Witness
Sifrei Aggadah on Esther: Midrash Abba Guryon
Parallels (11)
MT gives Mordecai no reason for refusing to bow; both here and in Addition C he is given the same non-MT apologia, refusing to honor a man over God ('shall I bow to a commoner?').
Show the witness text (171 words)
The bow is reframed as a no-win loyalty test between God and the nations, the same non-MT God-vs-man premise underlying Mordecai's apologia in Addition C, though without the personal-pride denial.
Show the witness text (62 words)
The refusal is explicitly framed in both as not personal pride but a refusal to set a man's glory beside God's, matching Addition C's 'I did this so that I might not set the glory of a man above the glory of God.'
Show the witness text (171 words)
MT never has Haman claim divine honors; both here ('this wicked man set himself up as an object of worship') and in Addition C ('a mortal king marveled at forever') the same non-MT apotheosis charge is independently added.
Show the witness text (171 words)
The Jews present refuse to recline with the Temple vessels at the banquet and are given a separate table -- the same concrete, non-MT refusal of the king's table that Addition C turns into Esther's plea.
Show the witness text (110 words)
Both independently exculpate the king and place the blood on his advisers: Addition E's 'the persuasion of friends... made many partners in innocent blood' matches the midrash's named, executed 'seven princes of Persia and Media' blamed for Vashti's death, with no MT basis for either.
Show the witness text (63 words)
The same passage's explicit premise -- the king acted 'not of my own knowledge but on the counsel of the princes' -- is the specific mechanism Addition E names as advisers deceiving the sincere good faith of those in power.
Show the witness text (63 words)
MT gives no basis for Haman threatening the king's own life; both here (the king's dream of Haman standing over him with a drawn sword) and in Addition E ('undertook to deprive us of our power and even our life') this specific non-MT charge is independently invented.
Show the witness text (42 words)
Both mount the identical non-MT defense that the Jews are indicted for no chargeable conduct except keeping the law/Torah -- Michael's brief and Addition E's verdict take the same argument-shape, which MT never adjudicates at all.
Show the witness text (61 words)
God's one-line gloss 'you are Israel's lot' compresses the pur into a two-sided allotment (Israel vs. the nations), matching Addition F's own two-lots allegory -- thin but a genuine, non-MT interpretive move shared by both.
Show the witness text (19 words)
Both make the pur a matter adjudicated in a heavenly court (each day/month pleading its merit before God), matching Addition F's 'these two lots came... to the day of judgment before God' -- a non-MT device, since MT's pur is simply cast.
Show the witness text (420 words)
Flagged for further study (16)
MT gives no reason for Haman's enmity toward Mordecai; here Haman's son Shimshai has a specific interest in suppressing the record of the eunuchs' plot, matching Addition A's non-MT causal claim that Haman sought to harm Mordecai 'on account of' the two eunuchs.
Show the witness text (43 words)
MT Esth 3:12 says letters were written but supplies no text; both this witness and Addition B independently invent a full quoted royal letter to fill that exact gap -- the shared device is the invented speech itself.
Show the witness text (602 words)
The Aramaic recension is a second, independent invented full text of the same unquoted MT letter, closing with its own 'copy of the letter' colophon like Addition B's.
Show the witness text (407 words)
Haman is introduced by name and rank INSIDE the quoted decree itself as the petitioner -- the same device Addition B uses (the counselor of exceptional judgment, second in honor) -- which MT's unquoted letter cannot license.
Show the witness text (602 words)
The Aramaic recension repeats the same in-letter introduction of Haman by name and rank, independently confirming the shared device.
Show the witness text (407 words)
Both texts frame the enemy's aim as total, ancient destruction rather than plunder -- Nebuchadnezzar then Haman decreeing 'not a half or a third but the whole vine' -- matching Addition C's non-MT 'they have desired to destroy your inheritance from the beginning.'
Show the witness text (918 words)
Both supply a cause MT withholds: the decree is punishment for Israel's own sin (the 18,900 who feasted with the gentiles), matching Addition C's confession 'we have sinned before you... you are righteous, Lord.'
Show the witness text (918 words)
The Temple is absent from MT Esther entirely; both here (Haman's capital crime is counseling against rebuilding the Temple) and in Addition C ('quench the glory of your house and your altar') the conflict is independently relocated onto the sanctuary.
Show the witness text (74 words)
A specific, non-stock niddah image links the two: Addition C has Esther loathe the royal diadem 'as a menstrual cloth,' and this letter complains that even the king looks to Jewish eyes 'like a menstruant woman' -- the same image, inverted between petitioner and grievance.
Show the witness text (602 words)
Mordecai's non-MT proclamation that Israel should not attend the king's banquet ('since it is voluntary, do not go') makes abstention the pious act -- exactly what Addition C has Esther plead she has done.
Show the witness text (918 words)
The letter's governing theorem -- beneficiaries repay benefactors with harm, worked through Pharaoh who fed Israel and was repaid with the despoiling -- is Addition E's own opening theorem, applied in the same genre (a royal letter about the Jews) to the opposite party.
Show the witness text (602 words)
The mashal of the pig fattened without measure only for the slaughter, applied directly to Haman, illustrates the same non-generic theorem as Addition E's opening clause: those honored too often, 'unable to bear their own satiety,' turn on their benefactors.
Show the witness text (194 words)
Both open the rehabilitation letter by making Haman an ethnic alien intruded at court ('a stranger... of the seed of Amalek' / 'a Macedonian, stranger to Persian blood... came as a guest'), the identical formula with only the ethnonym swapped; MT gives only 'Agagite.'
Show the witness text (602 words)
The Aramaic recension repeats the alien-guest-at-court formula for Haman verbatim, confirming it as a traditional shared development rather than a copyist's flourish.
Show the witness text (407 words)
MT never has the Persian king speak of God; both here and in Addition E's letter the king himself concedes the Jews' God is great and protects them -- a shared non-MT theological move in the same speaker's mouth.
Show the witness text (493 words)
Both relocate the cause of rescue from Esther's diplomacy to the outcry of the people/children, matching Addition F's interpretive key 'my nation, this is Israel, who cried out to God and were saved,' against MT.