Esther, book of (Hastings' Dictionary)

I. Canonicity.— Est is one of the latest of the Uagiogranka or Kethuhim, the third and latest accretion of the OT Canon. It may have been among ' the other books of the Fathers' which the Gr. translator of Sir (B.C. 132) mentions (in his Prologue) along with the ' Law and the Prophets' as well known to his grand- father, the author of that book (c. B.C.

180) ; but this seems unlikely, in view of the fact that neither Esther nor Mordecai is mentioned in the Traripuv vfivoi towards the close of the book. The earlie.st undoubted reference to E. is in Jos. (c. Ap. i. 8), who includes it among the 22 books long held sacred (Snaius Sfia jreTricrrevfi^ya), as is evident from the terminus ad quern which he assigns to the history {fiexpl ttj$ 'Afna^^p^ov llepautv jSafftX^wy dpxvs), Artaxerxes being, in Josephus as in the Sept.

, erroneously identified with Ahasuerus. The secular and foreign character of the book * gave rise among the Jews of the Ist and 2nd cent, of the Christian era to questionin'js as to its right to a place in the Canon. In the Jerus. Talm. [Meg. 70.

4) there is a statement that 85 elders, including more than 30 prophets, had scruples about the recognition of the Feast of Purim (at which the Book of Est was publicly read) because there was no sanction for it m the law of Moses ; and elsewhere {liab. Meg. la) we find traces of various difliculties felt by liabbis as to the full inspiration of the book.

It appears certain, however, that it formed an integral part of the Jewish Canon when the latter was virtually, if not formally, closed at the Councils of Jerus. and Jamnia in the Ist cent. A.D., as the .same books that are in our OT are implied (numerically) in ch. 14 of 2 Es, which was written in end of 1st cent., anil are embodied in the Mishna, committed to writing by K. Judah I. about A.D. 200.

Breathing a sj)irit of intense patriotLsm, the book soon became popular with the Jews, and its annual reading in the synagogue was accompanied with lively tokens of sympathy on the part of the congregation, while the reader pronounced the names of Haman's 10 sons in one breath to indicate that they all expired at the same moment, the names being written by the scribes in large letters in 3 perpendicular lines of 3, 3, 4 to signify that the 10 men were hung on 3 parallel cords.

Although the last of the 5 Megillolh or Hulls which were read at 5 dilferent feasts.t it came to be known as the Uoll {Megillah) par excellence, and we may judge of the honour in which it was held from a saymg of Maimonides (Carpzov, Intr. xx. § G), that in the days of the Messiah the only Scriptures left would be the Law and the ItoU.

I'he excessive love which the Jews The name of Oofl if( never mentioned in it, but the king ol Persia 1^7 liinett, and h'm l<in^dom 'JO timeii ; while the nearest ftI)Itn>aoh to any reco^'riition of relit,nnn is to be found in thi ftustiii^ of 4', and jmssiitly also in the conrtdence expressed in O* t The order is dilTerent in the Kng. Bililo, as also Id the Sept and Vulg., where Est closes the historical books.

774 ESTHER, BOOK OF ESTUEK, BOOK OF have ever 8ho^vn for this book (of which Ewald has said that in passing to it horn the other books of the or ' we fall, as it were, from heaven to eartli ') illustrates their complete surrender to tlie spirit of the age in which it was produced.

It was an age that had fallen out of sjmpathy with the teaching of the prophets, and was unprepared for the spiritual conception of the gospel, — when national pride and a certain faith in their own fortunes as a people, with a disposition to make the most of their heathen masters by the use of such worldly wisdom as they possessed, seem to have formed the chief char- acteristics of those who still claimed to be God's people. In the Christian Church the book has naturally been less esteemed.

It is one of the few books of the OT that are not quoted in the NT (nor in Philo). It has no place in the Canon of Melito of Sardis, who had made careful inquiry among the Jews of Syria regarding the books of the OT ; of Theodore of Mopsuestia (followed by the Nestorians) ; of Athanasius, who put it in the second rank among the ivayivt^aKoiieva ; of Amphi- lochius, who mentions that ' some add the Book of Esther'; of Gregory of Naz., and others.

