, the practical difficulties of maintaining such a concealment over an extended period render the scenario historically improbable.

 

Two additional factors further complicate the plausibility of Esther’s concealment. First, the politics of the Persian court, particularly the role of the Queen Mother and her network of spies, would have made it nearly impossible for Esther to hide her true identity. The Queen Mother, a figure of immense power and influence, would have had a vested interest in monitoring the queen’s behaviour to safeguard the stability of the imperial household and the empire. Her spies and informants would have been adept at uncovering any discrepancies in Esther’s conduct or affiliations. Second, the Zoroastrian religion itself involves distinct practices and rituals, such as various hymns and prayers, fire rituals, purification rites, and adherence to specific dietary laws. Failure to participate in or conform to these practices would have been immediately noticeable, especially in a court where religious observance was a matter of state importance. Esther’s inability to fully adhere to Zoroastrian customs would have inevitably drawn attention and raised questions about her religious allegiance.

 

Moreover, as a devout follower of the Zoroastrian religion, Xerxes would have been deeply invested in maintaining religious conformity within his court. A non-Zoroastrian queen could have been perceived as a threat to the king’s divine mandate and the stability of the empire [2].

 

3.2, Could an Orphan and Foreigner Without Noble Lineage Become Empress of Persia?

Among ancient civilisations, particularly within the Achaemenid Empire, royal marriages were either dynastic or political in nature. Such matrimonial alliances were a common feature of monarchical societies worldwide, persisting even in European kingdoms up to a century ago. Dynastic marriages were intended to strengthen family ties and consolidate power within ruling lineages. A prominent example is the union of Darius the Great and Atossa (OP. Utauθa), the daughter of Cyrus the Great, which produced Xerxes I. This marriage not only reinforced the legitimacy of Darius’ rule but also connected him to the prestigious lineage of Cyrus, the founder of the empire. Political marriages, on the other hand, served strategic purposes, such as securing the loyalty of powerful factions. For instance, Darius the Great also married the daughters of six Persian nobles who had supported him in his ascent to the throne, thereby cementing alliances with key stakeholders in the empire.

 

Given this context, it would have been virtually impossible for Esther, an orphaned, unknown girl of obscure origins and non-Persian heritage, to ascend to the position of queen of the Achaemenid Empire, the sole global superpower of its time. The Persian Imperial Court was a highly structured and hierarchical institution, where the selection of a queen was a matter of state importance. Queens were typically chosen from noble Persian families, to ensure the continuity of dynastic legitimacy or to forge political alliances. Esther’s lack of noble lineage and her non-Persian background would have disqualified her from consideration, as her elevation to queenship would have been seen as a breach of established norms and a threat to the stability of the court.

 

Additionally, the silence and acquiescence of the Persian and Median noble families, as well as the high-ranking military and administrative officials, to Esther’s ascension defy historical logic. The Persian nobility was deeply invested in maintaining the integrity of the court and the empire. The elevation of an outsider with no noble connections would have been perceived as an affront to their status and power, likely provoking rebellion or at least notable opposition. The absence of any recorded dissent or conflict in the historical record further undermines the plausibility of Esther’s rise to queenship. Not to mention, according to Herodotus’ Histories, Achaemenid King of Kings exclusively chose their wives from among seven noble Persian families. [3]

 

However, what outright rejects the idea of Esther as queen is the historical record, which confirms that the actual queen of Persia and Xerxes’ wife, the mother of Artaxerxes I, was Amestris (OP Amāstri), meaning “Mighty Woman,” the daughter of Otanes (Hutana) [4], [5]. Otanes was one of the seven Persian noblemen reputed to have killed the imposter who claimed to be Bardiya in 522 BCE. Amestris remained active in royal affairs during her husband’s reign and long after Xerxes’ death, throughout the reign of their son, Artaxerxes I. She died in early 424 BCE, aged nearly ninety.

 

Her prominent role in the court and her noble lineage underscore the importance of dynastic and political considerations in the selection of a queen. The existence of a well-documented historical queen further diminishes the plausibility of Esther’s narrative, as there is no evidence to suggest that Xerxes would have set aside a queen of such stature and influence in favour of an unknown outsider.

 

3.3, Haman, a Foreigner, Could Not Have Been Xerxes' Prime Minister in the Achaemenid Empire

The Book of Esther claims that Haman was a non-Iranian who, along with his people, came from the land of Magog to reside within the Persian Empire.

 

The first falsehood propagated by the book’s author lies in the assertion that a land called Magog existed in the ancient world, a claim for which there is no historical or archaeological evidence.

