EGYPTIAN WINE-PRESSES.

THE BOOK

OF

ESTHER.

6

This book takes its name from that of the person who is the leading character in it. The Jews call it MEGILLAH ESTHER, or the Volume of Esther,' or simply the Volume,' by way of eminence, for by them the book has always been held in peculiar veneration. They place it on a level with the Pentateuch, affirming that when all other Scripture shall cease, the book of Esther shall be as stable as that of the Law, which shall never cease, or be destroyed, or lost. There is, therefore, no foundation for the statement which has become current through its being found in so popular a work as Baxter's Saint's Everlasting Rest-that the Jews treat the book with peculiar disrespect, and cast it to the ground before they read it, because the name of God is not once found in it.

So much has been written for and against the canonical authority of the book, that it may be well to state, as briefly as possible, the authority on which its place in the canon of Scripture rests, and the grounds on which it has been impugned.

It has been supposed by Le Clerc and other critics, that the book of Esther is no other than an historical romance, or a kind of tragedy, in which the action is carried on by imaginary characters. This opinion has not been often advanced, since the historical basis, at least, of the book has been established by Eichhorn; and it is now more commonly urged that the basis of the narrative is indeed historically true, but that it is embellished with many imaginary circumstances. Some of those who entertain these opinions, do not necessarily on that account impugn the canonical authority of the book; for they admit that, seeing the sacred canon does include many parables and fables in illustration of great truths, there is no reason why the great doctrine of God's providence should not be set forth under the Divine sanction by such a tale or by such a narrative founded on facts,' as they suppose this book to contain. Yet, on the other hand, these views of the book have, although not necessarily, yet generally, been held in connection with a feeling adverse to the claim of Esther' to a place in the canon of the Old Testament.

It certainly seems to us that the claim of the book to be regarded as a narrative historically true has not been weakened in the controversy. In the midst of all dispute stands forth this great fact, that the Jewish people do now celebrate, and have immemorially celebrated, a festival designed to perpetuate the memory of the events which the book records, and for the origin of which no other account exists than that which is here presented to us. This account of its origin those who celebrate the feast believe to be the true one; and we can trace this account, as well as their belief in it, up nearly to the time in which the feast originated. There is hardly any other book existing which can produce, after the lapse of twenty-three centuries, the evidence of a living custom, which it adequately explains, to its historical truth; and we cannot but agree with Eichhorn, that this alone, apart from every other argument, is abundantly sufficient to establish the historical verity of the narrative. We justly consider the existing feast of the Passover as establishing the historical authority of the book in which the account of its origin is found. Here we have a case of the same kind respecting the feast of Purim, only that—taking it merely as a matter of historical evidence-this seems to us the stronger of the two, seeing that from the comparative recency of the events we are enabled to trace the historical existence of the feast within the period of what our jurists hold as "legal memory of the time which the record assigns to its institution. It is harder to believe than is anything which the human understanding rejects, that a solemnity of this proximate celebration should have been founded upon circumstances not historically true. The author of the second book of Maccabees, whom we cite merely as an ancient Jewish author, living probably in the century before Christ, and epitomising a writer in or near the time of Judas Maccabæus, states, that when that hero instituted an annual feast in commemoration of the deliverance of the people from the Syrians, he fixed it to the thirteenth day of the month Adar, which, he adds, was "the day before Mardocheus's day," meaning of course the feast of Purim (3 Macc. xv. 37). This is not only a direct testimony to the celebration of the feast in the time of Judas, and if then, also at some indeter

minate period before; but the feast in celebration of the victory over Nicanor being fixed to the thirteenth of Adar, would of itself suggest that the feast of Purim on the fourteenth of the same month already existed, and dictated the selection of the thirteenth for the other, in order that the anniversaries of these two great deliverances might follow each other. Josephus, in giving the history as contained in this book, expressly states, that the feast instituted on that occasion continued to be celebrated by all the Jews throughout the habitable world (Antiq. xi. 6). The Talmud also makes frequent mention of it as a well known and ancient feast, and its celebration has been maintained to this day.