JunUius in the 6th cent, mentions that there were grave doubts on the subject in his day ; while Luther, after referring to 2 Mac, says (Ttschreden), ' I have so little favour for this book and the Book of Est that I wish they did not exist ; they are too Judaizing, and contain many heathenish impro- Erieties.' In some of these cases, however, it may ave been the corrupt Sept. transl.

that caused suspicion, while in others it is possible that Est may be included under the name of Ezra or some other book. Est is recognized as canonical by Origen, Cyril of Jerus., Jerome (who puts it last in the list), Augustine, and others. We may also reckon it an indirect testimony to the authority of the hook in the beginning of the Christian era, that, according to 2 Mac (IS**), ' Mordecai's day' {vt^^pa MapSoxai'ki)), doubtless the Feast of Purim, was observed in the writer's lifetime.

The fact that it has a place (in an enlarged form) In the Sept., with an epilogue stating that the tr. was brought (to Alexandria) by one Dositheus in the 4th year of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, is regarded by some as a proof tliat the book existed in its Gr. form as early as B.C. 178, in the reign of Ptolemy VI. (Philometor), who was friendly to the Jews. But there were two later kings of that name, and oneearlier ( B. C.

204-8 1 ), whose wives were called Cleopatra ; and the infer- ence is doubtful, even admitting the authenticity of the statement in question(Riehm, B WB ; Fritzsche, Handb. z. d. Apocr. i.) While the Heb. text is good, there are large interpolations in the Sept., of which there are two different texts, A and B, the latter, according to Lagarde, Field, etc., being an improved recension of the 3rd cent. These inter- polations contradict the Heb. in several particulars,* and betray their later Gr.

origin by representing Haman as a Macedonian who sought to transfer the sovereirrnty from the Persians to the Mace- donians (IG'"-"), and by other inconsistencies and anacliionisms,t and were, no doubt, the work of successive Hellenistic writers desirous to give a religious character to the book, J and to supple- ment other apparent defects.§ In the Vulg. these additions are all put by Jerome at the end of the book, beginning with a portion that takes up the narrative where the Heb.

ends — with notes to bIiow where the other additions occur in the Sept. • Cf. 221 and Ad. Eat lia"., 63 and 12», SI- » and 12«, 9H and 1518. ♦ For example, 'month Adar' ie2», 'chosen people' 1C21, Hades' 13', 'I am thy brother' 169, 'Aman's table," 'drink- •lYerings' 1417. t Ad. Est lOi). 10. U. ir )» 1110 139.18 14»-» 16J8 1(54. n. i For example, by ifiving the terms of the royal edict*, which are not at all Oritntal in atyle, lSi-7 16. In the RV Eng. Apocr.

(where they are similarlj combined under the name of ' The Rest of th« Chapters of the Bk. of Esther ') these explanation! are given in the margin. Owing to the influence of the Sept. and Vulp. (in the Syr. they have no place) the additions were often read in church, and even regarded as canonical (in common with other Apocr. boolta of OT), receiving the sanction of several Oh. Councils, from tliat of Carthage in 397 to the Council of Trent in 1646.

They are composed of the following passages — the twofold referencei showing where they stand m the Sept. and tlie Rest of Est re- spectively :^1) Mordecai's pedi;jree, dream, and detection of conspiracy, with his imme<iiate reward, exciting Haman's wrath (Intr. ; 122-12«). (2) Terms of the king's writ, authorizing the destruction of the Jews (after 313 131-7). (3) Prayers of Mordecai and Est (after 4 ; 133-1419).

(4) Fuller account of Est's Brst inter- cession with the kin^ (in place of 6i-3 16). (6) Terms of the king's writ, authorizing the Jews to defend themselves (after 813 16), (6) Mordecai's devout interpretation of his di earn in the light of events, and tiis permanent institution of the Feast of Purim, followed by epilogue regarding the Gr. tr. (End ; 104-13 111). In Josephus we can trace other additions to the story not found in the Sept.

