[Image] [Hi-Res Image]
Page 182
Ether Hook of THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 182 Ethioat Culture which, phourdigan (used by Menander), coincides partly with the Hebrew, the original of which was purdaid instead of Purim, appearing as a variant in the Septuagint phourdia. Since this is not satisfac tory, the reference to a Babylonian myth and festi val has found more favor. Zimmern would trace a connection of the Purim-festival with the Baby lonian New-year's festival called Zagmuku or Akftu, and identified pur with the Assyrian puhru, " totality," " assembly "; the meaning " lots " might be understood from the fact that at the assembly of the gods at that festival the destinies (lots) for the coming year were appointed. As that festival was celebrated in honor of Marduk, the name Mordecai indicated that the Hebrew matter was derived from Babylonian sources. This Jensen endeavored to prove more decisively by the equations: Haman = Humba, Humban, the head of the Elamitic pantheon; Esther = Ishtar; the wife of Haman Zaras=Kirisa, wife of Humba; Vashti=Mashti, a Babylonian goddess. The Baby lonian New-year myth, with which was blended the memory of the overthrow of Elamitic over lordship, was then changed into a legend of the subduing of the enemies of the Jews. Finally, B. Meiesner thought of the Sak$en-festival which Beroaus records, during which a slave, dressed in a royal dress, for five days enjoyed high honors, which suggests Esther vi. 7 sqq. This festival was originally identical with the Babylonian New year's festival and was blended by the Persians with that used among them (cf. the five Fartvardigan days). On this occasion Ishtar (Esther) came prominently before Marduk (Mordecai). But in none of these hypotheses do the date and duration agree with those of the Jewish festival. Neither the Persian nor the Babylonian New-year is in the middle of the month of Adar. The word pur still remains unexplained, and the identification with the Assyrian puhru is doubtful. It is possible that the Jews may have combined with a foreign festival the recollection of a national event; but the change of a myth into a history so full of vigor is not credible. All their postexilic festivals are based upon his torical events. On this account scholars like Ewald and Winer admit a historical kernel of the Esther-narrative, and are followed by Bertheau Ryssel, Riehm, Oettli, and Driver. The ethical character of the book was also attacked, earlier even than its credibility. Greatly as it was esteemed by the Jews, whose national consciousness was flattered by the contents, the Christians became here more aware than in any other canonical book of the contrast of Christianity and particularistic Judaism. Luther with his usual freedom expressed a very adverse opinion, Semler's judgment was no leas decisive, while De Wette, Bleek, and Zunz call attention to the 6. Ethics spirit of pride and vengeance, and to of the the lack of piety in the book. But Book. these reproaches involve an unjust estimate of the facto. The Jews of the book can not be charged with irreligiousnees and impiety. Without the consciousness that God alone could save them and their people from danger, the fast by which Esther and the others
prepared themselves for their heroic deed had no meaning; without unlimited trust in the faithfulness of the Lord, the heroic words of Mordecai, iv. 13-14, are inexplicable. The fact that the use of specifically religious language and reference to religious institutions is scanty is not a fault in a book read at a joyous feast, especially when those institutions were not important for the festival itself (cf. Riehm, TSK,1862, pp. 407 eqq.). The book is a product of the time when ancient Israel was about to pass into narrow external Judaism, intent more upon its self-preservation than upon the fulfilment of its destiny. The character of the events is purely national and recalls that of the Maccabean period, consequently the Purim-festival can not be equated with the great festivals of Israel, which are more comprehensive.
The canonicity of the book was challenged by the Jews, and the observance of the feast was objected to by eighty-five elders, as recorded in the Jerusa lem Talmud. Among Christians the y. Its Can- opposition was more lasting. In the onicity. Greek Church during the first four centuries it was counted by some (e.g., by Athanasius) among the deuterocanonical (Apocryphal) books of the Old Testament, but the Latin Church gave it canonical authority. The Septuagint placed it at the end of the historical books, enlarged by many additions (see APOCRYPHA, A, IV, 2). Jerome placed these additions at the end of his translation, as " Additions to Esther " among the Apocrypha. C. VON ORELLI.BIBLIOGRAPHY: The befit commentaries are those by A. W. $treane, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1907; C. F. Keil, Leipsia, 1870; G. Rawlineon, London, 1873; F. W. Schultz, Leipaic, 1878; L. M, de $acy, Paris, 1882; E. Berthesu, Leipsic, 1887; $. Oettli, Nordlingen, 1889; A. Scholz, W urzburg, 1890; L. B. Paton, New York, 1908. The works on O. T. Introduction are to be consulted. There are able discussion in: DB, i . 772-778; EB, ii. 1400-07; JE, v. 232-241. Special subjects or phases
are treated in: P. de Lagarde, Abhandlunpen der .~GeeelZsehaft der Wizsenaehaften. GSttingen, 1888; J. 8. Bloch, Helleniatasehe Bestandteile i m biblischen 8chrifttum, Breslau, 1877: A· H. Sayce. Introduction to . . . Esther, London. 1885; B. Jacob, in ZATW, x (1890), 241 eqq.; T. K. Cheyne, Founders of O. T. Criticism, pp. 359 eqq., London, 1893; C. H. Toy, in New World, vi (1897), 130145; $. Jampel, Dos Buck Esther out seine Geachichtlichkeit, Frankfort, 1907.
On the Purim festival consult: P. de Lsgarde, Purim, sin Beitrag zur Geachiehte der Religion, GSttingen, 1887; H. Zimmern, in ZATW, a (1891), 157 aqq.; H. Gunkel, 3chJpfung and Chaos, GSttingen, 1895; P. Jensen, in ZA, x (1895), 339-340; B. Meieaner, in ZDMG, 1 (1898), 298 eqq.; Nowsck, Archnolagie, ii. 194 eqq.
ESTHONIANS, CONVERSION OF THE. See ALBERT OF RIGA.
ETHELBERT (ATHELBERHT): King of Kent, 559 Or 560-616. See AUGUSTINE, SAINT, OF CANTERBURY.
ETHELDREDA (,ETHELTHRYTH, AUDREY), SAINT: Abbess of Ely; b. at Exning (16 m. w. of Bury St. Edmunds), Suffolk, 630 (7), daughter of Anna, king of East Anglia; d. at Ely June 23, 679. Her father, disregarding her wish to lead the life of a nun, married her in 652 to Tondbert, chieftain of a tribe living among the fens of southern Cambridgeshire, and she received the Isle of Ely as marriage portion from