Add to the leading testimony which grows out of the feast of Purim, the fact that the book has been received not only by the Christians, but by the Jews, as a record of historical truth, and not as a pleasing tale; and the leading characters, Esther and Mordecai, as real personages and not as creatures of the imagination. The book is also not wanting in intrinsic signs obvious to literary criticism, of the reality of the history which it contains. The recital is simple and unornamented: the author gives the genealogy of Mordecai; he states the ancestors of Esther; he designates the ten sons of Haman; he refers to the existing annals of Persia, which recorded the exultation of Mordecai; and he affirms that letters were written by Mordecai and Esther to all the Jewish communities in the Persian empire. This last fact, among others, must have been known for true or false at the time the Old Testament canon was settled; and its untruth would have sufficed to exclude the book from the collection. Now it is not too much to say, that this manner of writing-this scrupulous care to fix particulars-and these circumstantial details which no one inventing a tale would dream of recounting all evince the presence of a faithful historian drawing his narrative from authentic sources of information.

A strong stand against the truth of the history has been taken on the ground that the facts are improbable, and not in accordance with Oriental or ancient Persian manners. De Wette makes much of this. Now the manners and customs of the ancient and modern nations of the East, and especially of the Persians, being a subject to which we have ourselves for many years paid great attention, and in which we have not lacked opportunities of personal observation and comparison, we will take upon us to affirm, without hesitation, that this is a matter in which De Wette's own information is greatly imperfect; and to express a well founded conviction that there is scarcely a single incident narrated in the book, or a single custom indicated, an exact parallel of which might not be found in the ancient and modern history and usages of Persia and the East. Even China might produce them all. This has been shewn by a learned Jesuit Missionary, P. Cibot, who, in one of the volumes of the Mémoires sur les Chinois, shews that to almost every circumstance and usage in this book a parallel from the Chinese writers might be produced. Some specimens of his parallels are given among our Notes.

It seems to us probable that the very completeness of the narrative, in the gradual and progressive development of results, may have suggested the first idea of the book being a fiction. But this characteristic is equally exhibited in the history of Joseph, which no one has on that ground impugned. A writer of fiction also is careful to avoid every circumstance tending to weaken the effect his narrative is intended to produce. But the writer of history, though some of his personages may stand high in his favour, must make known their public errors not less than their public merits. Tried by this test also, the book of Esther comes out with the characteristics of true history and not of fiction; for the writer represents his principal characters as pursuing their vengeance so insatiably as excites some revulsion of feeling to their disadvantage, and seems to have very nearly awakened the displeasure of the king.

So much for the historical character of the book. We may now say a few words as to its canonicity, for a book might be true history without being entitled to a place in the canon. Now in this case the Jews have always regarded this as one of their sacred books; its claim to a place there has never been questioned by them; and they have even treated it with extraordinary veneration. The tradition of the Christian churches in favour of this claim has always been unanimous, constant, and universal. The book itself contains nothing to bring this claim into question; on the contrary, it contains a record of the utmost importance for shewing the continued action of Divine Providence in behalf of the race from which, in the process of time, the Messiah was to spring. The objections which have been urged against this claim are not such as to affect this solid prima facie evidence of its right to the place it occupies. So far as they arise from the contents of the book, this has been shewn by the considerations advanced to prove that it is a true history. The absence of the names 'God' or 'Lord' in the book is indeed a singular and startling circumstance. But the presence of God is, to us, everywhere felt and indicated in it, and it is therefore of little real consequence that the name does not occur. The tendency of the book is indeed so pious, that we read it many times in our youth without noticing the absence of the Divine name; and should perhaps not have found it out to this day, had it not been indicated by others. Still the fact is singular. That the Divine name was omitted for fear of offending the Persians as some fancy, we utterly deny. The Persians

were likely to concern themselves very little with a book written in Hebrew-and so far from being offended with the use of the name of God, their own edicts concerning the Jews contain it, and even that of JEHOVAH. The more likely explanation is that the book is drawn up chiefly from the Persian records, which treated it as a matter of human affairs without seeing the Divine hand which Jews and Christians can easily recognize.

