0 i he
Ἵ
9937109 S,1aVHOIW
ill
"4S JO ALISYSAINN
dt ube
be
International Critical Commentary
on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and
dlety Cestaments.
UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF
THE REV. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D.,
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford;
THE REv. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.,
Master of University College, Durham ;
AND
THE REv. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D.,
Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology,
Union Theological Seminary, New York.
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
MAY 20 1964
First IMPRESSION fe 5 1908
SECOND IMPRESSION 9 - 1951
PREFACE
HE Book of Esther presents no complicated problems of
ΗΝ documentary analysis, such as are found in most of the
other historical books of the Old Testament. With the
possible exception of the concluding verses in 930 -τοῦ, its unity is
recognized by all schools of criticism. It also presents no difficult
problems of dating, such as are found in the prophetical books.
There is general agreement that it belongs to the Greek period,
and probably to the latter part of that period. Questions of com-
position and age, accordingly, can be dismissed in this case far
more rapidly than in other commentaries of the series. On the
other hand, the text of the book raises a number of problems that
have no parallels in the criticism of the rest of the Old Testament.
Beginning with the Greek translation, and continuing through the
Old Latin, Vulgate, Josephus, and Peshitto down to the Talmud
and Targums, the versions of Esther disclose a number of re-
markable additions to the Massoretic text that have no analogies
in the versions of other books. ‘These are found in full in none of
the commentaries and are not easily accessible to the student, yet
they are important both for the history of the text and for the
history of exegesis.
This being the case, it is proper that a critical commentary
should present these variations completely, and should discuss
their textual and exegetical value. In preparing my apparatus,
I soon discovered that ordinary methods of recording readings
were inadequate on account of the extraordinary number of the
variants. After a number of experiments I found that the only
practical way was to have a separate large card for every word in
the Massoretic text, and on this to record the alternate readings
of the versions and recensions. The numerous additions could
then be inserted on other cards whenever they interrupted the
v
vil PREFACE
Massoretic text. By this method I have secured, I believe, both
completeness and accuracy. I have taken the fextus receptus of
Van der Hooght (1705) as the standard of comparison, and all
departures from it in recensions, Mss., printed editions, or ancient
versions I have recorded in the critical notes. Only minor varia-
tions of vocalization or accentuation, which do not affect the inter-
pretation, and which for the most part represent only the notions
of particular punctuators or schools of punctuators, I have not
thought it worth while to insert. Variants in the versions which
represent the same Hebrew word I have not included. To have
recorded all the cases of this sort would have been useless and would
have swelled the volume to an enormous size.
How to treat the insertions of the versions has been a puzzling
question. Substitutions of other readings for those of the Masso-
retic text should obviously be given in the original Greek, Latin,
or Aramaic, in order that students may judge of their textual value;
but the long additions of the versions are not translations from
Hebrew, and, therefore, no good reason appears why they should
be inserted in the original languages. For the ordinary reader a
translation is more serviceable, and the specialist will have no
difficulty in referring to the originals whenever this is necessary.
Accordingly, I have given all the additions in English, making in
each case a new translation from the best critical editions. Any
one who is curious to see the originals and the textual variants in
the Greek will find them in my article, “A Text-Critical Apparatus
to the Book of Esther,” in Old Testament and Semitic Studies in
Memory of W. R. Harper (1908), il. pp. 1-52. In the revision of
this article I had the valuable help of Professor G. F. Moore: of
Harvard University, one of the editors of the Memorial Volume,
and his suggestions in connection with this preliminary piece of
work have been no small help in the preparation of the commen-
tary. Many of the additions of the Midrashim are similar in
character to those of the Targumim, and it would have been inter-
esting to have included them also in this volume; but, with the
limits of space imposed upon me, this was impossible. I hope
presently to publish them in a volume entitled “The Story of
Esther in the Bible and in Later Tradition,”
PREFACE vii
Where to place the additions of the versions in the commentary
has also been a problem. As textual amplifications, they seem to
belong with the other textual apparatus in the critical notes. As
secondary elements that interrupt the progress of the Hebrew text,
they might conveniently be relegated to footnotes or appendixes;
and, by using small type, much space might be saved for other
matters. Practically, however, these additions are commen-
taries on the Hebrew text, and are interesting and valuable only as
they are read in the same connection in which they were placed by
the ancient versions. Accordingly, I have decided to insert them
in square brackets in my translation of the Hebrew text at the
same points where they are inserted in the originals. Thus they
can be read in the way in which they were meant to be read by
their authors. Let no one suppose that the matter in brackets is
regarded as an integral part of the text. It is only the earliest ex-
tant commentary that I have interwoven with the text in the same
manner as my own annotations. The Hebrew original is dis-
criminated from the amplifications by the fact that its translation
is given in italics. Ordinarily I have inserted the additions with-
out note or comment, since a commentary on them would have
carried the volume beyond the prescribed limits; but whenever
the versions seem to preserve a reading that has been lost by the
Hebrew, I have called attention to this fact.
In spite of the smallness of the Book of Esther its bibliography
is exceedingly copious. Its quasi-legal character gave it a large
place in the discussions of the doctors of the Talmud. It has two
Targums and at least eight Midrashes, and all of these have been
made the basis of numerous super-commentaries and discussions.
More Jewish commentaries have been written upon it than upon
any other book except the Law, and these in their turn have been
explained by later scholars. The problem of its canonicity at-
tracted much attention in the early Christian centuries, and the
additions of the Greek text brought it into the discussion of the
canonicity of the Apocrypha. In modern times its historical diffi-
culties have called forth a host of treatises attacking or defending
its credibility, and within the last few years the ‘‘ Panbabylonisten”
have deluged us with literature endeavouring to prove the Baby-
¥
Vili PREFACE
lonian origin of Purim. My bibliography contains upward of 700
titles of books and articles on Esther. The more important half
of these I have found in the admirable library of Hartford Theolog-
ical Seminary, and my hearty thanks are due to Dr. Charles S.
Thayer, the librarian, and to Mr. M. H. Ananikian, the assistant
librarian, for the great help that they have given me in hunting
out these books and in putting them at my disposal for long periods
of time. ‘The remaining works, with the exception of about fifty,
I have found in the libraries of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Uni-
versities, and of Harvard, Princeton, Union, and the New York
Jewish Theological Seminaries. The rich collection of the Jewish
Theological Seminary in particular contains almost no gaps in the
series of Jewish commentaries. To the librarians of all these insti-
tutions I wish to express my gratitude for the assistance they have
given me and for the books they have so willingly put at my dis-
posal. Asa result of my search I have reached the conclusion
that, with the exception of Mss., all the books that a student of the
Old Testament needs can now be found in American libraries
quite as well as in those of Europe, and that the conditions
attached to their use are much less strict on this side of the Atlantic
than on the other. In subsequent references it will be understood
that I have had personal access to the literature mentioned except
in cases where I indicate the contrary.
LEWIS BAYLES PATON.
HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY:
CONTENTS
PAGE
LGD RIOT NOUNS Salem Smeg mCMNCna ad, ot og colo) τὶ
INGRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF ESTHER. .... I
I. PLACE OF ESTHER IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
IREACHSIN, THE HEBREW BIBLE, ~.. el 6 a. one I
Wee SEBACEPIN THE, GREEK VERSION . - - + - - « « 3
on
"
II. THE TEXT OF ESTHER
a. DESCENDANTS OF THE TIBERIAN MASSORETIC TEXT
§ 3. Mss. witH TIBERIAN VOCALIZATION ..... . 5
See ne PRINTED SES DITIONS το Αὐτὸ
Sms ΗΝ MEASSORA =. 2) WANT BED οὔ a2
§ 6. CITATIONS IN JEWISH Couneenranres ἘΔ has. eee a:
b. OTHER DESCENDANTS OF THE TEXT OF THE SOPHERIM
§ 7. Mss. wirH BABYLONIAN VOCALIZATION . ... - 14
Soe DHE RSYRTAC FeESHITTO =. ἘΠ΄ ΡΥ τὸ
See He FIRS “TARGUM.. 3. 5 τς syeagete. a. 185
Seto DEES SECOND, KARGUM seu) λον O21
Sint. EE, IZATIN’ VERSION OF JEROME.) fee-yes ye 24
Sage SCTCATIONS IN THE TALMUD ἐν 5} πον </j- 28
c. OTHER DESCENDANTS OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT
δ: τ Fre. GREEK VERSION ©. τ se we + «20
Gra DHE UNREVISED GREEK TEXT , . . =. τς τὴς (31
Sane) re RECENSION OF ORIGEN’ <9 = <0. «ls 5 » 544
Biro, » DHE RECENSION OF HESYCHIUS . © ss « « . + 36
Rtv Crk, RECENSIONJOF TUCIAN «ois τ᾿ τ τ ss 37
§18. JoSEPHUS . . . ον ὑπ
§19. THE Op LATIN Veusion peat oe eee oo 8 AO
ὃ 20. ORIGIN OF THE ADDITIONS IN GREEK. . ... . 41
ix
x: CONTENTS
ΠῚ. HIGHER CRITICISM
§ 21. OUTLINE OF THE Book . .
§ 22. IDENTITY OF AHASUERUS . . :
§ 23. PurPoSE OF THE BOOK .. . :
§ 24. INDEPENDENCE OF 92-108 . . .
ὃ 25. WAGE ΘΕ ΤΕ BOOK =) 4 ane ‘
S265, “AUTHORSHIP <4 Ὁ t Wits 9 6 -
δ 2). EUSTOSICAT CHARACTER Ee) aici teers
§ 28. ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF PURIM . -
IV. CANONICITY
§ 29. OMISSION OF THE NAME OF GoD . .
§ 30. Morat TEACHING OF THE BOOK. . .
§ 31. ESTIMATE OF THE CHURCH. ... .
Vv. INTERPRETATION
§ 32. EARLIEST JEWISH EXEGESIS . .: .
§ 33. EARLIEST CHRISTIAN EXEGESIS . .
δ 34. THE TarGuMS AND MIDRASHES . :
δ 35. OTHER MEDIAVAL JEWISH COMMENTARIES
§ 36. ΜΈΡΙΞΝΑΙ, CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION
§ 37. THE REFORMATION PERIOD . . :
§ 38. THE Post-REFORMATION PERIOD. .
§ 39. THE MODERN CRITICAL PERIOD. .
COMMENTARY,” 555 so se be oleate nears
INDEXES sila’! Mier alel νῶν wel ware HOR ROMO ΕΝ:
It ΒΕ, ie Ἐπ ἘΠ arene νΝἙΝ
II. ΝΆΑΜΕΒ ΟΕ AUTHORS AND ΒΟΟΚΒ. . .
TITS; “SUBJECTS: 6.0 ΕΝ ee ETE
LV) BIBLICAL) PASSAGES Sse etcnate πο:
PAGE
47
51
54
57
60
63
64
77
94
96
g6
97
IOI
IOI
104
107
107
IIO
ἘΠῚ
ABBREVIATIONS
J. TEXTS-AND_VERSIONS
NS © = Codex Sinaiticus. » M {Ἐξ Michaelis, 57b. Heb.
A = Codex Alexandrinus. "1 ΞΞΞ Massoretic Hebrew text.
Ald. = The Aldine text of 6. | Mas.= Massora.
AV. = Authorized Version. ἊΣ Ae
| N = Codex Basiliano-Vaticanus.
Β΄ = Codex Vaticanus. N' = Hagiographa, Naples, 1486
Ba. = Baer, Quinque Volumina. | | N* = Bible, Naples, 1491-93.
NT. = New Testament.
Br. = Edition, Brescia, 1492.
|
B! = Bomberg Bible, 6-17.
Baer καὶ See | © = Origenic recension of 6.
|
B? = Bomberg Bible, 1526. O Occdentat
BT. = Babylonian Talmud. P| ἀτρεεν τωι enya
| Or. = Oriéntal' uss:
C = Complutensian Polyglot. OT. = Old Testament.
ὦ = Greek Version, except L. = Qeré, or variants of Ml.
G = Ginsburg, Heb. Bible. ;
e = De Rossi, Var. Lect.
H = Hesychian recension of 6. RV. = Revised Version.
& = Hebrew. consonantal text. ᾿ :
S = Bible, Soncino, 1488.
J = Latin version of Jerome. $ = Syriac version.
Jos. = Josephus; At. xi. $A = Syriac, Codex Ambrosianus.
JT. = Jerusalem Talmud. $% = Syriac, London Polyglot.
$M = Syriac, Mosul edition.
K — Kennicott, Var.. Lect. HU = Syriac, Urumia edition.
L = Lucianic recension of 6. T = First Targum.
G = Old Latin version. ὦ: = Second Targum.
Ge = Latin, Codex Corbeiensis:
GP = Latin, Codex Pechianus. | Vrss.= Ancient versions.
xi
ΧΙ ABBREVIATIONS
CURSIVE MSS.
(ACCORDING TO HOLMES AND PARSONS)
19 = Rome, Chigi R vi. 38.
44. — Zittaus As i
52 = Florence, Laur. Acq. 44.
55 = Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. 1.
64 = Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 2.
68 = Venice, St. Mark’s Gr. 5.
71 = Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. I.
74 = Florence, Laur. Acq. 700 (49).
76 = Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 4.
93 = London, B. M. Reg. i. D. 2.
106 = Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr.
187.
107 = Ferrara, Bibl. Comm. Gr.
188.
108 = Rome, Vat. Gr. 330.
120 = Venice, St. Mark’s Gr. 4.