 

The second falsehood becomes apparent when examining the political and military structure of the Achaemenid Empire, where all high-ranking officials, whether in administrative or military roles, were exclusively of Iranian descent, particularly Persians and Medes.

 

While it is true that non-Iranian advisers, who were subjects of the empire, served at the Achaemenid court to provide insights on the affairs of the provinces from which they originated, the notion that a foreigner could have risen to the rank of ‘Hazārapati’ (a title denoting a high state official who, as Chief Administrator of the Empire, held authority second only to the King of Kings [Emperor], equivalent to ‘Grand Vizier’ or ‘Prime Minister’) within the Achaemenid Empire, the world’s first and only superpower of ancient times, is as absurd as suggesting that a member of the Zulu tribe of South Africa served as Prime Minister to Queen Victoria and the British Empire.

 

The term ‘Hazārapati’, meaning ‘commander of a thousand’, was both a military and political title, referring to the commander of the most elite Persian infantry regiment, known as the ‘apple bearers’ (a name derived from the counterbalance at the base of their long spears, which was shaped like an apple). This elite regiment formed the core of ‘the Immortals’, the imperial guard responsible for protecting the life of the King of Kings. Commanders of this regiment often rose to the position of ‘Chief Administrator of the Empire.’ Moreover, all members of the Immortals were either Persians, Medes, or Parthians, while the ‘apple bearers’ were exclusively Persian, including their commanders, who were always drawn from the Persian nobility. For instance, Darius the Great, in his youth, served in this regiment under its commander, who was also Cyrus the Great’s ‘Chief Administrator of the Empire.’ This fact alone confirms that foreigners such as Haman or Mordechai, even if they had existed, could never have attained a position within the Imperial court, let alone held the highest rank in the Empire after the King of Kings himself.

 

Furthermore, the name ‘Haman’ appears in ancient Jewish texts, as the name of a Pharaoh’s grand premier, whom the Jews claim was responsible for the expulsion of Moses and the Israelites from Egypt. Thus, the author of the Book of Esther, aware of the Jewish animosity towards the name Haman, deliberately incorporated it into this s, assigning it to the supposed prime minister of Xerxes.

 

3.4 –No Mention of Esther, Mordecai, or the Purim Event in Greek Sources or the Old Testament

Greek historians such as Herodotus, Ctesias, Plutarch, and Xenophon, who lived during or after the Achaemenid period and extensively documented the Persian monarchy and court affairs, make no reference to a queen named Esther or any event resembling the decree for the massacre of Jews.

 

Moreover, between 1947 and 1956, over a hundred Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in Qumran, containing various books of the Old Testament. Yet, no mention of the Book of Esther or any related event appears in these texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls, belonging to the Essenes, a Jewish sect, have now been fully translated and published. Furthermore, the New Testament also contains no references or quotations from the Book of Esther.

 

Thus, even within ancient Jewish religious texts, no record of a book or story named Esther exists.

 

This further reinforces the conclusion that the story of Esther and Purim is a historical fabrication, devoid of any basis in the realities of Achaemenid imperial court life or the religious and cultural norms of the time. The question that now arises is: what is the origin of the Purim myth?

 

In conclusion, the author of the Book of Esther exhibits a striking lack of familiarity with the Achaemenid Persian Empire, including the religious convictions of the King of Kings, the empire’s administrative structures and hierarchical systems, the intricate protocols and politics of the royal court, the influential networks overseen by the queen mother, and the broader customs and traditions of Persian society. To draw an analogy, the disparity between the author’s understanding and the historical reality of the Achaemenid Empire can be likened to the contrast between an individual living in an isolated village and another residing in a cosmopolitan metropolis, each perceives and interprets the world through the lens of their own environment and experiences. This is precisely the case for the author of the Book of Esther, whose world was far removed from the grandeur, complexity, and power of the Achaemenid Empire. As a result, the narrative reflects a later historical context, shaped by the author’s own time and cultural milieu, rather than an accurate depiction of the Persian Empire at its zenith. It is therefore evident that the author’s composition dates to at least two centuries after the fall of the Achaemenids, underscoring the notable temporal and cultural divide between the narrative and the historical reality it purports to describe.

 

This further reinforces the conclusion that the story of Esther and Purim is a historical fabrication, devoid of any basis in the realities of Achaemenid imperial court life or the religious and cultural norms of the time. The question that now arises is: what is the origin of the Purim myth? While the narrative may lack historical authenticity, its enduring significance as a cultural and religious tradition invites further exploration into its origins, purpose, and the socio-political context in which it emerged.

