and gives the prayers of Mordecai and Esther, for the said passage in the canonical volume relates that Esther ordered prayers to be offered. The fourth addition after v. 1, giving a detailed account of Esther's interview with the king, originated from a desire to give more information upon the fact, which is simply alluded to in the canonical passage. The fifth addition, after viii. 13, originated in the same manner as the second, viz., in a desire to sup ply a copy of the loyal edict, whilst the sixth addl. tion, after x. 3, beautifully concludes with an interpretation of the dream with which the first addition commences the canonical volume. From this analysis it will be seen that these supplementary and embellishing additions are systematically dis persed through the book, and form a well adjusted and continuous history. In the Vulg., however, which is followed by the versions of the Reformers on the continent, and our English translations, where these additions are torn out of the proper connection and removed to a separate place, they are most incomprehensible.
4. Author, Date, and original Language.—From what has been remarked in the foregoing section, it will at once be apparent that these apocryphal ad ditions were neither manufactured by the translator of the canonical Esther into Greek, nor are they the production of the Alexandrian nor any other school or individual, but embody some of the nu merous national stories connected with this mar vellous deliverance of God's ancient people, the authorship of which is lost in the nation. Many of them date as far back as the nucleus of the event itself, around which they cluster, and all of them grew up at first in the vernacular language of the people (i.e., in Hebrew or Aramaic); but afterwards assumed the complexion and language of the countries ut which the Jews happened to settle down. Besides the references given in the pre ceding section which lead us to these conclusions, we also refer to the two Midrashim published by Jellinek in his Beth Ha-Midrash, vol. i., Leipzig, 1853, p. seqq: 5. Canonicity of these additions.—The Fathers,
who regarded the Septuagint as containing the sacred scriptures of the 0. T., believed in the canonicity of these additions. Even Origen, though admitting that they are not in the Hebrew, defended their canonicity (Ep. ad African., ed. West, p. 225), and the Council of Trent pro nounced the whole book of Esther, with all its parts, to be canonical. These additions, however, were never included in the Hebrew canon, and the fact that Josephus quotes them only shews that he believed them to be historically true, but not in spired. St. Jerome, who knew better than any Father what the ancient Jews included in their canon, most emphatically declares—' Librum Esther variis translatoribus constat esse vitiatum : quern ego de archivis Hebrmorum relevans, verbum e verbo expressius transtuli. Quern librum editio vulgata laciniosis hint inde verborum sinibus (al. funibus) trahit, addens ea gum ex tempore dici poterant et audiri ; slew solitum est scholaribus disciplinis sumto themate excogitare, quibus verbis uti potuit, qui injuriam passus est, vel qui injuriam fecit' (Praf. Az I Esth.) 6. Literature.—Josephns, Airtiq. xi. 6. 6, seqq.; Midrask Esther; Tarp= Shari on Esther, in Walton's Polyglot, vol. iv. ; Yosippon ben Gorion, ed. Breithaupt, 1710, p. 72, seqq. ; Whitaker, Disputation on Scripture, Park. Soc., ed. 1849, p. 71, etc. ; Usser, Syntagma de Grrca LXX. intertrctum versions, Lond. 1655 ; De Rossi, Sped men Variarum Lationum soot Textus et Clzaldaica Estheris Additamenta, Ronie, 1782 ; Eichhorn, Einleitung in d. Apokr. Schriften d. A. T., Leip zig, P. 483, ff. ; Fritzsche, Eo%.np. Dnplicem libri /extra); ad opiimos cdd. emend. et cum selecta lectionis varietate, ed. Torici, 1848; and by the same author, Exegetisches Handbuch a. d. Apokr. d. A. T., vol. i. p. 69, ff. ; Davidson, The Text of the 0. T. considered, Lond. 1856, p. IOIO, etc. ; Herzfeld, Geschichte d. Volkes Israel, vol. i. Nord hausen, 1857, p. 365, etc.; Keil, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung, etc., ed. 1859, p. 705, etc.—C. D. G.