236 = Rome, Vat. Gr. 331.
243 = Venice, St. Mark’s Gr. 16.
248 = Rome, Vat. Gr. 346.
249 = Rome, Vat. Pius 1.
Il. BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AND APOCRYPHA
Ad. Est. = The Rest of the Book of
Esther.
Am. = Amos.
τ, 2 ΘΝ — am 2 Chronicles.
Ct. = Canticles = The Song of
Songs.
Dn. = Daniel.
Dt. = Deuteronomy.
ἘΠΕῚ = Ecclesiastes.
Ecclus. = Ecclesiasticus.
Est. = Esther.
Ex. = Exodus.
ἘΠ): = Ezekiel.
Ezr. ——hizrale
Gn. = Genesis.
Hb. = Habakkuk.
Hg. = Haggai.
Ho. = Hosea.
Is. = Isaiah.
Jb. = Job.
Je. = Jeremiah.
Jo. = Joel,
Jon. = Jonah.
Jos. = Joshua.
Ju. = Judges.
Jud. = Judith.
1, 2s Ξξι τσ 2 Kangs;
Was = Lamentations.
ove = Leviticus.
Mal. = Malachi.
1, 2 Mac.= 1, 2 Maccabees.
Mi. = Micah.
Na. = Nahum.
Ne. = Nehemiah.
Nu. = Numbers.
Ob. = Obadiah.
1Bie. = Proverbs.
RS: = Psalms. :
Ru. ΞΞΞ Ruth:
1, 285: ᾿ΞΞῚ; 2 ΘΆΠΠΠΟΙ:
Tob. iO te
T&S = Zechariah.
Zp. = Zephaniah.
ABBREVIATIONS
Ill.
Ad. = W. F. Adeney.
AJSL. = American Journal of |
Semitic Languages.
And. == IL, 18 Ατατα:
AZ. = Zeitschrift fiir Agyp-
tologie.
Bar. = RewA. Ho Barrett.
Baud. = W. W. Baudissin.
Bau. ΞΞΞ(ν. 1’ Baer.
Baum. = M. Baumgarten.
BDB. = Brown, Driver, Briggs,
Heb.-Eng. Lexicon.
Bell. = R. Bellarmin.
Bert. = E. Bertheau.
Biss. ΞΞΕΗ (Ὁ Dissell
Bot. Ee OLLGher.
Bon. τΞΞ © bona.
Bux. —t pb uxtort.
BW. = Biblical World.
Caj. ΞΞ ΠΕ: @ajetall
Cal. = A. Calovius.
Calm. = A. Calmet.
Calv. = J. Calvin.
Carp. =— J. α΄ Carpzov.
Cas. =a @Assels
Che. ΞΞ Ὁ Cheyne.
Cler. = J. Clericus.
Corn. = C. H. Cornill.
Crit. Sac. = Critici Sacrt.
Dav. = A. B. Davidson.
Del. = Friedrich Delitzsch.
Diest. = LL. Diestel.
Dill. = A. Dillmann.
Dri. ='S. R, Driver.
Drus. = J. Drusius.
EB. = Encyclopedia Britan-
nica®.
EBi. = Encyclopedia Biblica.
Eich. = J. G. Eichhorn.
Esti. = G. Estius.
|
ΕΣ:
Ἐν.
| Exp.
Frit.
Gem.
Ges.
GGA.
GGN.
Gins.
Grot.
Hav.
ΕΠ ΒΕ
Hen.
Her.
Hew.
HM.
HP.
IE.
IM.
JA.
JAOS.
ΒΕ:
JE.
Jer.
JLB.
Jos.
Apel
JOR.
xii
AUTHORS AND WRITINGS
= Expository Times.
= H. Ewald.
= Expositor.
= O. F. Fritzsche.
= The Gemara.
= W. Gesenius.
== Gottingsche Gelehrte
Anzeigen.
= Gottingsche Gelehrte
Nachrichten.
= C. Ὁ. Ginsburg.
== Η ΠΕ ΘΕ 5:
= H.C. A. Havernick.
= Hastings’ Dictionary
of the Bible.
= M. Henry.
= Herodotus.
= J. Hewlett.
= OT. and Semitic Stud-
ies in Memory of
W. R. Harper.
= Holmes and Parsons.
= Ibn Ezra.
= Ibn Melech.
= Journal Asiatique.
= Journal of the Ameri-
can Oriental Society.
= Journal of Biblical
Literature.
=Jewish Encyclo-
pedia.
= Jerome.
= Jiidisches
blatt.
= Josephus.
= Jahrbiicher fiir pro-
testantische Theolo-
gie.
= Jewish Quarterly Re-
view.
Litieratur-
XIV
jeer.
Kamp.
TIN
Kau.
KB.
Kon.
Kuen.
Lag.
Lap.
Mal.
Mar.
Maur.
May.
Meg.
Men.
Mey.
MGW.
Mich.
Mid.
Mid. A. G
ΠΩ Ih; 1.
Mid. M. Ε.
Mid. P. A.
Vide Se de
Mish.
Miin.
MVG.
Net.
NHWEB:
ABBREVIATIONS
= Junius‘ ἀπά Trémel-” |’ Nold. = T''Néldcke.
lius. Now. = W. Nowack.
= A. Kamphausen. (Oet: = 5. Oetli:
= E. Schrader, Die Keil-. | Ols. = J. Olshausen, Gram-
inschriften und das matik:
Alte Testament. OLZ = Orientalistische Livt-
= E:. Kautzsch. teratur-Zettung.
= Keilinschriftliche Bib-)| Opp. | = J. Oppert.
liathek. Osi = L. .Osiander. .
= E. KGnig, Lehrgeb. ᾿ : Ὲ
= A. Kuenen. ἐπὶ oe :
Par = 1). Pareus.
= P. de Lagarde. Pat ESS . (Patrick
= C. ἃ Lapide. Paul = Paulus Burgensis.
Salers NE Pel = Ὁ. Pellican.
ye) es Ὁ Pirg. R. E:' = Pirge Rabbi Eliezer.
= J. Mariana. 2 Ξ ι
Pisc. = J. Piscator.
ἘΠΕ. 1. Ν. D. Maurer. | pre = Real-Encyclopadie fiir
= J. Mayer. protestantische The-'
= Tractate Megilla in ologie'u. Kirche.
BY. and. JT. PSBA. »» = Proceedings of the So-
τὸ dub Pepnochius. ἃ ciety of Biblical Ar-
= E. Meyer. cheeology.
= Magazin fiir die Ge- |
schichte_u. Wissen,,| RaLBaG = Rabbi Levi ben Ger-
schaft des Juden- | _ shom,
Huth. iL}; Ramb. vos J) J:)Rambach. κι
= 1 Ὁ. Michaelis. RaShBaM =|Rabbi «|Samuel ben)
= Midrash Esther Rabba, grod) Meiry 9 Π|
= Midrash Abba Goryon RaShI = Rabbi Solomon ben)
= Midrash Leqah Tob. Isaac.
= Midrash Megillath Es- | Raw. = G. Rawlinson.,
oe ae REJ. = Revue des Eas Tui-
= Midrash Ponim Aher- “ves.
a Reu. = ἘΠ Reuss.
= Midrash Shoher Τοῦ. Εἰ: ee
= The. Mishna. terbuch. j
= S.,Miinster. Rys. T= V. Ryssel. ;
= ἡ iteilungen der Vor- Sal. Ξ salanne
derasiatischen Ge-
sellschaft. Sane. = Ὁ, Sanctius.
SBL. = Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexi-
= B. Neteler. con.
= Levy, Neuhebr. Wér--| Schr. =I. Schrader.
terbuch. Schii. = E, Schitirer.
abr.
abs.
abstr.
acc.
acc. cog.
acc. pers.
acc. rei
acc. to
act.
adj.
adv.
aft.
ἁ.Χ} ΠῚ
al.
file
alw.
apod.
ABBREVIATIONS
= F. .WoSchultz.
== Smith’s; Dictionary of
the Bible.
:ΞΞ N. Serarius.
C, Siegfried.
Theologische Studien
u. Kritiken.
= F, Spiegel.
= Siegiried-_u. Stade,
Heb. Worterbuch.
= B. Stade, Grammatik.
= ΠΗ. Strack.
= ASW .«Streane.
= V. Strigel-
= Versio Tigurina.
= J. Tirinus.
= Theologische Litera-
turseitung.
= Theologische Studien.
Transactions of the So-
ciety of Biblical Ar-
τ᾿ cheology.
Fheologisch
» Schrift.
Vat.
Vit.
West.
Wild.
| Will.
| Winck.
WZKM.
ZA.
ZATW:
| Za PAVE
Tija- |
xy
= F. Vatable.
= (. Vitringa.
= Westminster Assem-
bly’s Annotations.
= G. Wildeboer.
= H. Willrich.
ΞΞῊ: Winckler.
Wiener Zeitschrift fiir
die. Kunde des Mor-
genlandes.
Yalqut Shim‘ont.
Yosippon.
= Zeitschrift fiir Assy-
riologie-
= Zeitschrift fiir die Alt-
testamentliche Was-
senschaft.
= Zeitschrift des deut-
schen Paldstina Ver-
eins.
IVinsGENERAL, ESPECIALLY GRAMMATICAL
‘abbreviation.
absolute. —
‘abstract.
accusative.
cognate acc.
acc. of person.
acc. of thing.
according to.
active.
adjective.
adverb.
after.
ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, word
or phr.-used once.
et aliter, and elsw.
ad locum.
always.
apodosis.
Ar.
Aram.
art.
As.
caus.
of.
cog.
coll.
comm.
comp.
concr.
con).
cod., codd.=
Arabic.
= Aramaic.
article.
Assyrian.
Babylonian.
Biblical Aramaic.
circa, about.
causative.
codex, codices.
confer, compare.
cognate.
collective.
commentaries.
compare.
concrete.
conjunction.
ΧΥῚ
consec.
contr.
cstr.
d.f.
def.
del.
dittog.
e.£.
elsw.
esp.
empnh.
Eth.
exc.
Gr.
haplog.
Heb.
Hiph.
Hithp.
Fithpalp.
impf.
τῆν.
indef.
inf.
ip.
1.q-
intrans.
juss.
Lat.
Ize
lit.
ABBREVIATIONS
= consecutive. n
= contract, contracted. n. p.
= construct. n. pr. loc
= daghesh forte. ee
: ΝΗ.
= defective. N ipl
= dele, strike out. SUERTE
= dittography. obj.
= exempli. gratia, for in- rae
stance. oe
= elsewhere.
= especially. p-
= emphasis, emphatic. part..
= Ethiopic. pass.
——EXCED ts pf.
Μ ΡΗ.
= feminine. ph.
= feminine plural. phr.
= from. Pi.
= frequentative. pl.
= feminine singular. post-B.
Greek. postex.
pr.
= haplography. pred.
= Hebrew. preéx.
= Hiphil of verb.
1 preg.
= Hithpael of verb. prep.
= Hithpalpel of verb. prob.
= imperfect. pron.
= imperative. pte.
= indefinite. Pu.
= infinitive. a
= in pause. <
= id quod, the same with. | refl.
= intransitive. rel.
= jussive. sf.
= Latin. a
πόνο Sq.
= last citation. ow
= literal, literally. Su
= local, locality. aan
= masculine. S.U.
= masculine plural. syn.
= masculine singular. Syr.
= noun.
= proper name.
. = proper noun of place.
= noun of unity.
= New Hebrew.
= Niphal of verb.
= object.
= omit.
= opposite, as opposed to
or contrasted with.
= person.
= particle.
= passive.
= perfect.
== Pheenician.
= perhaps.
= phrase.
= Piel of verb.
= plural.
= post-Biblical.
= postexilic.
= preceded by.
= predicate.
= preéxilic.
= pregnant.
= preposition.
= probable.
= pronoun.
= participle.
= Pual of verb.
= quod vide.
= reflexive.
= relative.
= suffix.
= singular.
= followed by.
= status, state, stative.
= subject.
= substantive.
= sub voce.
= synonymous.
= Syriac.
ABBREVIATIONS ᾿ XV1l
ie = times(followinganum- | y. = verse.
ber). v. = vide, see.
tr. = transpose. vb. = verb.
trans. = transitive.
V. REMARKS
Biblical passages are cited accord- | proper names refer to editions of
ing to the verses of the Hebrew text. books (Ges.??).
Numerals raised above the line (τ) Proper names usually refer to
after numerals designating chapters | works upon Esther given in the His-
indicate verses (Gn. 6%); (2) after | tory of Interpretation.
-" στο Ὁ) ὃ ον τα
ek Sta ὑΠπυϑι zone gorse ὙΠῸ
= a) sl εἰ νὴνῆ: roel nee
- n δ ᾿ Γ᾿ a to
7 Ἂ
4 7 , _
Pe 4S pe ΝΞ a
‘¥
" aan ny
Lr
bd ᾿ πο ee |
-
"
7 .
ν᾿
A ᾿
ia
ΕΣ ὶ ; 4ἢ, ᾿
\ eae , yay οὶ αι
i ἢ
᾿ ᾿ | es ts 1:0:
᾿ ᾿ ΩΝ ; a. - ΤῊ ᾿ Η i i vee oe
Th
ms ἢ ;
δ
ts ra
la
». ὦ
. δ @ -
δ. τὰν ae Η !
\ ’
INTRODUCTION.
ΞΡ OF ESTHER IN ΤῊ ΘΙ TESTAMENT.