 

 

4, THE BABYLONIAN ORIGINS OF THE PURIM STORY

Most renowned historians agree that Esther, Haman, the massacre of Jews, and Purim are purely mythical, with no historical basis. However, there are differing views on the origins of this story and the period in which the Book of Esther was written.

 

For instance, Amélie Kuhrt, a German-British scholar of Achaemenid history (often regarded as Eurocentric and, according to some, anti-Iranian and Pan-Hellenistic) [6], argues that the Book of Esther was composed during the Seleucid period, as its depiction of the Achaemenid court closely resembles Greek writings on the Seleucid court. [7]

 

On the other hand, Shaul Shaked, a senior professor and researcher in Jewish history, Pahlavi language, and ancient Iranian culture at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, rejects Kuhrt’s claim. He asserts that the Book of Esther was written during the Parthian era in the 2nd or 3rd century BCE by an Iranian or Babylonian Jew [8].

 

Additionally, Professor William Davies, in The Cambridge History of Judaism, entirely questions the authenticity and historical basis of the Book of Esther, writing:

“The author of the Book of Esther had no knowledge of the geography of the Achaemenid palace in Susa, nor of the political affairs surrounding Achaemenid Iran. Due to these errors, it is impossible that the events described in the book took place during the Achaemenid period.”

 

He further argues that the Book of Esther was written with the intention of justifying and giving a Jewish identity to Purim, an ancient non-Jewish festival. [9]

 

According to this author, the most thorough analysis of the Book of Esther has been provided by Professor Samuel Kennedy, whose conclusions are endorsed by the majority of historians. Kennedy writes: [10]

“The Book of Esther is filled with ideas and concepts derived from Babylonian mythology. The notion of a woman overpowering a foreign king aligns more closely with the cultural psyche of the Babylonians in the 5th century BCE than with Jewish beliefs. Furthermore, none of the protagonists in the Book of Esther have authentic Jewish names. With the exception of King Ahasuerus (Xerxes I), all other names are derived from Babylonian and Elamite deities. The name Esther corresponds to ‘Ishtar’. The heroine of the story is even referred to as Hadassah in Chapter 2, Verse 7, which was a title reserved for the Babylonian goddess. Esther and Mordecai were originally Babylonian figures who were later given a Jewish identity. Their adversary, Haman, can also be linguistically linked to ‘Humban’, an Elamite god. Similarly, ‘Vashti’, the supposed queen of Persia, can be associated with ‘Mashti’, another Elamite deity.”

 

Kennedy, therefore, concludes that the Book of Esther in the Old Testament is fundamentally a Babylonian myth from the 5th century BCE, which narrates the struggle between Marduk and Ishtar against Ahasuerus. The similarities between the Book of Esther and Babylonian mythology are so extensive that they cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence.

 

Additionally, Professor Robert J. Littman, a distinguished American Assyriologist and scholar of Jewish history, has conducted extensive research into the origins of the Esther story. His findings align with those of Samuel Kennedy; after studying Babylonian and Akkadian texts, Littman also concluded that the story of Esther is, in fact, a Babylonian story [11].

 

It must also be acknowledged that the first scholar to identify the Babylonian roots of the Esther myth was the German Assyriologist Johannsen, whose research was later expanded upon by other prominent scholars. [12]

 

Another key researcher on the Book of Esther is Theodor Gaster, an American Jewish studies expert. He demonstrates that, stripped of its mythical embellishments, the festival of Purim is, in reality, the Iranian festival of Nowruz. The Jewish communities residing in Babylon and across the Achaemenid Empire adopted Nowruz as their own celebration, incorporating it into their religious traditions. However, in later centuries, the author of the Book of Esther reframed the festival with a Jewish narrative by integrating Babylonian mythology into the story, transforming an Iranian festival into an exclusively Hebrew celebration.

 

This is precisely the same process by which Christianity appropriated the festival of Mithra’s birth, converting it into Christmas, with the fabricated claim that Jesus was born on 24 December. Another example of cultural adaptation is the Jewish festival of Passover (Pesach), which occurs one day after Purim. Originally, this was a Hindu-Iranian (Avestan) agricultural tradition, which ancient Jews living under the Achaemenid Empire adopted from the Iranians. Over centuries, they integrated it into their own religious practices, and it remains an important Jewish holiday to this day. [13]

 

Regrettably, this notable Iranian festival has been forgotten in modern-day Iran due to its Islamisation.

