ESTHER, BOOK OF. I. Contents, Name, and Place in the Canon.—In this book we have an ac count of certain events in the history of the Jews under the rule of the Persian king Ahasuerus (Achashverosh), doubtless the Xerxes of the Greek historians. [AHASUERUS 31 The writer informs us of a severe persecution with which they were threatened at the instigation of Haman, a favourite of the king, who sought in this way to gratify his jealousy and hatred of a Jew, Mordecai, who, though in the service of the king, refused to ren der to Haman the homage which the king had en joined, and which his other servants rendered ; he describes in detail the means by which this was averted through the influence of a Jewish maiden called Hadassah, that is, Esther,' the cousin of Mordecai, who had been raised to be the wife of the king, along with the destruction of Haman and the advancement of Mordecai ; he tells us how the Jews, under the sanction of the king, and with the aid of his officers, rose up against their enemies, and slew them to the number of 75,000 ; and he concludes by informing us that the festival of Purim was instituted among the Jews in com memoration of this remarkable passage in their history. From the important part played by Esther in this history the book bears her name. It is one of the five Megilloth, or books read in the syna gogue on special festivals ; the season appropriate to it being the feast of Purim, held on the r4th and /3th of the month Adar, of the origin of which it contains the account. Hence it stands in the Hebrew Canon after Coheleth, according to the order of time in which the Megilloth are read. By the Jews it is called the Megillah, icar' gEox7jv, either from the importance they attach to its contents, or from the circumstance that from a very early period it came to be written on a special roll (r6*) for use in the synagogue (Hottinger, nes. Phil. p. 494). In the LXX. it appears with numerous additions, prefixed, interspersed, and ap pended ; many of which betray a later origin, but which are so inwrought with the original story as to make with it a continuous and, on the whole, harmonious narrative. By the Christians it has been variously placed ; the Vulgate places it be tween Tobit and Judith, and appends to it several Apocryphal additions [see next article] ; the Pro testant versions commonly follow Luther in placing it at the end of the historical books.
2. Canonicity. Among the Jews this book has always been held in the highest esteem. There is some ground for believing that the feast of Purim was by some of the more ancient Jews opposed as an unlicensed novelty (Talm. Hieros. Tr. 111egll
loth, fol. 7o ; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. ad Yoh. x. 22); but there is no trace of any doubt being thrown by them on the canonicity of the book. By the more modern Jews it has been elevated to a place beside the Law, and above the other hagiographa, and even the prophets (Pfeiffer, The:. Hermen. p. 597, ff. ; Carpzov, Introd. p. 366, E) In the Christian Church it has not been so generally received. Whilst apparently accepted without question by the churches of the West in the early centuries, the testi mony of the Eastern Church concerning it is more fluctuating. It is omitted in the catalogue of Me lito, an omission which is shared with Nehemiah, and which some would account for by supposing that both these books were included by him under Ezra, a supposition which may be admitted in reference to Nehemiah, but is less probable in reference to Esther ; Origen inserts it, though not among the historical books, but after Job, which is supposed to indicate some doubt regarding it on his part ; in the catalogues of the Council of Laodicea, of the Apostolical Canons, of Cyril] of Jerusalem, and of Epiphauius, it stands among the canonical books ; by Gregory of Nazianzus it is omitted ; in the Synopsis Scrip. Sac. it is mentioned as said by some of the ancients to be accepted by the He brews as canonical ; and by Athanasius it is ranked among the dva-ytpcooK6gEva, not among the canoni cal books. These differences undoubtedly indicate that this book did not occupy the same unques tioned place in general confidence as the other canonical books of the O. T.; but the force of this, as evidence, is greatly weakened by the fact that it was not on historical or critical grounds, but rather on grounds of a dogmatical nature, and of subjective feeling, that it was thus treated. On the same grounds, at a later period, it was sub jected to doubt, even in the Latin Church ( Juni lius, De "arab:is Leg. Div., c. 3). At the time of the Reformation, Luther, on the same grounds, pronounced the book more worthy to be placed extra canonem,' than in canone ' (De servo arbi trio ; comp. his Tischreden, iv. 403, Berlin ed., 1843), but in this he stood alone in the Protestant churches of his day ; nor was it till a comparatively recent period that his opinion found any advocates. The first who set himself systematically to impugn the claims of the book was Semler ; and him Oeder, Corrodi, Augusti, Bertholdt, De Wette, and Bleek, have followed. Eichhorn with some qualifications, Jahn and Havernick unreservedly, have defended its claims.