δ I. PLACE IN THE HEBREW BIBLE.
In codices and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible the Book of
Esther is one of the A“thaibhim or ‘Writings’ that constitute the
third division of the OT. canon. The various arrangements of
the books that form this collection are exhibited in the following
tables:
" 2 3 4
Ruth Ruth Ruth Chr.
Psal. Psal. Psal. Ruth
Job Job Job Psal.
Prov. Prov. Prov. Job
Eccl. Song Song Prov.
Song Becl. Eccl. Song
Lam. Lam. Lam. Eccl.
Dan. Dan. Esth. Lam.
Esth Esth. Dan. Esth.
Ezr.-Ne. Ezr.-Ne. Ezr.-Ne. Dan.
Chr. Chr. Chis Ezr.-Ne.
The first of these arrangements is that of the Madrid codex of A.D.
1280, of five codices of the British Museum, namely Harley 1528,
Add. 1525, Or. 2212, Or. 2375, Or. 4227, and of the Babylonian codex
Berlin Or. Qu. 680. This order is the least logical and, therefore, prob-
ably the most primitive. The Babylonian Talmud, our earliest witness
on the subject, declares it to be the correct arrangement (Baba Bathra
14)).
The second arrangement is found in one codex of the British Museum,
Τ
to
ESTHER
Add. 15252. It differs from the first merely in the inversion of the order
of Ec. and Song. Ec. is placed last, possibly, because it is regarded as a
product of Solomon’s old age.
The third arrangement is that of the Paris Codex (A.D. 1286) and
British Museum Or. 2091. It differs from the second in the transposi-
tion of Dan. and Est. This brings together the four little books, Song,
Ec., Lam., Est., and is therefore a step in the direction of the formation
of the sub-collection of the Five M¢ghilléth or “Rolls.”
The fourth arrangement is found in the codex Arundel Orient. 16.
It differs from the third only in the transposition of Ch. from the end
to the beginning of the Hagiographa.
5 6 7 8
Psal. Chr. Chr. Psal.
Job Psal. Psal. Prov.
Prov. Job Prov. Job
Ruth Proy. Job Song
Song Ruth Dan. Ruth
Eccl. Song Ruth Lam.
Lam. Eccl. Song Keel.
Esth. Lam. : Lam. Esth.
Dan. Esth. Becl. Dan.
Ezr.-Ne. Dan. Esth. Ezr.-Ne.
Chr. Ezr.-Ne. Ezr.-Ne. Chr.
The fifth arrangement occurs in the codex British Museum Or. 2201
(A.D. 1246). It is derived from the third by the transposition of Ruth
to a position before Song of Songs. Here for the first time the five little
books, Ru., Song, Ec., Lam., Est., are grouped in the sub-collection
of the Five M¢ghilléth. ‘There is no trace of this grouping in the Talmud
or Midrashim, nor is the name Five M¢ghilléth known. It arose dur-
ing the Middle Ages in consequence of the liturgical use of these books
in the service of the Synagogue.
The sixth arrangement is that of the St. Petersburg Babylonian codex
of A.D. 1207, British Museum codices, Harley 5710-11, Add. 15251,
most Spanish codd., and most codd. with Massoretic apparatus. It
differs from the fifth in the transposition of Ch. from the end of the
Hagiographa to the beginning. The Massoretic treatise ‘Adhath
D*bharim (A.D. 1207) declares this to be the orthodox Palestinian ar-
rangement, and that which places Ch. at the end to be an innovation of
“the men of Shinar” (cf. Strack, ZLT. xxxvi. 1875, p. 605). This is a
mistake. Ch. was not taken into the canon early, because it was not
needed alongside of Samuel and Kings; and when it was added, it was
appended to the end of the collection. The transposition to the begin-
PLACE IN THE GREEK VERSION 2
ning is a late alteration due to the fact that most of the history of Ch.
belongs chronologically before the rest of the K¢thibhim.
The seventh arrangement is that of the codex British Museum Or.
2626-28. It is derived from the sixth by the transposition of Jb. and
Pr., the idea apparently being to place the writings of Solomon imme-
diately after the writings of David.
The eighth arrangement is that of most German and French codd.
and of all the printed editions, except the first three and the Bomberg
quarto editions of 1521 and 1525, where the Five M¢ghilléth follow the
Pentateuch. This order is derived from the fifth by the transposition
of Jb. and Pr., Ru. and Song, Ec. and La. In this way the Five
M°ghilléth come to stand in the order in which they are read on the five
great holy days of the year. Song is read at Passover in the first month,
Ru. at Pentecost in the third month, La. on the anniversary of the de-
struction of the Temple in the fifth month, Ec. at the feast of Tabernacles
in the seventh month, and Est. at the feast of Purim in the twelfth
month. This arrangement is the latest of all, since this liturgical use
of the Rolls did not grow up until the Middle Ages.
In the official synagogue-rolls the Book of Est. is frequently found
immediately after the Law, less often with the other M¢ghilléth, and
rarely with the M¢ghilloth and Haftaréth, or lessons from the Prophets.
This arrangement is due to the desire to have these books in a convenient
form for liturgical use, and is evidently the latest of all the groupings.
The varying arrangements of the Méghilléth in the synagogue-rolls
correspond to the arrangements in the Hagiographa given above.
Orders 5 and 6 are represented by the codd. British Museum, Harley
5773 and Harley 15283. Order 7 is represented by Add. 15282; order 8,
by Add. 9400, Add. 9403, Add. 19776, the printed editions of Soncino
1488, Naples 1491-3, Brescia 1492-4, and the Bomberg quarto editions
of 1521 and 1525. The peculiar order, Est., Song, Ru., La., Ec., found
in Add. 9404, Harley 5706 and Orient. 2786, but not found in any canons
of the Hagiographa, has evidently arisen from the later addition of the
remaining four M¢ghilléth to a roll which originally contained only the
Pentateuch and Esther (see Ginsburg, Introduction, pp. 1-8; Ryle,
Canon, p. 280).
§ 2. PLACE IN THE GREEK VERSION.
In Greek codd. and lists given by the Fathers, the books of the
Hagiographa are scattered in various positions among the Former
and Latter Prophets. Ru. always follows Ju. La. is appended
to Je. and Dn. to the Major Prophets. The five poetical books,
Jb., Ps., Pr., Ec. and Song, in varying orders, usually stand
4 ESTHER
together. The Pentateuch, Prophetical Histories, Ch., Ez. and
Ne. always stand first, except in the eccentric lists of Epiphanius
(Her. i. 1°; De Mens. 4; 1b. 23), which give his own theories rather
than the established order; accordingly, we may dismiss these
books from further consideration. The remaining books of the
OT. are grouped in the following ways:
1 2 3 4
Poetical Poetical Poetical Esther
Minor Pr. Major Pr. Esther Poetical
Major Pr. Minor Pr. Minor Pr. Minor Pr.
Esther Esther Major Pr. Major Pr.
5 6 7 8
Esther Minor Pr. Esther Esther
Poetical Major Pr. Minor Pr. Major Pr.
Major Pr. Esther Major Pr. Minor Pr.
Minor Pr. Poetical Poetical Poetical
The first of these is the order given by Origen (in Eusebius, Hist.
Eccl. vi. 25), Athanasius (Ep. Fest. 39, in Migne, Patr. Grec. xxvi.
1437), the anonymous Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, Epiphanius
(l. c.), John of Damascus (De Fide Orthodox. iv. 17), Ebedjesu (Catal.
Libr. Eccl. in Assemani, Bibl. Orient. iii. 5 f.), the list in the codices
Barocc. 206, Brit. Mus. Add. 17469, Cotisl. 120; Hilary (Proleg. in Libr.
Psalm.), and the list in Codex Claromontanus. This order is most
widely attested, and from it the other orders can be explained most
readily; it is, therefore, probably the original arrangement of the Sep-
tuagint. The position of Est. at the end of the list is due to the fact
that this book was written after the Alexandrian canon was practically
completed, so that it had to be added as an appendix.
The second arrangement is found in Nicephorus (Stichometria) and
Cassiodorus (De Inst. Div. Lit. 14). It differs from the first only in
the inversion of the Minor and the Major Prophets, possibly through
the influence of the Hebrew order.
The third arrangement is that of Codex Vaticanus (B). It is obtained
from the first by placing Est. before the Minor and the Major Prophets.
The aim of this transposition is doubtless to bring the Prophets imme-
diately before the Gospels.
The fourth arrangement is found in Codex Basiliano-Vaticanus (N),
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. iv. 35), a synopsis given by Lagarde (Sep- —
tuagintastudien, ii. 60 f.), Pseudo-Athanasius (Syn. Scr. Sacr. in Migne,
Patr. Grec. xxviii. 283 ff.), the Canons of Laodicea (|x), the A postolic
TIBERIAN MANUSCRIPTS 5
Canons (Ixxxiv), Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. ii. 13), Canons of Car-
thage (xlvii-xxxix). ‘This order differs from the preceding in placing
Est. before the Poetical Books. This has the advantage of bringing
the Prophets immediately before the Gospels and also of associating
Est. with the other historical books.
The fifth arrangement appears in a list discovered by Mommsen (cf.
Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons, ii. 143 f., Sanday, Studia Biblica, iii.
222 f.; Preuschen, Analecta, 138). It is the order followed by Jerome
in the Vulgate, from which it has passed into all the modern versions.
It is derived from 2 by the transposition of Est. to a position after the
Historical Books, and it differs from 4 only in the different order of
the Major and the Minor Prophets.
The sixth arrangement is that of Codex Alexandrinus (A). It is
apparently derived from 1 by the transposition of the Poetical Books
to the end. What considerations led to this change it is impossible
to say.
The seventh arrangement appears in Junilius (De Instit. Reg. Div.
Legis, i. 3 ff.). It is derived from 3 by the transposition of the Poetical
Books to the end of the list.
The eighth arrangement is that of Codex Sinaiticus (ἈΝ), Ruffinus
(Comm. in Symb. 36), Isiodorus (De Ord. Libr. Sac. Scr.), and the Liber
Sacramentorum (Bobbio, 6th or 7th cent.). It differs from 7 only in the
transposition of the Major and the Minor Prophets. None of these
orders of G can claim to be more primitive than the orders in @, all of
which preserve the original threefold canon. The different arrangements
in G have arisen from the effort to group the books either chronologically
or logically, and are all secondary. (See Swete, Introduction, pp. 197 #-)
1 THE TEXT OF ESTHER:
ad. DESCENDANTS OF THE TIBERIAN MASSORETIC TEXT.
§ 3. MANUSCRIPTS WITH TIBERIAN VOCALIZATION.
Manuscripts of the Book of Esther are more numerous than of
any other portion of the Old Testament. It is found in all com-
plete private Bible codices; also appended to the Law in most of
the sacred, or synagogue, rolls, and, together with the other four
M®ghilloth, in numerous liturgical scrolls. So high is the esteem
which this book enjoys among the Jews that every family is anxious
to own it in the manuscript form prescribed by the Talmud for
6 ESTHER
reading at Purim, and this has led to the production of an immense
number of separate Esther rolls that are often masterpieces of the
writer’s and illuminator’s arts, and that are enclosed in gold and
silver cases of exquisite workmanship (see JE. viii. pp. 429 7...
No extant ms. of this book is earlier than the eleventh century of
the Christian era. The oldest is the St. Petersburg Codex B 19 a,
written in A.D. 1009.
Enumerations and descriptions of manuscripts containing Est. are
given by Le Long, Bibl. Sacra (1723); Wolf, Bibl. Hebr. (1721 7.);
Kennicott, Dissertatio (1780; ed. Bruns, 1783); De Rossi, Apparatus
(1716); Manuscripti (1803); Libri Stampati (1812); Assemani, Bzbl.
Vaticanus Catalogus, 1. i. (1756); Uri, Bibl. Bodleiane Catalogus, 1.
(1787); Catalogue des manuscrits hébreux, Paris (1866); Kraft and
Deutsch, Die handschriftlichen hebrdischen Werke . . . 2u Wien (1847);
Steinschneider, Hebr. Handschriften in Berlin (1878, 1897); Hebr.
Handschriften in Miinchen (1895); Harkavy and Strack, Catalog der
Hebr. Bibelhandschriften ... su St. Petersburg (1875); Schiller-
Szinessy, Catalogue of the Hebr. MSS. Cambridge (1876); Neubauer,
Catalogue of the Hebr. MSS. in the Bodleian Library (1886); Deren-
bourg, Catalogue des manuscrits judaiques entres au British Museum
de 1867-1890, Rev. des Etudes J uives, 1891. Ginsburg, Introduction,
1897. For additional catalogues see Strack, Prolegomena Critica,
PPp- 29-33, 119-121; Einleitung in das A. Τ᾽, 5, p. 182.
All these mss. exhibit the Tiberian or infralinear system of vocal-
ization and accentuation that is found in our ordinary printed
editions. This was introduced about 650 A.D. by the Massorites,
or custodians of oral textual tradition, who had their headquarters
at Tiberias in Palestine. Mss. of this recension are practically
identical with one another. ‘They have the same division of words
and sentences. The Massora at the end of Est. says that there
are 167 verses and that the middle verse is σ΄. With this all the
Mss. agree. ‘They agree also in dividing the text into 5 sedharim or
triennial pericopes and into 15 smaller sections. In regard to the
length of the space between the sections, which indicates whether
they are open or closed, there is strict uniformity. In all ss. the
first word of 1° has an abnormally large initial letter. In all the
names of the ten sons of Haman (g7-°) are written in a vertical line
on the right margin of the page, or the column, while the conjunc-
TIBERIAN MANUSCRIPTS 7
tions and demonstrative particles that precede each name form
another line on the left margin. The name of the first son, Par-
shandatha, is uniformly written with ¢h smaller than the other
letters. Parmashta (95) is written with both sh and ¢ small.
