William Whitaker · 9 of 89

Chapter VIII. Of the Seven Apocryphal Chapters of Esther

So much of Esther as is Hebrew, that is, canonical, we receive; and therefore we raise no question concerning those ten chapters which are contained in the Hebrew books. The whole question and controversy is concerning those seven last chapters, which are of a different family and stamp, as we shall easily make appear. The papists will have those seven chapters joined to the rest, without any distinction in point of authority, because the Tridentine council, which has more weight with them than all reason and scripture together, commands those books to be received with all their parts. Their arguments are nearly the same as were alleged for the book of Baruch. Some passages from these chapters are read in the offices of the church, and the fathers sometimes adduce testimonies from them: the little force of which kind of reasoning we have already sufficiently exposed. They say besides that Josephus (Antiq. Lib. x. cap. 6) mentions two epistles of Ahasuerus, which are found in these last chapters and not in the previous ones. These are the arguments of our opponents.

I do not choose to reply again to what has been already refuted. But I will observe that the argument which rests upon the authority of Josephus is inconclusive. For, in the first place, what if Josephus took something from these chapters, to enlarge or illustrate his history? must he therefore have deemed these chapters to appertain to the canonical scripture? But, concerning this whole matter, let Lyra answer for me, who, in the close of his commentary upon this book, makes use of the following expressions*: “The rest which comes after I do not intend to explain, because it is not in the Hebrew, nor belongs to the canonical scripture, but rather seems to have been invented by Josephus and other writers, and afterwards inserted in the vulgar edition.” Josephus, therefore, did not take those things from any canonical book, but was himself the first writer of them; and others afterwards, reading them in Josephus, copied them into the Bible. But although they were, as Lyra says, inserted in the vulgar edition, it does not therefore follow that they were ever allowed a canonical authority. Sixtus Senensis (Lib. I.) approves and follows the opinion of Lyra. Lastly, it is certain that Josephus’s own judgment concerning the canonical books was no other than that of Jerome, as appears from his first book against Apion. There he determines that no books are canonical, but such as were written by prophets of ascertained authority. Now these chapters were not written by any prophet, which I will prove by the following arguments.

In the first place, the matters related in the former chapters are told over again in these following ones; which repeated narration of the same events sufficiently shews that all were not written by the same person. For there was no reason whatever for his telling the same history twice over. Nor would the same author have written the latter part in a different language from the former. But if he were another person, why yet, if he were a prophet, did he not use the Hebrew tongue, the proper language of prophecy? Learned men make either Ezra, or Joachim the priest, or Mordecai himself, the author of this book, and recognise no other than these.

Secondly. There are many incongruities and inconsistencies, which it is impossible to reconcile, in these chapters, of which I will produce some specimens. First, in chap. xi. 2, Mordecai is said to have dreamed of the two eunuchs who conspired against the king, in the second year. See also chap. xii. 1. But in the second chapter, which is canonical, ver. 16, we read that this conspiracy took place in the seventh year of Ahasuerus. Bellarmine answers, that the narrative of the plot which is contained in chap. xii. belongs to the beginning of the book; but that what we read to have occurred in the second year in chap. xi. is not to be understood of the plot, but of the dream of Mordecai: for that the plot was laid in the seventh year, as we are told in the second chapter. But all this is said without proofs, and in spite of the plain declaration of the book itself. For at the close of chap. xi. Mordecai says that, when he arose, he pondered many thoughts in his mind concerning that dream, until the night, (ἕως τῆς νυκτός); and that then, as he rested in the court with the two eunuchs, he detected their conspiracy. There was not therefore an interval of five years between the dream of Mordecai and the plot of the eunuchs, as Bellarmine fancies, but only of one day, if there be faith in the book itself.

Secondly, the narrative in this book was written many years after the death of Mordecai. For, in chap. xi. mention is made of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, who assuredly lived after the times of Mordecai and of the prophets. Nor can one well understand what the meaning of that passage is intended to be. Lysimachus of Jerusalem, the son of Ptolemy, is said to have “interpreted the present epistle of Phurim,” which Dositheus and his son Ptolemy brought in the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra. Bellarmine says it may be answered, that the first author of this book, who wrote the history of Esther in Hebrew, drew up only the sum of the story, and that this Hebrew narrative has come down to us; that then, at some other time, the history was written more copiously by some other person, and translated into the Greek language by Lysimachus, as is indicated in chap. xi.; and that not the original book of this later author, but only a translation of it, is now extant. But, in the first place, Lysimachus is not here said to have translated any Hebrew book into the Greek tongue, but only the epistle of Phurim. And, in the next place, if the assertion that the later author wrote this history more copiously than the former were true, then this history, of which a translation only hath survived, could not be that which the later author wrote: for it is shorter than the Hebrew history, and does not give the series of the narrative at all so fully, as every one may readily perceive. Lastly, who translated this Greek translation of Lysimachus into Latin? Jerome found a certain Latin translation, and subjoined it to his version, though containing, as he tells us, some things which were extant neither in the Hebrew, nor in the text of any other interpreter. Yet this vulgar translation, which Jerome deemed utterly unfaithful, is in the highest sense authentic and canonical with the papists.

Thirdly, this pretended author tells us, chap. xii. 5, that a reward was given by the king to Mordecai for his information; whereas, in chap. vi. 3 of the true history, we read that no reward was bestowed upon him. Bellarmine, however, replies that there is no difficulty here; since in chap. xii. that magnificent reward is meant which he afterwards received. But any one who reads the place itself will see, that this interpretation can by no means stand. For in this twelfth chapter Haman is said to have plotted mischief against Mordecai, after the gifts were bestowed upon him; which cannot be understood of those most distinguished honours and gifts with which the king graced him after he had read the annals. For that very morning, as we read in chap. vi. Haman was in attendance to settle with the king about hanging Mordecai; and that very day Mordecai was raised to the highest dignity, and loaded with royal favours. Nor could Haman, after that, attempt anything against him: for Mordecai was then in the highest favour with the king, and Haman himself was presently hanged upon that same day. Therefore here there must be some falsehood upon the other side.