, which shows the popularity of the subject, and the tendency to embroider the Ueb. narrative with Alex, inventions. Similar embellishments are to be found in the 'first' and 'second* Chaldiean Targums or commentaiies, in- dependent of the Gr. additions, which only found their way into the Midrashim at a much later time through the medium of the writings ascribed to Josipon ben-Gorion (Zunz, GoUe«dienaUich4 Vortrage ; Fritzsche, (M above). II. Historicity.

— On this subject the most diverse opinions have been held, ^lany old and a few modern writers * maintain the narrative to be thoroughly historical. But an increasing number t hold it to be more or less a work of imagination ; while some J regard it as a poetical invention, having no appreciable basis of fact to rest on. The follow mg are the principal arguments for the historical character of the boolc.

— (1) The narrative claims to be historical, referring more than once to ' the chronicles ' of Persia as contain- ing a record of the events in question (10- 2'^ 0') ; and its admission to the Pal. Canon, notwithstand- ing the absence of any allusion to the Holy Land or to Jewish ordinances, is so far a conKrmation of its claim. (2) The Feast of Purim, with which it was so closely connected as to be known among Alex, writers as ' the Epistle of Purim,' and which, in the time of Jos. [Ant. XI.

vi. 1,3) was observed by Jews in all parts of the world, is a standing memorial of the remarkable episode in Jewish history which the book records. (3) Its lifelike representation of Pers. manners and customs, especially in connexion with the palace at Susa (ji. 10.14 .29.21.23 37.12.13 46.11 54 g8)_ isj i^inQ o\it by the results of modern travel and researcli (Raw- linson's ^?ic. Monarchies, iv. pp.

•2G9-"2S7 ; Morier, Fergusson, Loftus, Dieulafoy), and tinds support in Herodotus and other ancient writers. (4) The conduct of Ahasuerus is in harmony with the vain, capricious, passionate character of Xerxes (the identification of the two names was the first result obtained from the deciphering of the cunei- form inscriptions by Grotefend in 1802), as depicted by heathen writers (Herod, vii. ix. ; ./Esch. Pers. 46711'.; Juv. X.

174-187); and this may account for some things in the narrative that would other- wise seem almost incredible. (5) It appears from • Kelle, VindicUe Est,; Havernick, Eini*-itu/io ', Baumgarten, De Fide Lib. Est.; Welte, Eirdntunq -j Keil, £inleitung ; Her- vey, Smith's DB; Nickes, De Est. "Lxb.; Cas^el, K"m.; Raw- linson, .Speaker's Com.; Wordsworth, Com.; J. Oppert, AnnaieM Phil. Chrit., and Remu des Et. Ju. 1804 ; J. W. Haley, Bk. 0/ Est.; and, in the main, F. W. Scbultz, Laiige'i Com.

; and Orelli, Pl:E, art. ' Esther.' t Eichhom, Einleitujtg; De Wette, Einleitmtg; Bleek, Bin- leitung; Winer, BiW. iiirB i. ; Dillniann in .Schenkel's Bibeiiex. art. ' i'urini ' ; Ewald, Ge^ch. Isr. ; SUihelin. Kinleitung ; Ryssel. Hertiieau, jExcy. Itnndb.; 0>iti\\,S. ami Z. Kg. Kom.; David.son, Introduction; Hitzig, Gfsch. Jsr.; Herzfeld, Geech. Isr.; Stanley, Jewish Ch.; Driver, LOT 449 fl. ; Cheyne, Ene. Brit, art ' Esther' ; Konig, Einleitujxg. I Semler, Appar.