 

Finally, Professor Elias Bickerman, in his book Four Strange Books of the Bible, remarks that Esther, Mordecai, and Haman are mythical characters, much like those in One Thousand and One Nights, whose stories have simply been given a Jewish identity. He cautions against taking this myth or romance seriously. [14]

 

The next question that demands exploration is: how and when the Babylonian children’s story was transformed into a historical narrative to become part of Jewish identity, and to serve what purpose?

 

 

5, THE PURIM MYTH: A NARRATIVE OF JEWISH RESISTANCE AND EMPOWERMENT

For start, the author of the Book of Esther remains unknown, and historical evidence suggests that this text was first incorporated into Jewish religious literature around 150 BCE, centuries after the alleged events took place [15]. This late composition raises notable questions about the historical accuracy of the narrative, as it was written long after the Achaemenid Empire had fallen and during a period of profound cultural and political change in the Jewish world.

 

The 2nd century BCE was a time of intense Hellenistic influence and Jewish resistance, particularly during the Maccabean Revolt (167–160 BCE). Some scholars argue that the Book of Esther was composed during this period to address themes of Jewish survival and identity in the face of foreign domination. The story’s emphasis on the triumph of a Jewish heroine over a powerful adversary may have been intended to inspire resilience among Jewish communities living under Hellenistic rule.

 

Furthermore, the Book of Esther is unique among biblical texts in that it makes no explicit mention of God, leading some scholars to suggest that it was written as a secular narrative rather than a religious one. Its inclusion in the Jewish canon was initially controversial, and it was only accepted after notable debate. This further underscores the likelihood that the story was a later invention, designed to explain the origins of the Purim festival rather than to record historical events.

 

The late incorporation of the Book of Esther into Jewish religious texts, combined with its lack of historical corroboration, strongly supports the argument that Purim is a fabricated myth. By examining the context in which the book was written and its thematic focus, it becomes clear that the story of Esther and Purim was a product of its time, shaped by the cultural and political realities of the 2nd century BCE rather than the historical realities of the Achaemenid Empire.

 

Before addressing the matter further, a brief discussion regarding the alleged mausoleum of Esther and Mordecai, purportedly buried in the northwestern Iranian city of Hamadan, must be provided.

 

 

6, THE ALLEGED MAUSOLEUM OF ESTHER AND MORDECAI IN HAMEDAN

In the city of Hamedan (the Median and Achaemenid Ecbatana), there is a shrine known as ‘the mausoleum of Esther and Mordecai’, which is considered not only one of the most important Jewish pilgrimage sites in Iran but also equally sacred for Iranian Muslims who adhere to the sect of Shi’ism. However, non-Iranian Jews do not share this belief, and neither the Babylonian nor the Jerusalem Talmuds mention this structure.

 

The renowned American archaeologist Ernst Herzfeld, after conducting extensive archaeological studies on this building, identified its underground chamber as the oldest part of the structure, dating it to the Ilkhanid era. He also rejected the claim that it serves as the actual tomb of Esther and Mordecai [16].

 

It is speculated that this building was constructed during the Ilkhanid period, possibly during the tenure of Rashid al-Din Fazlollah Hamedani, the Jewish vizier of the Ilkhanate. However, it remains unclear who is actually buried there.

 

 

7, THE POLITICAL EXPLOITATION OF THE PURIM MYTH BY IRANOPHOBES, ZIONISTS, AND WHITE SUPREMACISTS

As discussed earlier, this story, a mixture of Babylonian children's folklore and the Iranian Nowruz festival, has now become an inseparable part of Jewish tradition and history.

 

Nevertheless, Purim in modern times serves as the Persian proverb goes, 'like a chicken that is sacrificed at a wedding and a funeral,' which reflects a metaphorical commentary on being exploited or used in all situations, regardless of the context. And that is exactly what the story of Purim describes. It is being used and propagated in line with their own ideological and political objectives, whether they are Iranophobes, international Judeophobism [17], White Supremacists, or even Zionists.