Wayzatha (9*) has a large wanda small 5. The first word of 9”
is always written with a large initial ἢ.
The few variants that exist in these mss. have been laboriously
collated by Jedidiah Solomon Norzi in his commentary on the
Bible entitled Gédér Péreg (completed in 1626, first printed in the
Bible of Raphael Hayyim Basila under the title Minhath Shay,
Mantua, 1742-4; again in the Warsaw Rabbinic Bible; separate
edition, Vienna, 1813); also by J. H. Michaelis, Biblia Hebraica,
Halle, 1720; by Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum
varits lectionibus (1776); and by De Rossi, Varig lectiones Veteris
Testamenti (1884-88). The number of variants that these elabo-
rate studies have yielded is surprisingly small. As the result of a
collation of many hundreds of mss., Kennicott and De Rossi to-
gether record only 29 variants in the consonantal text of Est., and
these all of a trivial character. They are as follows:
αἰ, two Mss. omit ‘this is Ahasuerus”’; 211, one MS. reads “in the
court”’ instead of ‘before the court’; several mss. read “to her”’ in-
stead of “of her’; 35, six Mss. after “then was Haman full of wrath”
add “against Mordecai”; 4'*, fifty-seven mss. omit “and” before
“neither eat”; seventy-two mss. add “and” before “1 also”; 417,
one MS. omits “according to”; 54, six MSS. omit “this day”; 5", three
mss. add “all”? before “the princes”; 65, one Ms. reads “ to Haman”
instead of “to him; 6", three mss. after ‘caused him to ride” add “on
a horse’’; 82, four Mss. after “his ring” add “‘from off his hand”’; 85, one
Ms. reads “and Esther said”? instead of ‘‘and she said’’; one hundred
and fifteen mss. add “‘all’’ before ‘the Jews’’; 8°, two mss. have the verb
“shall come” in the feminine instead of the masculine; 8%, seven MSs.
before “δὴ hundred twenty and seven” add “unto”; 8", some Mss.
omit ‘“‘and” before “to slay”; 9%, some MSS. read “no man could stand
unto their faces,” instead of “πο man could stand in their faces’’; 9!?,
fifty-four MSs. omit “‘and” (RV. “‘now”’) before “what is thy petition’?
g', three mss. after “and they hanged Haman’s ten sons” add “upon
the gallows’’; 915, fifteen Mss add “‘all” after “‘in”’; g!8, three Mss. omit
the entire verse; one MS. reads the finite verb instead of the infinitive in
“and made’”’; 92°, two Mss. before “these things” add “all’’; 9”, three
mss. read “in’’ instead of ‘as’; 9%, twenty-nine mss. read the finite
8 ESTHER ἡ
‘
verb instead of the infinitive “undertook”; nineteen Mss. read ‘upon
them” instead of ‘‘unto them”; 92, four Mss. omit ‘“‘all’’ before “the
Jews”’; 9*7, many Mss. read the finite verb instead of the infinitive “took.”
A number of these variants are found also in $, 9, and G. which shows
that they are survivals of ancient textual differences.
Six late codd., namely, Cod. Vat. Urbin. 1, fol. 869; Cod. Am-
brosian. B. 35; Cod. Pii. VI.; Codd. De Rossi 7, 42, 737, append
to the Book of Est. an Aramaic addition containing the dream and
the prayers of Esther and Mordecai. This was published by As-
semani, Bibl. Vaticane Catalogus (1756), pp. 452,f7-; by De Rossi,
Specimen variarum lectionum, sacri textus et Chaldaica Esteris
additamenta cum Latine versione ac notis (1782); also by Jellinek,
Beth ham-Midrash (1873), v. pp. 1-81; Lagarde, Hagiographa
Chaldaice (1873), pp. 362-365; Merx, Chrestomathia Targumica,
pp. 154 ἢ. De Rossi attached great importance to these codd.
as evidence that the additions of the Greek version were derived
from an ancient Aramaic original, but it is now generally believed
that these Aramaic additions are borrowed from the Hebrew trans-
lation of Josephus made by Joseph ben Goryon (Josephus Gorio-
nides, or Yosippon) in the tenth century. They have, therefore,
no text-critical value (see Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrige der
Juden, p. 121; Fritzsche, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch
zu den A pokryphen, i. 70; Dalman, Grammatik des jiidisch-pala-
stinischen Aramdisch, p. 30; Ryssel, Zusdize zum Buche Esther, in
Kautzsch’s Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des A. T., p. τος;
Bissell, The Apocrypha of the O. T., 1880, p. 202; Fuller in Wace’s
Apocrypha, p. 364).
Three ss. contain acrostics of the divine name YHWH, formed
by writing the initial or final letters of consecutive words larger
than the other letters. In 12° these are the initial letters of ‘‘it,
all the wives shall give,” read from left to right. In 5! they are
the initial letters of “‘let the King come and Haman to-day,” read
from right to left. In 5's they are the final letters of “‘this avail-
eth me nothing,” read from left to right; and in 77 they are the final
letters of ‘‘that there was evil determined against him,’ read from
right to left. These are mere rabbinic conceits devised to discover
the name of God in the book. They have no text-critical value.
TIBERIAN MANUSCRIPTS 9
Variants in vocalization and accentuation are more numerous,
but are of the most trivial character and do not affect the sense of a
single passage. They are collected in the text-critical works
named above (except Kennicott and De Rossi), and in the Masso-
retico-critical editions of Baer (1886) and Ginsburg (1894). There
is seldom any doubt as to the correct Massoretic text. The rival
editions of Baer and Ginsburg present only a few trifling differences
of punctuation.
The extraordinary similarity of all the mss. of the Tiberian
family shows that they are descended from a single prototype.
Elias Levita, Massoreth Ham-Massoreth (ed. Ginsburg, p. 114),
quotes a passage from Maimonides to the effect that ‘‘the recension
of our manuscripts is according to the well-known codex in Egypt,
which contains the twenty-four sacred books, which had formerly
been in Jerusalem for many years in order that other codices might
be corrected by it; and that both he and all others followed it be-
cause Ben Asher corrected it and minutely elaborated it for many
years and revised it many times, as it has been transmitted to us.”’
To this Levita appends the remark: ‘‘The Occidentals in every
land follow Ben Asher, but the Orientals follow the recension of
Ben Naphtali.” (Cf. Ginsburg, Introduction, p. 247.) Ben
Asher flourished in the tenth century of our era, and was the last
great representative of the Tiberian school of Massorites. He
prepared a standard codex of the Old Testament in which the
Palestinian or Occidental textual tradition received its final form.
This codex has perished, but direct copies from it are preserved
in the synagogues of Aleppo and Cairo. The statements of
Maimonides and Levita, that all Occidental mMss.—that is, all Mss.
of the common Tiberian type—are descendants of the Codex Ben
Asher, is to be taken with some reserve, since they do not uniformly
exhibit the readings which the official lists ascribe to Ben Asher;
nevertheless, as a rule, they follow this text, and there can be no
doubt that a systematic effort was made by the Occidental Jews
to conform their codices to this standard.
Back of Ben Asher must have stood another standard codex
of the seventh century in which the Tiberian Massorites first em-
bodied their oral tradition as to the correct pronunciation of the
Io ESTHER
Old Testament. The trifling differences from Ben Asher which
Occidental (Tiberian) Mss. contain, are corruptions that came into
the text during the period that intervened between the standard
codex of the seventh century and the Codex Ben Asher of the
tenth century.
§ 4. THE PRINTED EDITIONS.
All printed editions of the Book of Esther are based upon mss.
with the Tiberian system of vocalization. The earlier editions
rest upon a direct collation of Mss. and therefore have text-critical
interest. The first edition of Est. is in the editio princeps of the
Hagiographa, Naples, 1486-87, part iii. The editor was a certain
Samuel of Rome.
The second edition is the editio princeps of the entire Bible,
Soncino, 1488. It bears the name of R. Joshua ben Israel Nathan
of Soncino and of Abraham ben Hayyim de Tintori of Bologna.
It is based upon German and Franco-German codd., and, apart
from errors, contains a number of interesting variants from the
official Massoretic text.
The third edition is the complete Bible, Naples, 1491-93. This
edition is more accurate than either of its predecessors. It seeks
to conform closely to the Massora, and therefore its variants are of
exceptional importance.
The fourth edition is the Pentateuch with the five M°ghilléth and
the Haphtaréth, or lessons from the Prophets, Brescia, 1492. It is
based upon the Soncino edition of 1488, but is carefully corrected
from German and Franco-German codd. The phenomenal let-
ters, 1.6.. those larger or smaller than the ordinary, are ignored in
this edition.
The fifth edition is the Complutensian Polyglot, published under
the patronage of Cardinal Ximenes, at Alcala (Complutum) in
Spain, 1514-17. Est. is the fifth book in the third volume. The
Hebrew text, with vowels, but without accents, occupies the outer
column. The middle column contains the Latin version of
Jerome, and the inner column contains the Greek version. Rever-
ence for the Vulgate has led the editors to arrange the Heb, folios
PRINTED EDITIONS 11
so as to read from left to right, to ignore the Massoretic division
into pericopes and sections, and to adopt the Christian division
of the text into chapters. According. to Ginsburg (/ntroduction,
p. 918), the Hebrew text of the Complutensian Polyglot is based
upon the Spanish ms., Madrid University Library No. 1, with
modifications derived from the Naples edition of 1491-93. The
absence of accents is a serious defect in this edition, and the vowel
points are not accurately printed.
The sixth edition is the Rabbinic Bible, edited by Felix Beatancis
and issued from the Bomberg press in Venice in 1516-17, 4 vols.
fol. The fourth volume contains Est. with the First Targum and
the commentary of RaShI, and in an appendix, the Second Targum
to Est. In this edition the Massoretic divisions of the text are
carefully observed, but the distinction between open and closed
sections is not preserved. The Christian division into chapters is
indicated by Hebrew numeral letters placed in the margin. The
Q*ré, or Massoretic variants, and numerous other variants are also
given in the margin. ‘This edition is based on a new collation,
and therefore is of considerable text-critical importance.
The seventh independent edition is the great Rabbinic Bible,
edited by Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, and published by
Bomberg, Venice, 1524-25, 4 vols. fol. Esther, with the other
M¢ghilléth, is found among the Hagiographa in the fourth volume.
The Hebrew text and Targum occupy the middle of the page, and
on either side are the commentaries of RaShI and Ibn Ezra. The
textual annotations of the Massora Magna occupy the upper and
lower margins, and those of the Massora Parva the space between
the middle columns. ‘This edition is based upon a careful colla-
tion of mss., and presents for the first time an accurate reproduc-
tion of the standard text of the Tiberian school. The peculiarities
of the best codices are faithfully reproduced with the Massoretic
notes which guard them from alteration. ‘The Massoretic sec-
tional divisions are accurately followed, but no distinction is made
between the open and the closed sections. The division into
chapters is not introduced into the text, but in the preface the editor
gives a list of the Christian chapters with their opening words in
Hebrew. So well did Jacob ben Hayyim do his work that this
12 ESTHER
edition has become the fextus receptus of the Hebrew Bible down
to the present day. All later printed editions are based upon this,
either alone, or in combination with the earlier editions. None
of these later editions, accordingly, have independent text-critical
value.
Arias Montanus in his Hebrew Bible with interlinear Latin
translation, Antwerp, Plantin, 1571, one vol. fol., first divided the
Hebrew text into chapters, and inserted the Hebrew numeral
letters in the text. He also added the Arabic verse numbers in
the margin. From this edition and from the polyglots the practice
of inserting chapter and verse numbers spread to all the later edi-
tions. Athias in his standard edition (1659-61) went so far as to
invent enumerations in Massoretic style of the number of chapters
and inserted these among the genuine Massoretic summaries at
the ends of the books. From him these notes have been copied
by Jablonski, Van der Hooght, and all the ordinary editions.
The Massoretico-critical editions of Baer (Quinque Volumina,
Leipzig, 1886), and of Ginsburg (London, 1894), are revisions of
the standard text of Jacob ben Hayyim, 1524-25, designed to con-
form it more closely to the teachings of the Massora. They differ
from Jacob ben Hayyim and from one another only in trivial
matters of accentuation and vocalization, and they represent sub-
stantially the standard codex of Ben Asher of the tenth century.
The edition of Kittel (Leipzig, 1906) reproduces the text of Jacob
ben Hayyim and gives in footnotes the more important variants
of the mss. and versions. No effort is made to emend the text, but
only to give the materials on which an emendation may be based.
§ 5. THE MASSORA.
The Massora, or ‘Tradition,’ is a sort of text-critical com-
mentary written in the margin of most of the codices. It contains
observations and discussions of the Tiberian scribes during the
period from the second to the tenth century of our era. It counts
the number of sections, sentences and words in books. It notes
their middle sentences and middle words. It enumerates passages
in which unusual forms occur. It calls attention to abnormal
THE MASSORA 13
letters, spelling, vocalization, or accentuation, and warns the scribe
against changing these. Words that it regards as incorrect it
marks with a small circle, and inserts in the margin the Q%ré, or
supposedly correct reading, the vowels of which are placed under
the K*thibh, or form in the text. Similar in character are the
S*bhirin, or ‘opinions,’ that suggest an alternate reading to the
one in the text. Variant readings of mss. and of other rabbinical
schools are also recorded. The Massora has been the means by
which the extraordinary uniformity that now exists in the ss. has
been secured, and its authority must be final in deciding between
variant readings of the Tiberian recension.
