Prev TOC Next
[Image]  [Hi-Res Image]

Page 181

 

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Esseaes Ether, Book of

The Book of Esther takes its name from that of the heroine, which is usually derived from the

r. The ably the same as the Babylonian Name. Ishtar. This identification is sup-

ported by the evident derivation of the name of her protector Mordecai (Heb. Mordekhay, Septuagint Mardochaioa, " one who belongs to the god Marduk "). Though this name is rather strange for a Jew so true to his faith, analogies are not lacking (cf. A. H. Sayee, ` Higher Criticism' caradthe Monuments, p.470,London,1894),

The scene of action is the Persian court in Shuahan in the time of Ahasuerus, i.e., Xerxes. The

z. The Jewess Hadassa,h, " Myrtle," came Story. to the court and under the name of

Esther was made the consort of the king. In this position she was able to save her people from threatened destruction. A favorite of the king, Haman, having had a dispute with her cousin Mordecai because the latter would not bow down to him, induced the capricious king to fix a day by lot (Persian par t) on which the Jews throughout the kingdom were to be exterminated. Esther induced the king to favor her people, Haman was executed, and Mordecai took his place in the government. A new edict of the king permitted the Jews to resist the attack, and thus the feared thirteenth of Adar became a day of victory and the fourteenth, in Shushan the fifteenth, a festive day. The festival was called )uurim from the lots. The institution of the celebration is traced to Mordecai and Esther.

The narrative is harmonious and written with dramatic skill. Chap. ix. 20-28 records that Mordecai reported the events in a letter addressed to the Jews of all the provinces of the kingdom

3. Charac- in future fourteenth. and fifteenth

ter and Adar as festal days, giving presents Date. to one another and alms to the poor.

In this institution of the Purimfestival its name is explained from the lots cast at the beginning of the narrative (iv. 7). This section is a recapitulation of the preceding narrative, forming a fitting end of the roll appointed to be read on the Purim-festival. Verses 29-32 are no doubt duplicates and were inserted later than v. 20-28. The writer drew from oral and probably also from written sources some time after the events, because Ahasuerus and Mordecai belonged to the past (cf. i. 1-2, x. 1 aqq.). These passages refute the assumption of Clement of Alexandria, and Ibn Ezra, wrongly construing ix. 20, 32, that the book was written by Mordecai; and the authorship is undetermined. The time of composition can be fixed only approximately. Although the time of Artaxerxea I. has been suggested, matter and linguistic

character indicate the latest Persian or the Greek period. The language is permeated by Aramaiema and Persisma, and is otherwise in a state of decay. The book moat belong to the most recent part of the canon. That the author wrote in Persian has no warrant.

The historicity of the narrative has been stoutly questioned. It has been held that the book con-

¢. H.isto- misstatements of Persian customs. ricity. Ahasuerus has been identified with Xerxes; and from what is otherwise known of the voluptuous habits and capricious whims, of the sudden alternations between favor and disfavor, and the passionate cruelty and the adventurous pride of this despot, the identification is justifiable. Certain other facts, like the Greek campaigns, tally well with the narrative in Esther. On the other hand the account of Xerxes' marriage after the Greek campaign, as recorded by Herodotua (ix. 108 sqq.), is not in harmony with the story of this book. Father can not be identified with Ameatris, whose lofty position makes impossible the no less distinguished dignity enjoyed by Esther according to the Biblical narrative. The historic ity of the narrative is also opposed by the exist ence of a law according to which the king of the Persians in his selection of a wife was restricted to the (seven) noblest families of the Persians (cf. Herodotus, iii. 84). The question then remains, how far Herodotus is reliable. These narratives were certainly orally transmitted with delight, and moreover passed through a noteworthy literary redaction. In this way inaccuracies and exaggera tions might easily creep in. Thus according to ii. fi-7 Esther and Mordecai had been deported with Jehoia,chin, whereas from their age they must have been [remote] descendants of the prisoners of his time; the statements in iii. 15, viii. 15 of the sym pathy of the inhabitants of Shushan for the Jews are too strong to be true. But the substance of the history neither stands nor falls with these details. The main support of the narrative con sists obviously of the Purim-feast itself. Outside of the Book of Esther, the feast is first mentioned II Mace. xv. 36 se " The Day of Mordecai." On its origin and celebration cf. also Joaephus, Ant. XI., vi. 13. The book is considered pure fiction by ouch modern scholars as Zunz (ZDMG, xxvii. 884 aqq.) and E. Reuss (Geschicf<te des Alten Testa ments, pp. 581 sqq. Brunswick, 1892-94).

Since the word pur (" lot "7), the Persian origin of which has not been proved, points to a foreign origin, some have endeavored to trace the Purimfestival as well as the entire narrative to foreign sources: Hitzig recalled the Neo-Arabic phur, " New-year " and the Persian intercalary days Purdeghan ; he thought that the basis was in some

event which happened about Newg. The Fes- yeas, not in the time of the Acbaee-

tival, Us menidee but under the rule of the Par- Name and thiau Arsacidse, from which language Origin. pur, " lot," maycome. Lagarde thought that the Purim-feast is the Persian festival in honor of the dead, Farmardigan, which was celebrated with joy, the Greek name of