 

7.1, Purim and European Racism

The Nazis, who were deeply entrenched in ‘Judeophobic’ ideology, vehemently opposed the Purim festival, branding it a 'massacre of Aryans.' This was particularly ironic, given that Nazi Germany did not consider Iranians as part of the Aryan race. [18] The primary figure behind the Nazi exploitation of the Purim story was Julius Streicher, the publisher and editor of the Nazi weekly Der Stürmer. In a fierce and inflammatory article, Streicher described the Book of Esther and Purim as an anti-Aryan conspiracy, claiming the following distorted version of the story [19]:

'Esther, a Jewish courtesan favoured by Xerxes, along with her uncle Mordecai and the Jews of the Persian Empire, plotted a coup in the city of Susa while Xerxes was away, leading a military campaign against Greece. However, Haman, the Persian vizier, led the imperial army and the imperial guards, standing as an obstacle to their plans. To eliminate Haman, Esther and Mordecai invited him to a feast, serving him a variety of delicacies. At the end of the meal, they asked him if he had enjoyed his food, and upon his approval, they revealed that the meat he had eaten was actually prepared from the flesh of his own two sons. Upon hearing this, Haman lost his sanity and, in a fit of madness, ordered the massacre of all Jews in Susa. However, this decree inadvertently allowed the Jews to claim self-defence and, in turn, massacre seventy-five thousand Aryan Persians, including the hanging of Haman’s ten sons. Ultimately, the Jewish forces suffered defeat at the hands of the Aryan army, just as Xerxes suddenly returned from war. Esther and Mordecai, fearing the exposure of their plot, placed all blame on the now-deranged Haman, who, unable to defend himself, was sentenced to execution by Xerxes. To avoid further scrutiny, Esther and Mordecai requested to leave for Palestine, citing concerns for their safety in Susa. Upon their return, they celebrated a grand festival of Aryan-killing, which they named ‘Purim.’ The term ‘Pur’ in Aryan languages means ‘son,’ and the Hebrew suffix ‘-im’ denotes the plural form, thus referring to the ten sons of Haman who were executed.'

 

This falsified version of the Purim story was used by Nazi propagandists to fuel Judeophobic sentiment, portraying it as a historical precedent of Jewish violence against Aryans.

 

Following the publication of this story in Der Stürmer, on 10 November 1938, Hitler’s Germany officially declared Purim an insult to the Aryan race, banning its celebration and making disobedience punishable by execution [20]. (It is worth noting that the Nuremberg Trials, established to prosecute Julius Streicher and other Nazi leaders, were referred to as “Purim 1946”) [21].

 

 

7.2, Purim, the Islamic Regime and Anti-Israeli Sentiments

The Islamic totalitarian theocratic regime, which came to power in Iran in 1979 following a meticulously orchestrated Islamic revolution by Western powers, implemented policies that fundamentally reshaped the country’s social, cultural, and political landscape.

 

Among its most consequential policies has been the promotion of anti-Israeli sentiment. While some theorists argue that this rhetoric is merely a strategic façade, suggesting that the regime, in alignment with Zionist doctrine, serves as a constructed arch-enemy to ensure Israel’s perceived need for existential vigilance, this paper will proceed under the assumption that the regime’s anti-Israeli stance is genuine and reflective of its ideological commitments.

 

However, while the regime since its creation, has systematically and consistently positioned itself as one of the most vehement opponents of Iranian national identity and its ancient historical and cultural heritage, in fact, it has worked tirelessly to suppress and erase pre-Islamic Iranian culture and identity, which it views as fundamentally incompatible with its Islamist ideology, it is both ironic and, at times, comical that the regime absurdly seeks to portray itself as a defender of Iran’s history and a proponent of Iranian nationalism whenever the topic of ‘Purim’ is raised.

 

In one notable instance, the regime translated Julius Streicher’s accounts into Persian and tasked one of its self-designated 'historian,' Naser Bani-Kanan (also known as Naser Bana-Konandeh and Pourpirar), with publishing them under his own name. Bani-Kanan, who lacked any formal education, was promoted by the regime as an authority on history despite his complete lack of qualifications. The text was further manipulated, with additional fabrications inserted to align it with the regime’s ideological narrative. The resulting work, a distorted and republished version of Streicher’s already fabricated account, was presented as a legitimate historical source. This manipulated narrative unfolds as follows [22]:

 