An objection to the canonical authority of the book has been drawn from the fact of its not being mentioned in the lists of the canonical Scripture furnished by a few of the early Christian fathers. But it is contained in the lists furnished by those of highest name, and in the greatest number; and some of those who omit it in their lists, cite its contents as canonical in other places. This suggests the probability that in their copies it was joined to some other book, the name of which stands for both, just as Ruth was formerly joined to Judges, Nehemiah to Ezra, and Lamentations to Jeremiah. It is also possible that the apocryphal additions with which the book is laden in the Septuagint, and which the Latin church still retains, may have raised a doubt in some minds respecting that portion which forms our book of Esther, and which alone was accounted canonical by the Hebrews. This is not the only instance in which the genuine book has, since its separation by the Protestant churches, inherited the weight of those doubts and objections which were originally applied to the book as incumbered with apocryphal additions.

Very various have been the opinions respecting the authorship of Esther. Some ascribe it to Ezra, some to Nehemiah, some to Mordecai, the last being the conclusion most generally received. We who believe the book to be a real history, and recognize no authority which could bring it into the Old Testament canon much later than the events which it records, may consider Mordecai as the most likely person to have been the writer, on account of the leading part he took in the transaction, and from the desire he evinces to perpetuate the memory of it. The Jews themselves somewhat differ in opinion on this point; some think it was composed by the high-priest Jehoiakim, son of Jeshua, while the Talmud (in Bava Bathra, c. 1) seems rather to ascribe it to the great synagogue. Those writers who regard the work as a tale or an embellished history, are under little concern about the name or time of the author. Spinoza supposes it was fabricated subsequently to the re-establishment of the temple services by Judas Maccabæus; and many recent German critics have maintained that it was written by some Palestine Jews long after the events which it records.

In the arrangements of the Jews, the book of Esther is placed among the Hamesh Megilloth or Five Volumes a designation which includes also Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and the Lamentations; and the best Rabbinical commentaries on the book are involved in those which interpret the whole five Megilloth. Such are those of Aben Ezra, Jarchi, etc. There is also a separate commentary by R. Aaron Ariob, under the fanciful title of Shemen Hammur, or 'Oil of Myrrh,' which is a synopsis or transcript of all that previous Rabbinical writers had produced respecting Esther. It was written at the end of the sixteenth century, and was printed in 1601. The Spanish Rabbi Isaac in the same century left a commentary on the book, which was printed at Venice in 1565; this is chiefly a compilation from the Gemara and Maimonides. A German Rabbi, Eliezer the son of Elias, who died in 1586, also left a commentary on the book with the title of p D Yoseph Lekah, the Augmentor of Doctrine,' which was printed at Cremona in 1576, and at Hamburg in 1711. These Hebrew commentaries evince the deep interest which this book possesses to the Jews. Passing by the various Latin commentaries which treat of Esther along with other of the lesser historical books of Scripture, the following separate commentaries claim enumeration :-Strigelii Liber Esther, argumentis et scholiis illustratus, Lips. 1551, 1552; Brentii Commentarius in Esdram, Nehemiam, et Esther, Tubinga, 1575, the part of which on Esther was translated and published in this country under the title, A Discourse upon the book of Esther,' interpreted by J. Stockwood, Lond. 1584; Feuardentii Commentaria in lib. Esther, Par. 1585; Drusii Adnotationes in lib. Esthera, Lugd. Bat. 1586; Wolderi Libri Estheræ analyticæ dispositiones, Dantischi, 1625; Bonartii In Estheram Commentarius litteralis et moralis, Colon. 1647, a work which obtains high praise from Carpzov; Montani Comment. litteralis et moralis in lib. Esther, Mad. 1647; Adami Observationes theologico-philologica, Gron. 1710, a work containing a commentary on Esther in which much attention is given to the comparison of the manners and customs of the ancient Persians with the details of the present book. In 1839 was produced at Halle a work by Dr. Baumgarten, in which the reality of the history of Esther and the veracity of the author are ably vindicated, and the arguments against it of some modern critics are satisfactorily disposed of. The whole subject is also handled very satisfactorily in the Introductions recently produced on the Continent. There is no separate original English commentary on Esther.

583