The Massora is printed in connection with the Bible text, as in the
MSS., in the great Rabbinic Bible of Jacob ben Hayyim (Venice, 1524—
25), and in Buxtorf’s Rabbinic Bible (Basel, 1618-19). There are also
a large number of treatises which contain the Massora classified in
various systematic ways either topical or alphabetic. The most im-
portant of these are the following:—from the tenth century, Aaron ben
Moses ben Asher, Digduge hat-Te‘amim (ed. Baer and Strack, Leipzig,
1879); from an anonymous author of the same century, Okhla we-
Okhla (ed. Frensdorff, Hannover, 1864); Moses the Punctuator, Darke
han-Niqqud wehan-Neginoth (ed. Frensdorff, Hannover, 1847); Jeku-
thiel the Punctuator, ‘En hag-Qore (ed. Heidenheim in Me’or ‘Enayim,
Rédelheim, 1812-21, and in Seder Yeme hap-Purim, Rédelheim, 1826);
Elias Levita, Sefer Massoreth ham-Massoreth, Venice, 1536 (German
transl. with notes by Semler, Halle, 1772; text, English transl. and
notes by Ginsburg, London, 1867); Frensdorff, Die Massora Magna,
Hannover, 1876; Ginsburg, The Massorah compiled from manuscripts,
lexically and alphabetically arranged (London, 1880-85, 3 vols. fol.).
§ 6. CITATIONS IN JEWISH COMMENTARIES.
Besides these distinctively textual Massoretic treatises, there are
numerous midrashim and later Jewish commentaries on the Book
of Esther. All are based on the Tiberian text, and all contain
more or less Massoretic material; they are of some value, therefore,
in determining the true Tiberian readings. Their value is slight,
however, and the additions of the midrashim have no text-critical
importance. It seems better, therefore, to discuss these com-
mentaries under the head of the history of interpretation where they
play a much more important part (see § 34).
14 ᾿ ESTHER
b. OTHER DESCENDANTS OF THE TEXT OF THE SOPHERIM.
§ 7. MSS. WITH BABYLONIAN VOCALIZATION.
Back of the pointed text of the seventh century lies the unpointed
consonantal text that was established in the second century of the
Christian era. The main witness to this is the Palestinian Masso-
retic recension whose various descendants we have just considered.
Besides this there are several other recensions that must be taken
into consideration in the effort to restore the original form of the
consonantal text. Chief among these are mss. with the Baby-
lonian, or supralinear, system of punctuation. While the Pales-
tinian scribes at Tiberias were elaborating and fixing in writing
their tradition concerning the correct pronunciation of the Script-
ures, the Babylonian scribes at Nehardea and Sura were engaged
in the same occupation. ‘Their tradition differed somewhat from
that of the Palestinians, as numerous early statements prove.
The Massora also records instances in which their readings differed
from those of Tiberias (cf. Strack, ZLT. 1875, p. 622 f.). Their
labours culminated in the tenth century in the standard codex of
Ben Naphtali, which, according to the statement of Maimonides
quoted above, was regarded as authoritative by the Babylonian
Jews in the same way in which Ben Asher was regarded as au-
thoritative by the Palestinian Jews. This codex has perished, and
no immediate descendants of it are known; but in the Massora
accompanying a number of Palestinian codices, lists are given of
the differences between Ben Naphtali and Ben Asher. These
differences are extremely trivial, and in only three cases do they
affect the consonantal text of the OT.
In a Ms. of the Pentateuch (Codex De Rossi 12) the statement
is found that the accompanying Targum was copied from a Ms.
brought from Babylonia and ‘“‘pointed above with the .pointing
of Asshur.” In the Mahzor Vitry (Hurwitz, p. 462) a Babylonian
scribe says, ‘‘the Tiberian punctuation is not like ours, neither is it
like that of the land of Israel.” Cemah ben Hayyim Gaon speaks
of differences between the Babylonian punctuation in regard to the
full or defective writing of the vowels, the open and closed sections,
the verse-divisions, and the Massora. Sa‘adia in his commentary
BABYLONIAN MANUSCRIPTS I
on
on the Book Yeg¢ira says that the Tiberians have 42 peculiarities
in their treatment of the gutturals, the Babylonians only 17. A
certain Isaac ben Eleazar, who lived probably in the twelfth or in
the thirteenth century, states that by the Babylonians Waw before
a letter with simple Shewa was pointed just as before other letters,
and not with Shureq, as in the Palestinian system (see Dukes in
the Litteraturblatt zu “ Orient,” 1846, No. 45, p. 708).
This is all that was known about Babylonian mss. until the mid-
dle of the last century, when codices with supralinear punctuation
and other correspondences with the statements just quoted began
to find their way into Europe from the Crimea and from Yemen
in southern Arabia. Since that time a considerable number of
these have been acquired by the Library of the British Museum
and other great libraries of Europe, so that now it is possible to say
something definite about the Babylonian Massoretic recension.
The mss. date from the twelfth to the seventeenth century. They
exhibit three slightly variant systems of punctuation, all of which
differ from the Tiberian system in the signs used for the vowels and
accents and in being mainly supralinear. In spite of these differ-
ences, the Massoretic tradition represented by them is practically
identical with that found in Palestinian Mss. ‘They do not show
the differences between the ‘‘ Westerns” and ‘‘Easterns”’ and be-
tween Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali that the Palestinian Massora
records, nor do they contain the peculiarities ascribed to Baby-
lonian ss. by ancient authorities. It is clear, therefore, that they
date from a time after the decline of the Babylonian schools of
scribes, when the Palestinian text triumphed and an effort was
made to bring even Babylonian codices into conformity. These
codices, accordingly, are of small text-critical value. Only occa-
sionally they have retained by accident a genuine Babylonian
reading.
One codex, however, is known which preserves more accurately
the original Babylonian Massoretic tradition. This is the Berlin
Codex, Or. Qu. 680. It is in an extremely fragmentary condition,
but contains Est. 2'~-5'*. The original punctuation, which was
written in a reddish brown ink, has been erased, and over it has
been written the later supralinear vocalization which corresponds
τὸ ESTHER
to the Palestinian system. Beneath the corrections the original
readings may, however, still be recognized, and they have been
collated and published by P. Kahle, Der massoretische Text des
A. T. nach der Ueberlieferung der babylonischen Juden (1902).
This codex partly confirms the lists of Babylonian variants given
elsewhere, partly corrects them, and partly gives new variants not
otherwise known. It is provided with a Massora that differs
materially from the ordinary Palestinian Massora and corresponds
with other fragments of Babylonian Massora. It is at present our
best available source of information in regard to the Babylonian
Massoretic recension. In the consonantal text of Esther it pre-
sents no variations. In the vocalization and accentuation it con-
tains only unimportant differences that do not affect the sense of a
single passage. ‘This shows that not only the consonantal text
but also its traditional pronunciation was established before the
Babylonian Massoretic school diverged from the Palestinian.
Even if Babylonian mss. were older and more numerous, they
would probably yield no important emendations of the current
Palestinian text.
§ 8. THE PESHITTO, OR SYRIAC VERSION.
Passing now from the Heb. recensions and editions to their near-
est relative among the versions, we come to the Syriac translation.
This was made by various unknown persons, perhaps as early as
the second century of our era, and was the Bible of the Syriac-
speaking Christians. For the Book of Esther five editions of the
text are accessible, that of the London Polyglot (1657), of Lee
(1824), of the American missionaries at Urumia (1852), of the
Codex Ambrosianus (1879-83), and of the Catholic missionaries
at Mosul (1887). The first two contain identical texts and are
referred to by me in the commentary as 9’. The Mosul Bible
($™) is practically a reprint of the Urumia edition (9) witha
few arbitrary alterations. As Rahlfs has shown (ZATW. 1880,
pp. 161 ff.), for most of the books of the OT. the London Polyglot,
Lee, and Codex Ambrosianus form a group representing the West-
Syrian text, while Urumia and Mosul together represent the East-
THE SYRIAC VERSION ἘΠ
Syrian, or Nestorian text. In the Book of Esther, however, the
text of $" scarcely differs at all from that of $Y. This is prob-
ably not due, as Griinthal thinks (Die Syrische Uebersetzung zum
Buche Esther, 1900; cf. Barnes, Apparatus Criticus to Chronicles,
1897, Intr. ὃ 1) to correction of the mss. that underlie the Urumia
edition by the London text, but to the fact that Esther was lacking
from the Nestorian Canon and had to be supplied in later mss.
from West-Syrian prototypes. For this book, accordingly, we
have only West-Syrian readings. In a number of cases $* differs
from $1, usually in the direction of closer conformity to the Masso-
retic text. Cornill (Ezechiel, p. 145 f.) thinks that the text of $4
has been systematically corrected from &, but this is denied by
Rahlfs and Griinthal, who hold that in these cases $* has pre-
served the better readings. Such variations are relatively few,
and in the main the editions of $ present a homogeneous text.
Variations of any importance between the editions are recorded
in the critical notes of this commentary. Further details may be
found in the work of Griinthal cited above.
The Syriac version of Esther is an extremely faithful translation
of the original. Here and there a word is added for the sake of
clearness, but ordinarily & is followed with slavish fidelity. When
possible, the translator even uses the same root that appears in
Heb. Rarely, short additions are found that cannot have arisen
from a mere interpretation of the text. Occasionally, as in 1°,
these additions bear a slight resemblance to the Greek, but usually
they are independent of it, and, whatever may be the case in other
books, in Est. there is not a single clear instance of influence of
$ by G. The parallels adduced by Griinthal, p. 19, are incon-
clusive. Accordingly, when $ agrees with © against 471 in a read-
ing, this fact is of more significance than in other books of the
Peshitto that have clearly been edited to conform to . For this
commentary I have made a newcollation of "and $¥. The read-
ings of $* I have taken from Griinthal, as Ceriani’s reproduction
of the Codex Ambrosianus was temporarily absent from the Library
of Hartford Seminary for use in the preparation of the forthcoming
Hartford Concordance to the Syriac OT. A detailed exhibition
of the departures of the Syriac version from the Massoretic text
2
18 ESTHER
in the Book of Esther may be found in Griinthal, pp. 21-55. The
significant variants will be found at appropriate points in the crit-
ical notes of the commentary. In general, it may be said that 9
represents a consonantal text closely similar to that of the Mas-
soretic recension, but not identical with it. There are a number of
interesting variants that are found also in 6, J, and the Targums.
In some of these cases $ may have preserved a better text than Sil.
The vocalization of proper names shows a different tradition from
that of M4. In other cases there is not much room for difference,
since, in a simple historical narrative like that of Est., only one
reading of the words is usually possible.
§ 9. THE FIRST TARGUM.
Closely akin in many respects to the Peshitto is the so-called
Targum Rishon, or First Targum, a translation of the Book of
Esther into the older Syriac dialect known as Biblical or Pales-
tinian Aramaic. This Targum is found in the Bomberg Rab-
binical Bible of Venice, 1517, in the Basel and London Polyglots,
and in Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, pp. 201-223 (a reprint
of the Bomberg text). Latin translations are found in the London
Polyglot and in F. Tayler, Targum prius et posterius in Esteram
(1655). These editions and the citations of Alkabez in the
Manéth hal-Lévi, a collection of haggadic material (Venice, 1590),
present a number of textual variants, which are gathered by S.
Posner in the treatise entitled Das Targum Rishon zu dem biblischen
Buche Esther (Breslau, 1896), pp. 71 7. No critical edition has
yet appeared, but the text on the whole is sound. In the trans-
lations in this commentary I have followed the London Polyglot.
In its relation to the Heb. original this translation is a curious
compound of fidelity and freedom. On the one hand, it faithfully
reproduces every word of the consonantal text. On the other hand,
it interlards the version with all sorts of new material. Ordinarily,
these additions consist of a few words added to make the sense
clear, and constitute a sort of running grammatical commentary
on the book. They show a fine feeling for the Hebrew idiom and
are exceedingly suggestive to the modern interpreter. Other in-
THE FIRST TARGUM 19
sertions are casuistical interpretations of words and_ phrases,
analogous to the hallachic discussions of the Talmud, by which
far more is deduced from the text than a literal interpretation
would warrant; e.g., in τὶ, from a study of the phrase ‘“‘and it came
to pass,”’ it is inferred that it always introduces a narrative of dis-
aster; and in 1", from the fact that the King commands to bring
Vashti with a crown on her head, it is inferred that she was to wear
nothing but a crown. Besides these there are other long inser-
tions that are pure /aggada, or imaginary spinning out of incidents
to supply gaps in the canonical history.