“During his coronation festivities, King Xerxes, intoxicated, commanded Queen Vashti to present herself before his male guests to display her beauty. However, the queen, adhering to principles of modesty and chastity, refused. Infuriated by her defiance, Xerxes deposed her and chose Hadassah (Esther) as his new queen. Esther, accompanied by a group of women, entered the royal court, where, with the assistance of her cousin and guardian Mordecai, she orchestrated the downfall and execution of Haman, Xerxes’ chief minister. Following Haman’s death, Mordecai was appointed as his successor. Esther and Mordecai then obtained the king’s permission to execute their enemies over three days, during which they allegedly killed 70,000 Persians, including women and children, and seized their possessions. Remarkably, the Jewish community continues to commemorate this event as a historic triumph through the festival of Purim, celebrated with costumes and reenactments that revive the memory of this episode. The massacre is said to have occurred on the 13th day of the Persian month of Farvardin, a date some scholars associate with the superstition surrounding the number 13. Since then, Iranians have observed the 13th of Farvardin as a day of symbolic resistance and protest against what they perceive as atrocities committed by certain Jewish individuals. Many Iranians mark the day by leaving their homes to spend time in nature, an act interpreted as both defiance and remembrance. This event has been likened to a genocide, with some even describing it as a ‘Holocaust’ in which 70,000 Iranians were purportedly killed within three days. However, the historical accuracy of this figure, as recorded in the Torah, has been widely contested by scholars. Nonetheless, Purim remains one of the most notable Jewish festivals, observed with fasting, feasting, and celebrations that some interpret as glorifying the killing of Iranians.”

 

The Islamic regime, however, soon encountered a notable contradiction. While it sought to erase Iranian national identity in favour of an Islamic one, it inadvertently ended up promoting the pre-Islamic (Zoroastrian) celebration of Sizdah Bedar [23] among its supporters. The regime’s supporters began to frame it as a symbol of 'Iranian resistance against Jews who committed genocide against their compatriots,' particularly as it coincided with the 13th of Farvardin, a date referenced in Pourpirar’s propaganda narrative.

 

In an attempt to redirect this narrative, the regime resorted to another propaganda campaign, claiming that the 13th of Farvardin, or Sizdah Bedar, should not be a day of joy but rather a day of mourning for the loss of Iranians at the hands of 'genocidal Jews' [24]. This new manipulation aligned with the regime’s broader anti-Iranian policies, aiming to further alienate the Iranian people from their cultural heritage and deepen the divide between the state and the nation’s historical identity. Althiugh succeeded to avert its supporters to celebrate it, but despite implementing various tactics to achieve this goal, the regime failed to stop the enduring connection Iranians feel to their pre-Islamic heritage [25].

 

This claim, however, is easily debunked by examining the fundamental differences between the Jewish lunar calendar, similar to that of the Arabs, and the Persian solar calendar. While Sizdah Bedar is consistently observed on the 13th day of Farvardin each year, Purim is also celebrated on the 15th day of the Jewish month of Adar (or Adar II in leap years), with its date fluctuating annually.

 

Emperor Xerxes I reigned for 21 years, from 486 BCE to 465 BCE. During this period, the 14th day of Adar, the day before Purim, corresponded to the following dates in the Persian solar calendar:

- 486 BCE = 16 Bahman

- 485 BCE = 5 Esfand

- 484 BCE = 23 Bahman

- 483 BCE = 12 Esfand

- 482 BCE = 1 Esfand

- 481 BCE = 21 Bahman

- 480 BCE = 9 Esfand

- 479 BCE = 27 Bahman

- 478 BCE = 17 Bahman

- 477 BCE = 7 Esfand

- 476 BCE = 25 Bahman

- 475 BCE = 13 Bahman

- 474 BCE = 3 Esfand

- 473 BCE = 21 Bahman

- 472 BCE = 11 Esfand

- 471 BCE = 30 Bahman

- 470 BCE = 19 Bahman

- 469 BCE = 9 Esfand

- 468 BCE = 2 Bahman

- 467 BCE = 16 Bahman

- 466 BCE = 5 Esfand

- 465 BCE = 23 Esfand

 

Therefore, throughout Emperor Xerxes’ 21-year reign, during which the Islamic regime falsely claims that Purim occurred and deceitfully links it to Sizdah Bedar, the date of Purim never coincided with 13 Farvardin (Sizdah Bedar). This clear discrepancy undermines the regime’s narrative and exposes its manipulation of historical events for political and ideological purposes.

 

7.3, Purim and Propaganda: Pro-Israeli Narratives and Iranophobic Discourse

Israeli officials and global Zionist movements have also manipulated the Purim myth, using it as a tool to perpetuate a fabricated narrative of existential threat and to justify aggressive policies toward Iran. By framing the story of Esther as a historical precedent for Jewish survival against Persian (modern Iranian) hostility, they have weaponised the myth to stoke fear and rally support for the state of Israel. This narrative is often accompanied by performative displays of victimhood, such as the infamous instance when Benjamin Netanyahu, while presenting the Scroll of Esther to Barack Obama, declared:

'They [the Iranians] wanted to destroy us then, and they still want to destroy us now' [26].