Fourthly, in chap. xii. 6, Haman is said to have been enraged against Mordecai on account of the eunuchs whom Mordecai accused, and whom, upon being arraigned of treason, and convicted by Mordecai’s evidence, the king had punished capitally. But it is incredible that Haman, who had received such honour and dignity from the king, should have favoured the treason of the eunuchs; and nothing of the kind is found in the true history, but, on the contrary, a very different cause of his offence and anger is assigned, chap. iii.

Fifthly, in chap. xv. 7, this author says that, when Esther came into the king’s presence, the king looked upon her with so angry a countenance, that she fainted through fear. On the contrary, chap. v. 2, she is said to have obtained great favour on coming in to the king.

Sixthly, in chap. xvi. 10, Haman is called a Macedonian; but in chap. vii. 3, we find him to have been an Agagite, that is of the race of Amalek.

Seventhly, Haman is not only said (chap. xvi.) to have been a Macedonian himself, but also to have designed, after removing Mordecai and Esther, to lay violent hands upon the king, in order to transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians. But, first, how could Haman have transferred the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians, if he had succeeded ever so well in putting the king to death? For the kingdom of the Macedonians was at that time little or nothing. Besides, the true history contains not a trace of the story told in chap. xvi., that he plotted against Mordecai and Esther, in order that, by their destruction, he might the more easily attack the king, and transfer the kingdom to the Macedonians. For he was not aware that the queen was a Jewess, or related to Mordecai; and he devised all sorts of mischief against Mordecai, not to open himself a way to the kingdom, but simply to satisfy his malice. For Mordecai was not, in the beginning, when Haman first conceived this grudge against him, in any station of authority, so as in any way to eclipse his splendour. But if any one choose to say that Mordecai’s information was the means of saving the king from assassination, and that thus an obstacle was set in the way of Haman’s ambition, and it was this which kindled such a blaze of hatred; he must be given to understand that he contradicts the sacred narrative. For that conspiracy of the eunuchs and the information of Mordecai took place before Haman had acquired so much favour and power in the royal court, as is manifest from the second chapter and the beginning of the third.

All these things are of such a nature, that they can by no means stand together or be reconciled with each other: whence it follows, that the authority of these chapters must needs fall to the ground. And rightly is it ordered that these chapters are not read in our church.

Thirdly. These chapters are not written in Hebrew. For Jerome says that he had marked these chapters with an obelus set before them; which is the mark by which he is wont to indicate apocryphal additions. For the pretence of some that they were once in the Hebrew text, but have now dropped out of it, is easily refuted by what we have observed already. Jerome had no suspicion of this, and the style cries out against it, and reason proves the contrary. For how could they have been better preserved in the Greek than in the Hebrew? or what need is there to give any credit to mere fictions and conjectures of this nature?

Fourthly. Besides other authors, and some papists also, whom I have already alleged, Sixtus Senensis, who wrote his Bibliotheca after the council of Trent, in the first book of that work asserts these chapters to be apocryphal; a concession which he never would have made, unless overcome by the very force of truth, since he labours so energetically to maintain the credit of the other apocryphal pieces. Nor did the Tridentine decree, requiring the books there mentioned to be received with their parts, avail to turn him from his opinion. For he contends that this is no native and genuine part of the Book of Esther, but that in these chapters all is supposititious. He writes in plain words, that “by reason of these strips appended, inserted by the rashness of certain writers from various quarters,” it had come to pass that it was late ere this book acquired a canonical authority amongst Christians. So clearly did pious men see these to be fabulous, that they threw a shade of suspicion over even the canonical portions. And though this papist, Sixtus, is blamed by the Jesuits, yet is he not refuted. But let us leave them to quarrel amongst themselves.

* Libri autem Baruch notarii ejus, qui apud Hebræos nec legitur nec habetur, prætermisimus.—T. ix. Dreiooel vit.

1. The reference should be xi. c. vi. § 12. pp. 575, 576. Haverc.

2. Cætera quæ sequuntur non intendo exponere, quia non in Hebræo sunt, nec de scriptura canonica, sed magis videntur a Josepho et aliis scriptoribus conficta, et postea editioni vulgatæ inserta.—Nic. Lyrani Comment. Antwerp. 1634. in fin. Estheræ.

3. Yet in our own times, notwithstanding the stringent declaration of the council of Trent, this seems to have been the opinion of some respectable Roman Catholic divines, e. g. John in his Einleitung in A. T.

4. The passage referred to is plainly a scholium, or marginal note, as follows: ἔτους τετάρτου βασιλεύοντος Πτολεμαίου καὶ Κλεοπάτρας εἰσήνεγκε Δοσίθεος, ὃς ἔφη εἶναι ἱερεὺς καὶ Λευίτης, καὶ Πτολεμαῖος ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, τὴν προκειμένην ἐπιστολὴν τῶν Φρουραὶ, ἣν ἔφασαν εἶναι καὶ ἡρμηνευκέναι Λυσίμαχον Πτολεμαίου τὸν ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ. Compare Ussher de LXX. Int. p. 22, and Valckenaër de Aristobulo Judæo, p. 63, who supposes this Lysimachus to have been the author also of what is called the Third Book of Maccabees.

5. Propter has appendicum lacinias hinc inde quorundam scriptorum temeritate insertas.—p. 20. Paris. 1610.