Thus in 1! there is added an account of Vashti’s descent from Nebu-
chadnezzar; 12, of Ahasuerus’s throne; 13f, of the King’s feast and the
decorations of his garden; 1", of Vashti’s wickedness; 14, of the calling
of the sons of Issachar to judge Vashti; 11°, of the execution of Vashti;
2!, of the execution of the seven viziers; 26£, of Mordecai’s bringing up
of Esther and the meaning of her name; 2%, of the names of Esther’s
handmaidens; 2!°, of the reason why Mordecai commanded Esther to
conceal her lineage; 217, of the King’s removal of the statue of Vashti
from his bedroom; 2?° of Esther’s strict observance of the Law in tne
royal palace; 231, of the reason why the two eunuchs conspired against
Ahasuerus, and of Mordecai’s discovery of the plot because he was able
to speak seventy languages; 3!'f-, of God’s decree concerning Haman;
3, of the reason why Mordecai refused to bow to Haman; 3°, of the
reason why Haman offered to pay 10,000 talents; 4', Elijah the priest’s
message to Mordecai; 45, the identity of Hathakh and Daniel; 4",
Haman’s killing of Hathakh; 51, Esther’s prayer; 5%, the King’s promise
not to rebuild the Temple; 5°, Mordecai’s insult to Haman; 5", the
advice of Zeresh and the friends to Haman; 61, the visit of the angels to
deprive the King of sleep and to make him suspicious of Haman; 7°, the
genealogy of Mordecai; 8:5, Mordecai’s royal attire and triumph; οἱ",
the manner in which Haman and his sons were hanged; 9*’, the reading
of the Roll of Est. at the feast of Purim.
These additions make the Book of Esther fully twice as long in
@: asin #. They are inserted by abruptly breaking off the orig-
inal narrative; and when they are ended, it begins again just where
it was interrupted. It is thus easy to discriminate the amplifica-
tions and, for text-critical purposes, to fix one’s attention upon the
portions that constitute the real version.
In the Antwerp Polyglot (1569) and in the Paris Polyglot (1645)
20 ESTHER
a shorter recension of this Targum is found that omits all the am-
plifications and gives merely a literal Aramaic translation of ΖΗ.
Apart from these omissions the text of this Targum is substantially
the same as that of the London Polyglot. A tendency is noticeable,
however, to substitute Aramaic words for the Heb. words that the
London recension has retained, and to give more accurate trans-
lations of some of the words by the substitution of synonyms.
The Paris Polyglot has taken this text from the Antwerp Polyglot.
Whence the Antwerp Polyglot obtained it is not known. Arias
Montanus, the editor, may have prepared this recension himself
by elimination of those portions of the text that were not found
in Heb., or he may have found this work already done for him
by a predecessor. No ss. or other editions of this short form
are known, and it is certain that it was not the original text of the
First Targum.
The major limit of age for this version is set by the fact that it
makes extensive use of the haggadic material contained in the
Tractate M°ghilla of the Babylonian Talmud. Nearly all the
amplifications noted above are found also in M*ghilla. This will
appear in detail in the translations of the additions in the com-
mentary, so that it is not necessary to dwell upon it here. In Meg.
the amplifications are created by processes of rabbinical exegesis,
in @: they are regarded as settled and are incorporated into the
text; ©, accordingly, must be later than Meg. The Talmud
reached its final form toward the end of the sixth century, so that
©: cannot be dated earlier than the seventh century. Apparently
it is known to the Pirge Rabbi Eliezer of the eighth century (see
§ 34). It shows no knowledge of Yosippon (Joseph b. Goryon’s
Heb. translation of Josephus), which dates from the tenth century;
and, therefore, is presumably earlier. It is mentioned in the
Sepher ha-‘Arukh, a dictionary of the Talmud by -Nathan b.
Jehiel of Rome (11th cent.), and also frequently by Ibn Ezra and
Alkabez. In view of all the facts Posner (p. 51) is probably right
in dating it about 700 A.D. This, however, is only the date of the
final literary fixing of the work. It bears internal evidence of
being composed out of earlier targums, although in lack of quo-
tations by ancient writers the precise limits of these sources cannot
THE FIRST TARGUM 21
be determined. Back of them lay the oral targum οἵ synagogal
tradition. As early as the second century B.c. Hebrew was no
longer understood by the common people in Palestine, and Ara-
maic versions became necessary. At first it was forbidden to
write these, and the translators in the synagogues depended upon
oral tradition. The popularity of Est. and the prescription that it
should be read on the Feast of Purim must early have necessitated
a version similar in character to the First Targum. The addi-
tions in (6, 32, and Jos., and the translations in J, show that the
haggada that underlies this targum was already developed by
the beginning of the Christianera. A targum on Est. is mentioned
in the Mishna, Meg. 11. τ, and repeatedly in the Gemara of the
same tractate. What the relation of this targum to @ is, is not
known. These considerations lead one to believe that the oral
Aramaic translation which underlies our targum, goes back to a
high antiquity, and may preserve a memory of readings that differ
from the official Massoretic text. In several places the consonantal
text which @: preserves is different from that of #, and the vocal-
ization also sometimes represents a different tradition. When
these variants are confirmed by 6, or by some of the other early
versions, they possess some text-critical importance. Instances
of this sort will be noted in the commentary. ‘The additions of
@: have, of course, not the least text-critical value. They are not
found in G or any of the other early versions, although passages
similar to them do occasionally occur which show the beginning
of the haggadic development. These additions belong to the
latest stage of the growth of the targum tradition, and a discussion
of them belongs in the history of interpretation rather than in the
study of the text.
§ Io. THE SECOND TARGUM.
The Book of Esther alone among the books of the OT., except
the Law, has a second independent Aramaic translation, the so-
called Targum Sheni, or Second Targum. This is the favourite
targum among the Jews and is found in all the Rabbinic Bibles,
in Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice (4874), pp. 223-270 (a
22 ESTHER
reprint of the text of the Bomberg Bible of 1517); in Munk, Targum
Schent zum Buche Est., nebst Varie Lectiones nach handschrift-
lichen Quellen erldutert τι. mit einer literarhistorischen Einleitung
versehen (1876); in Cassel, Aus Literatur τι. Geschichte: Anhang,
Zweites Targum zum Buche Est. im vocalisirten Urtext mit sach-
lichen u. sprachlichen Erlauterungen (1885); and in David, Das
Targum Scheni zum Buche Est. nach Handschriften herausgegeben
(1898). The text of David is the best, and I have followed it in
my translations of the targum. A German translation of @? is
given in Cassel, Das Buch Esther (1891).
This targum contains a slavishly literal version of the Heb.
interspersed in the same manner as ©: with all sorts of legendary
haggadic embellishments. When following the Heb. it is more
faithful than δι; when departing from it, it runs to fantastic ex-
cess. A number of its additions are verbally identical with those
in ©, others contain similar legends told in different language,
and still others embody a totally divergent tradition. Some are
similar in substance to the additions of @, but show no trace of
having been derived from it. The majority are found only in this
targum or in later midrashes based upon it. So numerous and
so long are these additions that © is more than twice as large as
@:, and four times as large as the Heb. Est. The principal addi-
tions are as follows:—
1', a list of the kings who have reigned or shall reign over the whole
earth, the accession of Evil-Merodach and Daniel’s dealings with him,
the accession of Ahasuerus and his character, the location of Kush, and
an account of the four kings who have reigned over as wide a territory as
Ahasuerus; 12, a long addition, occupying eleven pages in David’s edition,
containing an acrostic on Solomon, a description of Solomon’s throne, the
visit of the Queen of Sheba, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Baby-
lonian exile; τ΄, the treasures which Ahasuerus showed his guests; 15, a
description of the King’s feast; 17, a description of the drinking at the feast;
18, an account of Vashti’s feast; 11°, the dispute of the King and his princes
concerning beautiful women; 1!!, the command to strip Vashti and bring
her naked; 1!*, Vashti’s answer to the King; 1, an account of the origin of
the seven viziers; 116, an identification of Memukhan with Daniel and
some account of his activity; 1!8, Memukhan’s fear of Vashti’s ven-
geance; 2!, the King’s execution of the seven viziers; 25, the genealogy
of Mordecai; and the reason why David spared the life of his ancestor
THE SECOND TARGUM 23
Shimei; 2°, further items in regard to Mordecai’s travels; 27, explanations
of the meaning of the names Esther and Hadassah; 28, Mordecai’s effort
to keep Esther from the messengers of the King; 29, Esther’s refusal to
eat the King’s food; 217, the King’s effort to ascertain Esther’s origin;
2, the plan of the eunuchs to kill the King; 31, the genealogy of Haman
back to Esau; 3, Mordecai’s sermon to the King’s servants against
idolatry; 37, Haman’s efforts to find a suitable day for killing the Jews;
38, Haman’s argument against the Jews (occupies two pages in David’s
edition); 3°, an explanation of the 10,000 talents that Haman offered; 3",
an apostrophe to Ahasuerus; 515, the King’s edict against the Jews; 4!, the
prayer of Mordecai; 4%, the condition of the Jews after the royal edict
was issued; 411, further messages that passed between Mordecai and
Esther and the killing of Hathakh; 4117, Esther’s command and the cele-
bration of a great fast by the Jews; 5!, Esther’s dressing of herself and
prayer before going to the King; 55, the reasons why Esther invited
Haman to her banquet; 5", the advice of Zeresh and Haman’s friends;
6!, events in Heaven on the night after the issue of Haman’s edict;
610. Haman’s argument with the King against honouring Mordecai;
6", Haman’s carrying out of the King’s command; 6", Zeresh’s exhi-
bition of the futility of trying to strive against the Jews; 7°, the history
of Harbonah, Mordecai’s interview with Haman before hanging him,
and Haman’s apostrophe to the trees; 812, the contents of the dispatch
sent out by Mordecai; οἱ", the manner of the hanging of the sons of Ha-
man; 9”, the reason why Esther left the bodies of Haman and his sons
on the gallows; 10%, the glory of Mordecai.
In regard to the age of this targum opinions differ. Cassel
puts it in the time of Justinian. S. Gelbhaus, Das Targum Schent
zum Buche Esther (1893), on the strength of a citation in the BT.
Tract. Sopherim, assigns it to the beginning of the fourth century;
but this citation is now known to be a gloss. Gelbhaus’ further
argument for its antiquity from coincidences with the language of
the Peshitto will apply equally well to ©. The fact is, that two
Aramaic translators, both endeavouring to give a faithful repro-
duction of the Heb., could not fail to use frequently the same ex-
pressions. Such coincidences prove nothing in regard to age or
interdependence of the versions. A surer indication is found in the
relation of this targum to the First Targum. Many passages are
the same in both, and in all such cases it is more likely that the fuller
work is the later. @:, accordingly, probably borrows from @.
(For evidence of this see Posner, pp. 18 27.) Zunz, Gollesdienst-
24 ESTHER
liche Vortrige, p. 83, and David, in his introduction to the Second
Targum, assign ©? to the seventh century, but this is inconsistent
with its dependence upon @:. Posner finds evidences in it of the
use of Pirge Rabbi Eliezer (see § 34), and therefore dates it about
800 A.D. This is probably correct. It is first mentioned in
RaShI’s commentary on 1 K. ro!
@? bears clear evidence of being a compilation of several earlier
targums. Frequently it contains two versions of the same passage.
Its material is loosely strung together, and fully a fourth of it, par-
ticularly at the beginning, has nothing to do with the story of Es-
ther. Munk, from a study of the quotations of Alkabez, comes
to the conclusion that three earlier targums have been combined
in this work. Back of these sources stood the same oral tradition
that was used in ©:. Differences from the Massoretic text are not
infrequent, and occasionally these may be reminiscences of a variant
consonantal text. Where they agree with readings in the other Vrss.,
they may be text-critically important. Only where @? runs parallel
to the Heb. has it any value for the text, the additions are all late
midrash that never existed in any other language than Aramaic.
§ II. THE LATIN. VERSION OF JEROME.
A much more important witness than the targums for the offi-
cial consonantal text is the Latin version of St. Jerome, made at
Bethlehem between the years 390 and 4o5 A.D. The current Latin
versions of this period were made from the Greek (see § 19) and
were so incorrect that Jerome (Hieronymus) of Pannonia, the lead-
ing scholar of the day, was commissioned by Pope Damasius to
prepare a better version for the use of the Western Church. At
first he attempted a revision of the Old Latin, but soon becoming
convinced that this was impossible, he set about making a com-
plete new translation. In his prologue to the Book of Esther,
which is printed in the Polyglots and in Biblia Sacra Latina V. T.
Hieronymo inter prete, ed. Heyse et Tischendorf (1873), Jerome
speaks thus of this particular portion of his version :—
It is well known that the Book of Esther has been corrupted by the
yarious translators; but I, bringing it forth from the archives of the He-
THE VERSION OF JEROME 25
brews, have translated it more literally word for word. The common
version drags this book to and fro with rough ropes, adding on occa-
sion whatever things can be said and heard; just as in school exercises it
is customary to take a theme and to think out what words one can use
who has suffered an injury, or one who has inflicted an injury. But you,
Paula and Eustochium, since you have desired to enter the libraries of
the Hebrews, and since you are judges of the disputes of interpreters,
take the Book of Esther in Hebrew, and compare our translation of it
word for word, that you may be able to testify that I have added nothing
at all; but simply, as a faithful witness, have rendered the Hebrew history
into the Latin tongue just as it stands in Hebrew. We do not covet the
praises of men, nor are we afraid of their abuse, but as those who seek to
please God we fear not the threats of men, because God will scatter
their bones who seek to please men, as the Apostle says, “‘Those who
are of this sort cannot be servants of Christ.’”? Moreover, at various
points we have placed red letters of the alphabet as far as Teth, in
order by this means to suggest to the studious reader the order of the
Septuagint; for we, alongside of the Hebrew form, have preferred to
indicate the order that is also found in the Septuagint.