VT; Bertholdt, Einleitung; Kuenen, Iteliii. Isr.. and Onderz.^l 661 ft. (Hint. Crit. vol. i.); N61d.-ke, AUtMt. Lit.; Reuss, Geech. AT; Zunz, ZDMG. 1893; GraU, ilG »'J, ISSii ; Bloch, ' Hel. Bestandth. iin Bib. Schr.,' Jud. Lit. BL, 1877 ; Comill, EinitU.; Bertholet, Die SUUrig der Itr. ESTHER, BOOK OF ESTHER, BOOK OF 775 Herod, vii.

8 that Xerxes held a great council of war in the third year of his reign before setting out for Greece, and that he returned to Susa in the spring of his seventli year, — which agrees with the dates assigned to the great feast and the choice of a successor to Vashti (1' 2"). (6) Although the narrative is minute and circumstantial, containing many names (of courtiers, princes, 10 sons of Hanian, etc.

, I'"-" 9'"") as well as other details, it is remarkably free from literary and historical discrepancies, such as have been detected in the Apocr. books of To and Jth and Ad. Est. Ac- cording to Oppert, there is not a single proper name that may not be rejiarded as belonging to the idiom of Cyrus and oif Darius, and after the conquests of Alexander such writing was pliilo- logically impossible. (7) The silence of contem- porary and later writings regarding the events narrated in the Bk.

of tst is partly due to the disappearance of literature bearmg on the history of Persia, and partly to the interest of Herodotus and Ctesias being centred in the points of contact between Persia and Greece. As for the Bk. of Ezra, it leaves the period from B.C. 516 to 459 (between chs. 6 and 7) a blank, except in 4°-*. On the other hand, the following are the chief objections that have been taken to the histor- icity of the book.

(1) The story bears on the face of it the appearance of a historical romance, a number of its features being in themselves ex- tremely improbable, e.g.

the six months' feast, involving such prolonged absence of the governors from their duties in the provinces ; the summons of Vashti before the assembled peoples and princes, ftnd the subsequent decree, suggested by ' tlie wise men,' that every man should bear rule in his own tsuse, which would have been the publication of Ahasuerus' folly; the long interval before the choice of Vashti's successor; the decree for the wholesale massacre of the Jews (not excepting those in Judtea, and numbering proliably two mil- lions) on account of the obstinacy of a single Jew ; the publication of this decree eleven months before the time for its execution ; the issue of a subse- quent decree virtually sanctioning civil war ; the immense slaughter of the Persians notwithstand- in" their superiority in numbers, and the wonder- ful preservation of Jewish lives, as well as the absence of revenge on the part of the Persians; the institution by Alordecai and E.

of a feast that would perpetuate the disgrace of the sovereign in the eyes of his subjects, and embitter the relations between Jew and Persian (but cf. the annual commemoration of the massacre of the Magians, Herod, iii. 79 — with which Niebuhr was dispo.sed to connect the story).

Add to this that the scries of coincidences and contrasts culminating in the over- throw of Haman 'the At/agite' (1 b 15 — but Oppert connects this name with Agaz, a tribe of Media mentioned in the inscriptions of Saigon) and the exaltation of Mordecai of the tribe uf Benjamin, is too perfect to have been drawn from real life.

(2) The manifest aim of the writer is to encourage and glorify the Jews ; and the whole narrative, whicii is marked by exaggeration and innuendo, is artfully designed to serve that purpose (2"-"-'^ 3>.i. 414 010.II.1J 7. 8»-"-" 9'» 10). (3) The refer- ences to 'the chronicles' may be merely a rhetori- cal device in imitation of similar allusions in Neh and Ezr (in this connexion it is noteworthy that the terms of the royal edicts are not given) ; or the sources referred to may be like the Bab.

-Pers. chronicles, from which Ctcsiaa professes to have derived information — the story being 'an example of Jewish Hnggada founded upon one of those eemi-historical talcs of which the Pcrs. chronicles Bceui to have been full' (Sayce, IICM p. 475). (4) A strictly historical interpretation of the nar- rative is beset with difficulties. Neither Vashti nor Esther can be identilieil with Amestris, the only queen (judging from Herodotus and Ctesias) that Xerxes ever had.

