500 ESTHER ESTHER. The Book of Esther relates how a Jewish maiden, Esther, a foster-daughter of Mordecai, was raised to the position of queen by the Persian king Ahasuerus (Xerxes) after he had divorced Vashti ; next, how she and her uncle Mordecai frustrated Haman s resolution to extir pate the Jews out of the Persian empire ; how Hainan fell, and Mordecai was advanced to his place ; how Esther obtained the king s permission for the Jews to destroy all who might attack them on the day which Haman had appointed by lot for their extirpation ; and lastly, how a festival was instituted to commemorate their deliverance. Its main object is to account for the origin of the feast of Purim, which from its cradle in the Persian capital had gradually made its way into other countries (Esth. ix. 19-32). The colouring of the narrative is entirely foreign. Frequent and minute references are made to the usages of the Persian court, while on the other hand the peculiar in stitutions of the Jews, and even Jerusalem and the temple, and the very name of Israel, are studiously, as it would seem, ignored. The name of God is not mentioned once, a phenomenon entirely unique in the Old Testament writ ings. From a theological point of view, the book is there fore not of much interest. It attracts the historical critic, however, by the strangeness and difficulty of its statements, while the ordinary reader cannot fail to be struck by the force and dramatic vividness of its literary form. Its early popularity is shown by the interpolated passages (as different as possible from the original) in the Septuagint and old Latin versions. It was not until the 18th century that a critical examina tion of the book was made, with a view to determine its precise historical value, not, however, at first with sufficient impartiality or historical information. Eichhorn, the most moderate of the earlier critics, belongs to the 19th century. He has drawn up a long list of improbabilities of detail, some of which he thinks he can explain away, while others remain in full force. Subsequent critics have believed themselves to have discovered fresh difficulties, insomuch that Dr Kuenen does not hesitate to say that "impossibilities and improbabilities pervade the whole narrative " (Religion of Israel, iii. 148). It is impossible to mention more than a few of these as a specimen. The very first verses of the book are great stumbling blocks to a Western reader. We are there told that Ahasuerus, " who reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty pro vinces," gave a banquet which lasted ISO days, and at which (if we take the expressions of the narrative literally) the whole official world of the Persian empire was simultaneously present (Esth. i. 3, 4). Further on, we are told that Esther, on her elevation to be queen, kept her Jewish origin secret (ii. 10), although she had been taken from the house of Mordecai, who was known to be a Jew (iii. 4), and had remained in constant intercourse with him (iv. 4-17). We also learn indirectly that Mordecai, previously to his mourning, was able to pass at pleasure into the harem of the jealous and amatory Xerxes (iv. 2). Further, that Mordecai offered a gross affront to Haman without any evil consequences (iii. 2-6). Lastly, Haman, the cruel grand- vizier, takes the trouble to give eleven months notice of his intention to exterminate the Jews (iii. 12-14), which re spite is spent by the Jews in fasting (the narrative does not add praying) and lamentation (iv. 3), and when the danger has been averted through the patriotism of Esther, the Jews are allowed to put to death 75,000 of their fellow sub jects (ix. 16). Nevertheless, it must at any rate be admitted that these objections are not all of equal value, and that a comparison of the narrative of Esther with the later additions to the book, and with the stories of Judith and Tobit, is distinctly favourable to its historical verisimilitude. Some amount of exaggeration must be allowed for, as the infirmity of an Oriental race ; no exegesis is possible without such a postu late. As for the Persian customs described, they are no doubt singular, but, in the absence of documentary evidence, it is unsafe to give them a positive contradiction. At least one confirmation of some importance has been supplied by Herodotus (iii. 69, cf. Esth. ii. 12), and many critics hold that the assembly assigned to the third year of Ahasuerus (Esth. i. 3) is that mentioned by Herodotus (vii. 8) as having been held previously to the expedition against Greece. This, however, is quite uncertain. The reference to the 127 provinces is in itself not improbable, but is only confirmed by the author of the book of Daniel (vi. 1, cf. 1 Esd. iii. 3, LXX.), who has been thought by some to have made a confusion between satrapies and sub-satrapies. It is at any rate in perfect harmony with history that the book of Esther includes India among the subject provinces ; this is confirmed not only by Herodotus (iii. 94), but by the inscriptions of Darius at Persepolis and Naksh-i-llustam. The conduct of Mordscai certainly remains mysterious. In our own day, the harem is impenetrable, while "any one declining to stand as the grand-vizier passes is almost beaten to death" (Morier, the English minister to the court of Persia, quoted by Dean Stanley). And if it is perhaps only too probable that a vizier would use his posi tion for the gratification of spite, and if even the blood- thirstiness of Haman is not inconceivable, still the circum stances connected with the decree for the destruction of the Jews are almost more than even " the peculiarly extrava gant and capricious character " of Xerxes (Canon Itawlin- son) can render easily acceptable. The proper names of Esther, at any rate in their present form, do not all of them stand philological tests. Some of them are genuinely Persian, but others wear a somewhat questionable appearance. These may either be corrupt, or, as Nb ldeke suggests, framed by the author himself on Persian models. Among the most accurate is Ahasuerus or rather Akhashvero,sh( = Persian Chshayarsha,{.e., Xerxes). The character of this king, too, agrees admirably with that given of Xerxes by Herodotus (cf. Herod, iii. G9, ix. 108). But then, it has been replied, it only agrees so well because Xerxes was a typical Oriental despot, magnificent, swayed by favourites, proud, amatory, capricious. Here we musb leave this part of our subject nothing short of a detailed commentary on the book would give the reader a satisfac torily complete view of the facts. It must, however, be observed that the serious chronological difficulty in Esther ii. 5, 6 (where Mordecai is apparently said to have been carried captive with Jeconiah) can hardly be removed by maintaining with Canon Rawlinson (contrary to Hebrew usage) that. Kish, and not Mordecai, is the person referred to. It must, it would seem, be concluded that the theory that the book of Esther is a strictly historical narrative is not proof at all points against objection. The question then arises, is it a work of pure imagination 1 This was the view of the 18th century rationalistic critics. Semler, for instance, says, " 111ml videtur esse certum, confictam esse universam pavabolam, fastus et arrogant! 3e Judseorum locupletissimum testimonium " (Semler, Apparatus ad liberal. Vet. Test, interpr., p. 152 sq., quoted by Keil). By this theory, we might at once put a happy end to the guerilla warfare of rationalistic objectors. It is very necessary, however, to see how much is involved in accepting it. For the book of Esther expressly appeals to the authority of the royal Persian chronicles (ii. 23, x. 2) and of a contemporary memoir (ix. 32). If untrue, re marks Canon Piawlinson, the book might easily have been proved to be so at the time when it was published, by re ference to those chronicles (Speaker s Commentary, iii. 472).
The only way to turn the point of this objection would be