The objections urged against the canonicity of the book resolve themselves principally into these three — 1. That it breathes a spirit of narrow, selfish, national pride and vindictivencss, very much akin to tliat dis- played by the later Jews, but wholly alien from the spirit which pervades the acknowledged books of the O. T. ; 2. That its untheocratic character is manifested in the total omission in it of the name of God, and of any reference to the divine providence and care of Is- rael ; and, 3. That many parts of it are so incredible as to give it the appearance rather of a fiction or romance than the character of a true history (Bertholdt, De Wette, etc.). In regard to the first of these, whilst it must be admitted that the spirit and conduct of the Jews, of whom the author of this book writes, are not those which the reliirion of the O. T. sanctions, it re- mains to be asked whether, in what he narrates of them, he has not simply followed the requirements of historical fidelity: and it remains to be proved that he has in any way indicated that his own sympathies and convictions went along with theirs. There can be lit- tle doubt that among the Jews of whom he writes a very different state of religious and moral feeling pre- vailed from what belonged to their nation in the better days of the theocracy. The mere fact that they pre- ferred remaining in the land of the heathen to going up with their brethren who availed themselves of the permission of Cyrus to return to Judrea, shows how little of the true spirit of tlieir nation remained with them. This being the case, the historian could do nothing else than place before us such a picture as that wliich this book presents ; had he done otherwise he woulil not have narrated the truth. It does not fol- low from this, however, that he himself sympathized with those of whom he wrote, in their motives, feel- ings, and conduct, or that the spirit dominant in them
is the spirit of his writing. It is true, occasions may frequently present themselves in the course of his nar- rative when he might have indulged in reflections of an ethical or didactic character on what he has nar- rated, but to do this may not have been in the plan and conception of his work, and he may therefore have iutentionallj' avoided it.
Observations to the same effect may be made on the second objection. If the purpose of the author was to relate faithfully and without comment the actions and words of persons who were living without any vital recognition of God, the omission of all reference to God in the narrative will be sufficiently accounted for by this circumstance. If it be said. But a pious man would have spontaneouslj'^ introduced some such refer- ence, even though those of whom he wrote gave him no occasion to do so bj' their own modes of speech or acting, it may suffice to repl}' that, as we are ignorant of the reasons which moved the author to abstain from all remarks of his own on what he narrates, it is not competent for us to conclude from the omission in ques- tion that he was not himself a pious man. If again it be said. How can a book which simply narrates the conduct of Jews who had to a great extent foi'gotten, if they had not renounced the worship of Jehovah, without teaching any moral lessons in connection with this, be supposed to have proceeded from a man under God's direction in what he wrote, it may be replied that a book may have a most excellent moral tendency, and be full of important moral lessons, even though these are not formally announced in it. That it is so with the book of Esther may be seen from such a work as M'Crie's Lectures on this book, where the great les- sons of the book are expounded with the skill of one whose mind had been long and deeply versed in his- torical research. As the third objection above noticed rests on the alleged unhistorical character of the book, its force will be best estimated after we have consider- ed the next head.
III. Credibility. — In relation to this point three opin- ions have been advanced : 1. That the liook is wholly unhistorical, a mere legend or romance ; 2. Tiiat it has a historical basis, and contains some true statements, but that with these much of a fabulous kind is inter- mixed ; 3. That the narrative is throughout true his- tory'. Of these ojiinions the first has not found man}-- supporters : it is obviously incompatible with the re- ception of the book into the Jewish canon ; for, how- ever late be the date assigned to the closing of the canon, it is incredilde that what must have been known to be a mere fable, if it is one, could have found a place there ; it is incompatible with the early observ- ance by the Jews of the feast of Purim, instituted to commemorate the events recorded here (comp. 2 Mace. XV, 36) ; and it is rendered improbable l)y the minute- ness of some of the details, such as the names of the seven eunuchs (i, 10), the seven officers of tlie king (i, 14), the ten sons of Haman (ix, 7-10), and the general accurate acquaintance with the manners, hal)its, and contemporar}'^ history of the Persian court which the author exhibits. (See the ample details on this head collected by Eichhorn and Hiivernick, Eiiihit. II, i, 338-357). The reception of the book into the canon places a serious difficulty in the way of the second opinion ; for if those who determined this would not have inserted a book wholly fabulous, they would as little have inserted one in which fable and truth were indiscriminately mixed. It may be proper, however, to notice the pai-ts which are alleged to be fabulous, for onh' thus can the objection be satisfoctorily re- futed. First, then, it is asked. How can it be believed that if the king had issued a decree that all the Jews should be put to death, he would have published this twelve months before it was to take effect (iii, 12, 13)? But, if this seem incredible to us, it must, if untue, have appeared no less incredible to those for whom the book was written ; and nothing can be more im«