Nor is it easy to reconcile Ahasuerus' and Haman's ignorance of Esther's nationality with the frequent presence of Mor- decai (who was known to be a Jew, Z) 'in the king's gate,' and his constant communications with Esther. Moreover, Haman's description of the Jews (3-"), as 'dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom,' and of their disobedience to ' the king's laws,' is not true of the Pers. period (especially so early as the reign of Xerxes), and betrays a Maced.

-Greek origin, as does also the stress laid on financial considerations (cf. 9'°), and the part taken against the Jews by 'their enemies' (9'- "•**). (5) In several respects the writer's knowledge of Pers. customs is alleged to be defective (Gratz in MG WJ, Dec. 1886), e.g. the ' 127 provinces,' cf. the ' 20 satrapies ' of Herod, iii.

89; the command to 'kneel' (jn^) before Haman, an act of worship due to God only and the king, while the refusal to ' do him reverence ' by pro- stration (Tt\ursi7[z=Trpo(!Kviiiiv) betrays a Gr. spirit of independence at variance with Gn 23' 33' (cf. Herod, vii.

136) ; the un-Oriental toleration so long shown to Mordecai by the vizier ; the queen's difficulty of gaining access to the royal presence ; the alleged Semitic character of some of the proper names, suspiciously profuse, and very few of which occur elsewhere ; and Mordecai's obscurity, not- withstanding his ofBcially-recorded services to the king (2^, cf. Herod, viii. 85). Even admitting the general consistency of the narrative, both with itself and with Pers.

surroundings, this is held to be suliiciently accounted for by consummate dramatic skill on the part of the writer, and his possessing such a knowledge of Persia and its ancient regime as was attainable by a Jew who had lived in that country or even in Palestine in the Mailed. -Gr. period. (6) The true explanation of the silence of ancient Jewish writers (Ch, Ezr, Neh, Sir, Dn, Philo) as well as of profane writers, is held to lie in the fact that no such facts as those related in the 15k.

of Est ever took place. (7) The Ileb. of the book, which closely resembles that of Ec, belongs to a much later time than that of Xerxes ; and the way in which the writer explains Pers. customs (1" 8") seems to imply that the Pers. rule was over, while his description of Ahasuerus, and of his wide domin- ions, and the magnificence of his coiut, gives the impression that he is recalling the glories of a bygone age.

(8) In answer to the argument from the Feast of Purim, it is alleged that the story of Est was engrafted on a festival already in vogue among the Jews, borrowed from a Pers. or a Gr. source, for the purpose of promoting its wider observance or imparting to it a more national character ; and various attempts have been made to trace it to a dclinite heathen source. None of these attempts, however (art.

PURIM), can be said to be successful, and the connexion of the book with such an ancient Jewish observance still forms a considerable presumption in favour of its being founded on facts. It may be that fresh conlirmiition of its truth will bo found in some of the monumental discoveries which still await the explorer, and that the suspicion attaching to its contents will yet be removed. III. Datk and AuTiioit.sHlP.

— Thedate generally assi{j;ned to the book by those who maintain it to be historical is somewhere in the reign of Arlaxerxes Lon"imanus, the successor of Xerxes (B.C. 464-425), or a little later ; while most of those who regard the story as more or less of a legend or romance bring its composition down to the Gr. period, say in the 3rd cent. B.C. Uitzig traces its composition (a^ 776 ESTHER, BOOK OF ETHAN well as the introduction of Purim) to the Parthian ascendency after B.C.

238, and in the description of the Jews in 3' he finds evidence that it was written subsequently to the colonizing activity of Seleucus Nikator. Others (Reuss, Griitz, Bloch, etc.) give it a still later date, tracing it to the time of the Maccabaean revolt (B.C. 167). Bloch regards it as an attempt to justify the Jewish party at the Gr.

court, who thought they could best pro- mot* the interests of their country by conciliating the heathen power ; but with this it is difficult to reconcile Mordecai's attitude towards Haman, or the slaughter of Pers. women and children and its commemoration.

