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.