After this introduction, we should expect to find in Jerome’s
version of Esther as faithful a reproduction as possible of the Heb.
text as it was known to him in the fourth century. He had a good
knowledge of Hebrew, and was acquainted with the Jewish exe-
getical tradition of his day. He had access also to the Hexapla
of Origen, and he was familiar with all the other early versions.
Variations from the Massoretic text, accordingly, cannot be set
down to ignorance, but indicate different readings in the Ms. or
group of mss. that he used. The Vulgate, therefore, becomes an
important aid in the correction of the Massoretic text.
After Jerome’s solemn protest that he has added nothing to the
Heb. original, it is surprising to find in how many places his trans-
lation contains words and sentences that are not found in #4. The
long additions of G, to be sure, are removed from the body of the
book and placed in an appendix at the end; but other short addi-
tions are scattered quite evenly throughout the entire book.
These additions are as follows:—
τὶ, super; 1°, igitur, grande; 1°, quod regio cultu et manu consitum
erat; 1°, et pendebant ex omne parte tentoria, inserti erant, fulcie-
bantur, quod mira varictate pictura decorebat; 1’, qui invitati erant,
20
EST HER
cibi inferebantur, ponebatur; 18, praponens mensis singulos de; 1°, et
post nimiam potationem incaluisset mero; 1", posito super caput ejus,
cunctis; 12, mandaverat, contempsit; 118, semper, et illorum faciebat,
consilio, majorum; 1", primi et; 1'8, omnes; 119, ultra; 122, ac majores;
23, et adducant eas, et tradant, et cetera ad usus necessaria; 2‘, ut sug-
gesserant; 27, altero nomine vocabatur, nimis; 28, juxta, pulchre; 2°, et
precepit eunucho; 2!°, de hac re omnino; 21, et scire volens; 2!2, verte-
batur, ungerentur; 2!*,ad ornatum pertinens, et ut eis placuerat com-
posite; 215, atque inde, deducebatur; 215, evoluto autem tempore per
ordinem; hec ei ad ornatum dedit erat enim formosa valde et incredibili
pulchritudine, et amabilis; 218, pro conjunctione et nuptiis, universis;
21%, et congregarentur; 2%, janitores erant et in primo palatii limine,
et occidere eum; 2”, qui ad se rem detulerat; 2%, mandatumque est
historiis; 3%, solus; 3%, preter ceteros; 3°, quod cum audisset, experi-
mento; 3°, nationem; 37, in urnam, gens Judzeorum deberet interfici
et exivit mensis; 3%, et czremoniis, et optime nosti; 3!°, quo utebatur;
3", quod tu polliceris; 3, et cunctis Judzis qui in; 4!, spargens, os-
tendens, animi sui; 4, crudele; 4‘, quod audiens; 45, ut iret; 4", pro
signo clementia, igitur quomodo ad regem intrare potero; 4:3, dicens,
tantum; 4", ut in tali tempore parareris; 4, hec, verba; 415, non
vocata; 51, obsecro, ad me; 57, sunt iste; 53, sedentem; 519, ad se; 5",
omnes; ὁ], 5101; 6?, ad illum locum ubi; 63, quod cum audisset; ei, ac;
6’, statim, et juberet; 65, et reputans; 68, imponi super; 6", equo prece-
debat; 6%, quos habebat in consilio; 71, esset tolerabile malum et
gemens; 75, quod, audiens illico, ferre non sustinens; 77, de loco intravit;
78, et intrasset, reperit; 8°, pessimas; 8!, ex more, quo signum clementiz
monstrabatur; 8°, obsecro; 87, jussi, ausus est; 88, heec enim consuetudo
erat; 8°, et librariis, qui, praesidebant; 8'°, per omnes provincias, veteres
litteras novis nuntiis prevenirent; 8", et in unum preciperent congre-
gari, et in universis domibus; 813, et constituta est, ultionis; 8", regis;
8, de palatio, et; 8!7, grandis; οἱ, vocari ante jam diximus, et se, vindi-
care; 92, et loca, et persecutores suos, magnitudinis; 9%, omnisque dignitas
que singulis locis ac; ο΄, et plurimum posse cognoverant, nominis;
95, Agagiteze, quorum ἰδία sunt nomina; 9!°, quos cum; 012, putas, ultra;
915, omnes; 9!7, primus apud omnes interfectionis fuit, esse solemnem
ut in eo omni tempore deinceps vacarent epulis; g!8, urbe, caedem exer-
cuerant, idcirco, solemnem; 92°, omnia, comprehensa; 9?!, solemni,
honore; 9*, in solemnem ritum; 9%, et adversarius, nostra lingua vertitur
in; 9%, Esther, obsecrans ut conatus ejus; 96, phur id est sors in urnam
missa fuerint, id est libri hujus volumine continentur; 938, que his
ceremoniis obligata est; 939, in posterum; 939, et sortium dies.
Some of these additions are nothing more than exegetical ex-
pansions to make the sense clear, such as we find in %, but most of
THE VERSION OF JEROME 27
them cannot have originated in this way. In view of Jerome’s
solemn protest that he has added nothing to the Heb. original, we
must assume that he had before him a text that contained many
readings not found in the Massoretic recension. A large propor-
tion of these occur also in $, (δ, and @, and this fact shows that
they are not inventions of Jerome. Unfortunately we possess no
really critical edition of Jerome’s translation. The text of the
Clementina is notoriously inaccurate, and in many cases of devia-
tion from Ml it is possible that we have to deal only with corrup-
tions derived from the Old Latin or from the glosses of scribes.
In the present state of knowledge of the Vulgate only those variants
can be depended on which are confirmed by $ and 6.
Jerome’s omissions of readings found in our present Massoretic
text are also interesting. Such omissions are found in 1°: ὃ: * 8:
10. 15. 18. 19 3. 6. 8. 9. 12. 12. 14. 15. 16. 18. 21 a6. 8. 15 8. 14 ¢2. 11 2. 5. 6.
᾿ 2 3 4 5 6
Tha tle “Us ὙΠ 18.164 pe δ. ot) 83. Au Oras Oot el Oct Ll alice LS sail 4 Ὁ 5 16 OZ 4. 5. 6.
ll. 12. 15. 16. 18. 19. 20. 24. 25. 27. 28. 30. 31 Τοῦ Jn these cases A some-
times agrees with G, more often with ΤΠ and L. The omissions,
accordingly, cannot be regarded as accidental. In other passages
¥ gives a translation that does not correspond with the readings
now found in the Massoretic text. Instances of this sort are as
follows :—
12, civitas regni ejus exordium fuit; τ΄, ut ostenderet; 15, convivii in-
vitavit, et nemoris; 1°, erii coloris, eburneis, depositi erant; 17, et aliis
atque aliis vasis; 11°, ejus; 1%, ex more regio, ei aderant, leges; 1'%,
exemplo parvipendens imperia maritorum, unde regis justa est indig-
natio; 1%, accipiat; 17, regni sui ut quaeque gens audire et legere
poterat diversis linguis et litteris, viros, domibus, et hoc per cunctos
populos divulgari; 2, qui est praepositus; 2‘, jussit fieri; 2°, eo tempore;
27, fratris; 2°, ornaret atque excoleret; 212, que ad cultum muliebrem
pertinebant, uterentur; 215, transibant; 215, muliebrem cultum, virginum;
33, fores palatii; 4', perseveraret in sententia; 3°, quod esset gentis
Jude; 37, que hebraice dicitur phur, quo die et quo mense; 38, novis
utens; 34, summa autem epistolarum hec fuit, ut omnes provincie
scirent; 4315, flentibus; 4%, oppidis ac locis, pro strato utentibus; 4°,
regine; 4, et cuncta que sub ditione ejus sunt, absque ulla cuncta-
tione statim; 4'?, quod cum audisset Mardochzus; 4, rursum; 4",
rursumque; 415, orate, tradensque me morti et periculo; 5", ille; 5%, con-
tra eam; 5°, regina; 5°, ei postquam vinum biberat abundanter; 5°,
28 ESTHER
palatii; 51, ei; 61, illo; 6%, insidias; 6%, illius; 68, de sella regis est, 6°,
primus; 610-12. palatii; 6, eum; 72, ei, postquam incaluerat; 74, nunc
autem hostis noster est cujus crudelitas; 75, cujus potenti; 77, ar-
boribus consitum; 78, nemoribus consito, ejus; 81, patruus suus; 82,
suam; 8‘, ille, illaque, eum; 8°, in occulis ejus, ei, novis epistolis
veteres, eos; 8°, et interfectionem; 8’, affigi; 88, meo, mittebantur, illius;
8°, erat autem, prout legere poterant et audire; 810, ipseque epistole
que regis nomine mittebantur; 815, omnisque; 8!7, epulz, alterius gentis
et sectaze eorum religioni et caeeremoniis jungerentur, cunctos; οἱ, cunctis
Judzis interfectio, eorum inhiabant sanguini; 9%, nam; ο΄, quotidie et
per cunctorum ora; 9°, magna, quod sibi paraverant facere; 9'?, qui,
exercere cedem; 01", interfectis hostibus ac persecutoribus suis; 913, hi,
in cede versati sunt; οἱ, in oppidis non muratis ac villis; 939, litteris
comprehensa; 9*!, pro festis; 9%, litteris regis irriti fierent; 9?6, id est
sortium; 9*’, sustinuerunt, deinceps immutata sunt; 938, id est sortium
non observentur; 955, etiam secunda epistolam ut omni studio dies ista
solemnis sanciretur; 9*!, sortium, cum gaudio; 9%, et omnia que libri
hujus qui vocatur Esther historia continentur; τοὶ, cunctas.
Some of these divergences can be explained as free paraphrases.
In other cases the translation differs so completely from 4 that
we must assume that Jerome had an independent text, or else that
he vocalized differently. Apart from the passages cited above,
his text is identical with the Massoretic consonantal text, and the
traditional pronunciation which he follows, e.g., in proper names,
is practically the same as that of #1. Jerome does not carry us
back of the codex adopted by the Jewish authorities in the second
century, but for that he is one of the earliest and best witnesses.
§ 12. CITATIONS IN THE TALMUD.
Both the Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmud in the Tractate
M*ghilla contain a sort of running commentary on the Book of
Esther, in which they frequently quote its language and discuss its
meaning. ‘These discussions presuppose in most cases our pres-
ent consonantal text, but the vowel points are not yet known and
the rabbis frequently suggest vocalizations that differ from those
of M. The Talmud, accordingly, has some value as a witness to
the pre-Tiberian text. Long additions to the story similar to
those in © and @ are also found in the Talmuds. These are
CITATIONS IN THE TALMUD 20
translated in the commentary at appropriate points. They rest
upon no textual authority; in fact, in most cases the process is ex-
hibited by which they are elicited from the Heb. by ingenious
methods of exegesis. They show that in the sixth century, when
the Talmudic oral tradition first took literary form, a large part
of the midrashic embellishments of Esther were already known.
These are all the descendants of the text of the Sopherim, since
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, that are so helpful in other
books, do not exist for Esther. By a comparison of the various
forms of the text described thus far, namely, the Tiberian recension,
the Babylonian recension, the Peshitto, First Targum, Second Tar-
gum, Vulgate and Talmud, it is possible to reconstruct with great
certainty the consonantal text from which all are descended. The
extraordinary similarity of the mss. both of the Palestinian and of
the Babylonian type—a similarity which extends even to the repro-
duction of errors and exceptional letters—and the close agreement
of all the Vrss. made since the beginning of the Christian era, prove
the thesis of Lagarde to be correct, that all these recensions are de-
scendants from a single prototype, the so-called text of the Sopherim
(cf. Anmerkungen zur griechischen Uebersetzung der Proverbien,
1863, pp. 1-2). At some time in the second century the exigen-
cies of controversy with Christians, and the desire to have a fixed
basis of discussion between the rabbis, led to the adoption by the
Jewish authorities of an official standard codex of the OT. Since
that time all copies have been made directly or indirectly from this
codex and variant codices have been destroyed. The result is,
that no ancient differences of reading have come down to us in
this family, but only variants that have arisen since the standard
codex was adopted.
Cc. OTHER DESCENDANTS OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT.
§ 13. THE GREEK VERSION.
Besides the text of the Sopherim, our only other witness to the
original text is the Greek translation, the so-called Septuagint.
This version was made before the adoption of the standard codex
of the Sopherim. Its divergences from #4 may represent an earlier
30 ESTHER
form of the Heb. text. Esther is the only book of the Greek ΟἿΣ,
except the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, that has a subscription
containing information about its authorship and date. Accord-
ing to addition F, verse 1 (=Vulg. and Eng. Apoc. Ad. Est. 11°),
“in the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Dosi-
theus, who said that he was a priest and Levite, and Ptolemy his
son, brought the foregoing letter concerning Purim (Phrourai),
which they said was genuine, and that Lysimachus, son of Ptolemy,
one of the people in Jerusalem, had interpreted it.” This can
mean nothing else, than that the Book of Esther in Greek transla-
tion was brought from Jerusalem to Egypt in the fourth year of a
king named Ptolemy, whose consort was Cleopatra. This is a
very uncertain indication of age, inasmuch as four Ptolemies,
namely Ptolemy V (Epiphanes), Ptolemy VI (Philometor),
Ptolemy VII (Physcon), and Ptolemy VIII (Lathuros), were
married to a Cleopatra. Most critics have supposed that Ptol-
emy VI is meant, because he was a friend of the Jews and permitted
them to build a temple at Leontopolis. In that case the date of
the version would be 178 B.c., but, as B. Jacob has shown (“Das
Buch Esther bei den LXX,” ZATW. x. (1890), pp. 241 ff.), the
only Ptolemy who was married to a Cleopatra in the fourth year
of his reign was Ptolemy VIII. The book must then be assigned
to114.B.c. This later date is more likely on account of the failure
of the son of Sirach (c. 170 B.c.) to mention the Book of Esther
(so Nold., Wild., Rys.).