 

This statement, while emotionally charged, ignores the profound historical irony that without Cyrus the Great and the Iranians, who liberated the Hebrews from Babylonian captivity, and Darius the Great, who created a religious framework that laid the foundations of the religion as it is known as Judaism today [27], neither the ancient Hebrews would have survived, nor would Judaism have been created. Yet, modern Israeli rhetoric often portrays the Iranian nation (not the Islamic Regime) as eternal enemies, turning against the descendants of the very emperors who ensured their survival.

 

The manipulation of the Purim myth extends beyond Israeli officials to encompass broader Zionist propaganda efforts. International Zionist organisations have used the story to reinforce the narrative of Jewish vulnerability and the necessity of a strong, militarised Israel. This narrative serves to justify policies of expansion, occupation, and aggression, particularly toward Iranians, which is depicted as a modern-day Haman. By invoking the Purim story, Zionists draw parallels between ancient Persia and contemporary Iran, framing the latter as an existential threat that must be neutralised.

 

Therefore, the exploitation of the Purim myth by Israeli officials and Zionist movements is not merely a historical distortion but a deliberate strategy to manipulate public perception and justify policies of aggression. By framing Iran as a modern-day Persia bent on the destruction of the Jewish people, they perpetuate a cycle of fear and hostility that serves their political and ideological goals.

 

 

8, CONCLUSION

The story of Esther and Purim, as narrated in the Book of Esther, serves as a compelling example of how folklore can be transformed into a historical narrative through repetition and cultural adaptation. This study has demonstrated that the Purim story not only lacks any historical foundation but is, in fact, a synthesis of Babylonian children story and Iranian traditions, constructed to reinforce Jewish religious and cultural identity. The absence of any mention of Esther, Mordechai, or the events of Purim in contemporary historical sources, such as the writings of Greek historians or the Dead Sea Scrolls, further underscores the fabricated nature of this narrative.

 

Moreover, the political exploitation and misappropriation of the Purim story by various groups, including European racists, the Nazi regime, the Islamic regime in Iran, as well as Israeli and global Zionism, illustrate its continued use as a tool for ideological and political manipulation. The Nazis distorted this narrative to fuel Judeophobic sentiment, while the Islamic regime in Iran employs it to advance its anti-Iranian agendas. Similarly, figures such as Benjamin Netanyahu have weaponised he fabricated Purim story to depict contemporary Iranian nation as a continuation of an alleged historical enmity, emphasising the notion of an existential threat.

 

In light of the evidence presented, it is evident that Purim is a myth and a historical fabrication rooted in Babylonian folklore and Iranian traditions, which has been reshaped and reinterpreted over the centuries. The persistent exploitation of this narrative as a political and ideological weapon highlights the extent to which historical myths can shape our understanding of history and identity. Therefore, critical scrutiny and revision of such narratives are essential to achieving a more accurate comprehension of the past. Furthermore, recognising their influence on the present will foster a clearer vision for the future, particularly as the fight against falsehood, in all its forms and under any pretext, remains an imperative endeavour.

 

 

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Law, G.R. (2010) Identification of Darius the Mede. USA: Ready Scribe Press, pp. 94–96.

 

2. Basirov, O. (1999) The Origin of the Pre-Imperial Iranian Peoples. CAIS SOAS. Available at: https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/Oric.Basirov/origin_of_the_iranians.htm.

 

3. Herodotus. Histories, III, 84.

 

4. Herodotus. Histories, VII, 61, 114; IX, 108–113.

 

5. Schmitt, R. 'Amestris'. In Encyclopaedia Iranica. Available at: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/amestris-gr.

 

6. Farhid, T. Anti-Iranian Campaign during American Tour and Exhibition of Cyrus the Great Cylinder. Available at: https://iranian.com/posts/view/post/15105.

 

7. کورت، آملی (۱۳۹۱) ‘هخامنشیان’. ترجمه مرتضی ثاقب‌فر. تهران, ص. ۱۹.

 

8. Shaked, Sh. 'The Book of Esther'. In Encyclopaedia Iranica. Available at: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/esther-book-of.

 

9. Davies, W.D. et al. (1990) The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 366–367.

 

10. Shaker, M. and Fayaz, M. (2010) 'هامان و ادعای خطای تاریخی در قرآن'. Quran Studies, Spring and Summer, No. 5, pp. 145–164.

 

11. Littman, R.J. (1975) 'The Religious Policy of Xerxes and the 'Book of Esther''. The Jewish Quarterly Review, 65(3), pp. 145–155.

