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).