Griitz assigns the book to an adherent of the Maccabaean party, and, with the ingenuity of a special pleader, presents s great array of arguments to prove that Ahasuerus re- presents Antiochus (with some intentional vague- ness as to the identity of Ah.

himself), and that the book was intended to appeal to those who, like the dejiuties to Tyre (2 Mac 4'"*), were disposed to resist the kind's attempt to force them into idol- atry, although tliey had very little religion of their own, — hinting at the influences which they might bring to bear upon the king, and at a possible turn in the wheel of fortune, — much as the Bk.

of Dn was meant, a year or two later, to tell upon the more devout (Pasidim), who still believed in the possibility of direct divine interpositions. Kuenen and Comill find in it an echo of the same struggle (cf. 3»- » and 1 Mac 1" 3"- ") after it was over {B.C. 135), when religious heroism had given place to animosity and pride. Similarly, Zunz believes it to have been an Eastern reflex (c. B.C.

130) of the Maccabaean enthusiasm, and lays stress on the lateness and servility of the language, as well as OD the want of any recognition of the Jewish community as a whole, Mordecai and Esther being the only Jews who are credited with any influence. But the language, though late, is ?ery far from exhibiting the stage represented by the Mishna ; * and as regards the supposed Maccabfean origin for the story, it must be remembered that even under the Pers. rule (Jos. c. Ap. 1.

22) there had been times when the Jews suffered persecution for their attachment to their faith. That the book was written by a Persian Jew may fairly be inferred from its tone and structure, notwithstanding Gratz' denial that the use of Heb. for literary purposes was possible outside of Palestine, except during the Bab. Captivity. It is vain, however, to attempt to determine the authorship more particularly.

The references to Mordecai's writing in g"'" have given rise to the idea that he may have been the author ; but the peculiaritiesof the passage, both in language and contents, stamp it as an interpolation or in- terpolations {w."^ "'), perhaps borrowed from another book of Purim (v.") Moreover, some of the allusions to Mordecai {e.g. S)"-) preclude the idea of his being the writer.

All that can be said with confidence is that it was written by a Jew con- nected with Persia, and full of the nationalist feeling of his time, the absence of religious phrase- ology being due partly to the decline in the spiritual life of the nation, occasioned by centuries of exposure to heathen influences, leading to re- serve in the expression of religious sentiment, partly to the secular character of the Feast of Furim a-^sociated with it, which rested on no divinp authority, and was marked by a gay con- nviality, varied with an occasional outburst of passion that was not favourable to religious solemnity.

See further under PURIM. • At the flur-e time It muat be adnittted that, even after the Ki<ihna style was formed, books in imitation of the clsuwical ityle were "^'rittcn, otherwise Ec would have to be plac-ed lon;r liter Sirttch. LrraRATORB.— Driver, LOT i49ff.; Cheyne, art. 'Esther' !■ Ejicyc. Brit. (1878), Fowiders of OT Critici^tm. 3olt ff. ; Kuenen, OruUrzoek''. 661 fl. ; Ziinmern 'in ZA W, 18«1, p. 168 ; La^'arde, Purim ; Jacob in ZA W, 1890, p. 241 ff.; Diculatoj- in Rev. d. Et. Ju.

1888; Savce, Ezr. Neh. and Est., also BCM p. 469 ff. ; Comill. EirMlunrii, 2.13 ff. 281 9. 308 ; Ryle, Canon oj OT. 1S», 205 ; Wildeboer, tke LU. d. AT.UiS.; Schwallv, Lebm n. d. Todt,j,. 42 fl. ; Bertheau, Ezr. Neh. u. Est. (in Kgf. lldb.)W6%, 2nd ei. by V. Ryssel, 1887 ; Oettli (in Struck and Zockler's Kgf. Eom. 18S9, p. 227 ff.); Beuss, AT vU. 193 ff. See also referencea In footnotes above. J. A. M'CLYMONT.