 

12. Jensen, P. (1892) 'Wienev Zeitschvift fziv die Kunde des Movgenlandes', 6, pp. 47ff., 209ff.

 

13. Gaster, T. (1950) Purim and Hanukkah. New York: [Publisher].

Lewy, J. (1939) 'The Feast of the 14th Day of Adar'. HUGA, 14, pp. 127–151.

 

14. Bickerman, E. (1967) Four Strange Books of the Bible. New York: [Publisher], pp. 202–203.

 

15. Netzer, A. (1999) 'Festivals vii. Jewish'. In Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 9. New York: Bibliotheca Persica Press, pp. 555–560. Available at: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/festivals-vi-vii-viiivii.

 

16. Netzer, A. 'Esther and Mordechai'. In Encyclopaedia Iranica. Available at: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/esther-and-mordechai.

 

17, The term 'antisemitism' is historically and anthropologically inaccurate as a descriptor for anti-Jewish sentiment. The term was coined during the 19th century to give a pseudo-scientific veneer to anti-Jewish hatred in Europe. It also inaccurately implies that Jews are the only Semitic people, ignoring Arabs and others. Furthermore, it is essential to recognise that Judaism is not a race or a people but a faith. Just as there are English Christians, Nigerian Christians, or Japanese Christians, there are individuals of different creeds, colours, and nationalities who adhere to Judaism, each with distinct DNA and cultural backgrounds. Placing all Jews into a single category is a product of European racism and white supremacy, akin to the way Muslims are often homogenised to belittle or marginalise them. This reductionist approach ignores the diversity within Jewish communities and perpetuates harmful stereotypes.  Additionally, in modern times, the term ‘antisemitism’ has been politically weaponised to silence anyone critical of the state of Israel, breaching the fundamental human right of freedom of speech, a cornerstone of any democratic society. When ignored, this misuse gradually becomes a tool to censor, oppress, and form a policing state, ultimately eroding democracy and freedom of speech. Therefore, the correct term is ‘Judeophobia’/’Judeophobism’.

 

18. According to the Nuremberg Laws (1936), Germans were prohibited from marrying Iranians, just as they were forbidden from marrying Jews, Egyptians, and Iraqis, while the people of Turkey were exempt from this law and were listed among the 'civilised nations' in the Nuremberg Laws.  At the time, Noori Esfandiari, Iran’s ambassador to Ankara, formally submitted Iran’s official complaint to the German delegation and to Iran’s ambassador in Berlin, who then presented it to the German Foreign Ministry. Iran demanded an explanation as to “why Iranians, who established the first Aryan civilisation and are the mother nation of the Aryan peoples,” were excluded from the list of recognised nations. The German government dismissed the claim as French propaganda, but never added 'Iranians' to the list.  See: Ansari, A. (2013) Perceptions of Iran: History, Myths and Nationalism from Medieval Persia to the Islamic regime. London: I.B. Tauris in association with the Iran Heritage Foundation, p. 134.

 

19. Randall, B.L. (2008) Landmark Speeches of National Socialism. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, p. 91.

 

20. Ibid., p. 17.

 

21. Rubin, E. (2002) 'Purim 1946? Not Exactly'. Talk Reason. Available at: https://www.talkreason.org/articles/Purim.cfm.

 

22. https://goo.gl/gux91s

 

23. Sizdah Bedar is an ancient Iranian festival celebrated on the 13th day of Farvardin, the first month of the Persian solar calendar, marking the end of the Nowruz (Persian New Year) festivities. Traditionally, Iranians spend the day outdoors, enjoying nature, picnicking, and engaging in recreational activities. The festival is rooted in Zoroastrian traditions and symbolises the renewal of life and the triumph of joy and vitality over darkness and stagnation. A key ritual involves tying blades of grass into knots, representing the binding of one’s wishes and hopes for the coming year. Sizdah Bedar is a cherished cultural event that emphasises harmony with nature and communal celebration.

 

24. https://goo.gl/HyaBxA

 

25. In fact, the more the regime has tried to suppress these pre-Islamic traditions, the more the Iranian people have resisted. Gathering to celebrate Sizdah Bedar and other Iranian traditions, they have turned these occasions into acts of defiance, not only against the regime but also as a means of protecting their national heritage. These celebrations are marked by even greater joy and a steadfast refusal to associate them with the narrative of Purim.

 

26. Haaretz (n.d.) Available at: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.645556.

 

27. Magee, M. (1999) ‘Persia & The Creation Of Judaism’. CAIS SOAS. Available at: https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/non-iranian/Judaism/Persian_Judaism/Persia_created_judaism.htm.