Kuenen (Onderzoek, i. p. 542), and many others following him,
have doubted the genuineness of this subscription, because it rep-
resents the author as a resident of Jerusalem, while the book is
written in the Egyptian dialect of Greek and seems to show
knowledge of Egyptian conditions (so Jacob, /. c. pp. 280 ff.); but,
as Néld. points out (Bi. 1405), the name Lysimachus, son of
Ptolemy, is Egyptian, and the author may well have been an
Egyptian Jew, who, through residence in Jerusalem, became ac-
quainted with Hebrewand was thus well qualified to make just such
aversion as we find in Est. Amore serious objection to the genuine-
ness of the subscription is the fact that it stands at the end of one
of the long additions that seems to come from a different hand
THE UNREVISED GREEK TEXT 31
from that of the original translator. If added by a later glossator,
this subscription may be only an invention designed to commend
Purim to the Egyptian Jews by representing it as endorsed by one
of the priests at Jerusalem. It is possible, however, that the sub-
scription stood originally at the end of the book, and that the in-
serter of Addition F has merely removed it to the end of his ad-
dition. On the whole, there is no sufficient reason for doubting
the genuineness of this testimony concerning the origin of the book.
It dates the version just where for other reasons one would be in-
clined to put it. The Heb. Est. itself is hardly earlier than 150 B.c.
and the Greek text is cited by Josephus c. 90 A.D. These, accord-
ingly, are the major and the minor limits of age. The failure of
Philo to quote Est. (Ryle, Philo and the Holy Scriptures, p. 32)
does not necessarily show that the Greek translation was unknown
to him. He may have regarded it as uncanonical.
ὃ 14. THE UNREVISED GREEK TEXT.
The Greek Book of Esther has come down to us in five main
recensions, and only through a comparison of these can one hope
to restore the primitive form of the text. Most important is the
recension represented by the uncial codices B 8 A N, and by the
cursives 55, 108a, 249 (Holmes and Parsons). B, or Codex
Vaticanus, Rome, Vatican Library, belongs to the middle of the
fourth century. In 1890 it was published in photographic repro-
duction by the Vatican press. Its text is accurately printed by
Swete, The Old Testament in Greek*® (1896). On the whole it
represents the current form of @ in the Christian Church before
the revisions of Origen, Hesychius, and Lucian had been under-
taken. In the book of Esther its text is neutral in relation to these
three recensions. It cannot be supposed that it represents the
κοινὴ ἔκδοσις of the third century, much less the original text of
G, still it probably comes nearer to it than any other extant Ms.
N, or Codex Sinaiticus, also dates from the fourth century.
The forty-three leaves containing Esther and portions of Ch.,
Esd., and Tob. were found by Tischendorf in 1844 among waste
papers at the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, and are now
32 ESTHER
in the Library at Leipzig. ‘They were published in 1846 under
the name Codex Frederico-Augustanus, by which name these frag-
ments are cited by Field and by many German writers. Since
the discovery of the rest of this Ms. (now deposited at St. Peters-
burg), the earlier published portion has commonly been known as
Codex Sinaiticus, and is indicated by the symbol 8 or 5. In Est.
this codex agrees for the most part with B, although occasionally
it shows the influence of Origen’s Hexapla. Its deviations from
B in the Book of Est. are given with extreme care by Lagarde,
Librorum Κ΄. T. canonicorum pars prior Grece (1883), pp. 505 ἢ.»
and by Swete, The OT. in Greek.
A, or Codex Alexandrinus, now in the British Museum, was
written in the fifth century. This was used as the basis of Grabe’s
great edition (1707-20), and was published in facsimile (1881-3) by
the Trustees of the British Museum. Its text is much more in-
fluenced by the Hexapla than that of B and 8, still it is far from
being a mere transcription of Origen’s recension. It has been
revised from the Hexapla, yet it preserves many independent
readings; and, on the whole, is to be regarded as a witness for the
unrevised rather than the Origenic text. Its variants are given
in the editions of Lagarde and Swete cited above.
N, or Codex Basiliano-Vaticanus, in the Vatican Library, dates
from the eighth or the ninth century. Apart from obvious mis-
takes, its text in Est. presents few variations from that of B. The
cursive 55 (=Rome, Vat. Reg. Gr. 1) is also exceedingly near to B.
Its confusions of A and A and of = and E show that it was copied
from an uncial ms. Codex 108 (=Rome, Vat. Gr. 330) exhibits
two recensions of Est.; the first, known as 1o8a, contains a text
similar to that of the uncials; the other, 108), contains the Lucianic
text. Codex 249 (=Rome, Vat. Pius I) belongs in the main to
this family, but it shows many Hexaplaric readings, as is evident
from its frequent agreement with the Hexaplaric Ms. 936. It is
full of arbitrary alterations.
Closely akin to the text of the uncials, but forming a sub-group
distinguished by common characteristics, are the codices 52
(=Florence, Laur. Acq. 44), 64 (=Paris, Nat. Reg. Gr. 2),
243 (=Venice, St. Mark’s, cod. 16), 248 (=Rome, Vat. Gr. 346).
THE UNREVISED GREEK TEXT 33
The Greek text of the Complutensian Polyglot (1514) is an exact
reproduction of 248, agreeing with it even when it differs from all
other codices (cf. 223 51). The Aldine edition (1518-19) also be-
longs to this sub-group, probably through dependence upon 243,
which was accessible to the editor, Andreas Asolanus, in Venice.
In the few instances where these codices agree in differing from B,
they are eclectic from all the other recensions.
The text of the recension of which B is the leading representa-
tive differs from 41 chiefly in its numerous additions, which are
without a parallel in other books of the LXX. There are 107 new
verses not found in the Heb. Jerome in the Vulgate Lat. version
translated the longer additions, but removed them from the body
of the book and placed them at the end because they were not
found in the Heb. This senseless arrangement is perpetuated
in the English AV. and RV. In Swete’s edition they are given
in their proper place and are designated by the letters A, B, etc.
A (=Lat. and Eng. 112-12") precedes 1! and narrates Mordecai’s
dream and the way in which he came to be promoted to honour
at the court of Artaxerxes. B (=13!-7) follows 315 with a letter of
Artaxerxes. C (=13*% 14!) follows 4'7 and contains the prayer
of Mordecai. Ὁ) (=151~") follows C and precedes 5. It contains
the prayer of Esther. E (=16'-*) follows 7 with a letter of
Artaxerxes. Εἰ (=r1ot11°) is an epilogue describing the estab-
lishment of the feast of Purim.
Besides these long additions, which form compact sections at
various points in the book, there are numerous short additions
inserted in the midst of verses. These are eliminated in Jerome’s
translation, and they do not appear in our English Apocrypha.
In the commentary I have translated them in full. They occur
iathestollowine passages !—pls δ᾽ Me, Sy τιν τὴς {7 0... 3, 15. MRL 80-2188
Bt 7...10.,..13 Als δ... ἀν 2. δὺ 0. 19. 18. δῦ Ge 6. 8. 9 6:- 25. 8... Ban Bs, ΤΣ 85. 1.
18. 17 gis. 19. 21. 22. 26 yo? (for details see the commentary). Some
of these are short explanatory glosses analogous to those found in
Sand@:. Others are expansions of the story that have no founda-
tion in the Heb. text.
No less striking than the additions are the omissions of this re-
cension. There is scarcely a verse from which one or more words
3
34 ESTHER
of Ml are not deleted (details may be found in the critical notes of
the commentary). Apart from these additions and subtractions
the text of B follows 4 closely. Ordinarily one can recognize the
Heb. original word for word in the translation, just as in J, 9,
or ©. Only occasionally the Greek fails to correspond with 4.
Sometimes this is due to reading a different Heb. word, at other
times it is nothing but a textual corruption in 6.
§ 15. THE RECENSION OF ORIGEN.
At the beginning of the third century Origen, desiring to perfect
himself in exegesis, took up the study of Hebrew and soon made
himself master of that language. In comparing the standard
Jewish text of his day with the current Greek version, he noticed
wide divergences and was convinced that the Greek text was very
corrupt. In order to call attention to the errors and to aid scholars
in correcting them, he prepared the huge work known as the Hex-
apla, in which in six parallel columns he exhibited the Hebrew,
the Hebrew in transliteration, Aquila, Symmachus, the current
Greek text, and Theodotion. Differences in order from & in
the current text he corrected by transposition, supposed errors
he emended by the substitution of words that represented # more
closely. Omissions he supplied from %, or from one of the literal
versions, and marked these with an asterisk to indicate that they
were found in §, although missing in (δ. Insertions in 6 he
marked with an obelus + to show that they were wanting
in G.
This great work was completed about 240 A.p. and was long
preserved at Caesarea, where it was used by Jerome and many
other scholars. Only fragments of copies of it have come down to
us, and among these are no copies of Esther. ‘The translations of
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion for this book, accordingly,
are unknown to us. Copies of Origen’s revised text in the fifth
column of the Hexapla have, however, survived. Pamphilus and
his friend Eusebius excerpted this from the Hexapla and gave it
wide currency. Codex 93 (=British Museum, Reg. i. D. 2) con-
tains two recensions of Esther; one, 93a, is that of Lucian; the
THE RECENSION OF ORIGEN 3
On
other, 930, has the asterisks, obeli, and other critical signs which
mark it as belonging to Origen. Both texts are given by J. Ussher,
De Greca Septuaginta interpretum versione syntagma cum libri
Esthere editione Origenica et vetere Greca altera (1655, 1695). In
the Hexaplaric text the editor has taken great liberties .n the in-
sertion of the critical signs. The readings of this codex are also
given in Holmes and Parsons. The form in 936 corresponds
closely with Ml, inserting under an asterisk all the passages that are
omitted by G, and obelizing the passages that are added by 6.
In Codex δὲ, a corrector of the seventh century, commonly desig-
nated as «+, appends the following note at the end of the Book
of Esther (Swete, 11. 780) :—
Compared with the exceedingly ancient copy corrected by the hand
of the holy martyr Pamphilus. At the end of the same ancient book,
which begins with First Kings and stops with Esther, there is found in
an open space an autograph subscription of the martyr himself that
reads as follows: Revised and corrected by the Hexapla, that was cor-
rected by Origen himself. Antoninus the confessor compared it.
Pamphilus corrected the copy in prison, through the abundant grace and
bounty of God; and, if it be not presumptuous to say so, it is not easy
to find a copy like this.
From this it appears that this corrector of δὲ made use of Pam-
philus’ copy of Origen’s revised text in the fifth column of the Hex-
apla. His readings agree everywhere with those of 93) and thus
confirm its Hexaplaric character. These readings are given in
Lagarde’s Lib. Vet. Test. Canon. and in Swete. The Hexaplaric
material from 93b and N«-+ is collected by F. Field, Origenis
Hexaplorum que supersunt (1875), i. pp. 793 ff The fame of
Origen, and the authority of the martyr Pamphilus and of the
bishop Eusebius, gave Origen’s revision of the Septuagint great
currency among scholars, although it never supplanted the com-
mon text in the use of the Church. It resulted in a systematic re-
editing of the ancient codices with the consequence that no Mss.
have come down to us that have escaped Hexaplaric influence.
The problem of the restoration of the original text of G is thus
greatly complicated.
30 ESTHER
ὃ 16. THE RECENSION OF HESYCHIUS.
Jerome in his preface to Chronicles and preface to the Gospel
(cof. Adv. Rujfin. ii.) says that Hesychius was the author of a recen-
sion of the Septuagint that enjoyed the same esteem in Egypt that
Origen’s recension enjoyed in Palestine. This Hesychius was
probably a bishop who was martyred in the second half of the
fourth century, and to his martyrdom was due the reputation which
his text obtained. In lack of direct testimony ascribing manu-
scripts to this recension, we are compelled to fall back upon indirect
evidence. It is reasonable to suppose that citations of the OT.
made by the Alexandrian Fathers from the fifth century onward
are based upon it, and that it was also used for the translations of
the Bible into Ethiopic and the various dialects of Coptic. Apply-
ing these tests, a group of codices seems to be identified which
represents in the main the Hesychian recension. For the Book of
Esther these are the codices designated by Holmes and Parsons as
44 (=Zittau, A 1.1 = Lagarde’s z, cf. Gen. Gr. 7 ff.), 68 (=Venice,
St. Mark’s, Gr. 5, of. Scrivener-Miller, i. 219), 71 (=Paris, Nat.
Reg. Gr. 1), 74 (=Florence, Laur. Acq. 700), 76 (=Paris, Nat.
Reg. Gr. 4), 106 (=Ferrara, Bib. Comm. Gr. 187), 107 (= Ferrara,
Bib. Comm. Gr. 188), 120 (=Venice, St. Mark’s, Gr. 4), 236
(=Rome, Vat. Gr. 331). These codices agree with one another
in numerous divergences from B, especially in omitting more
matter that is found in 471, and in making a number of new inser-
tions (details are given in the critical notes of the commentary).
They fall into a number of sub-groups; thus 44, 106, and 107 be-
long together; 74 and 76; and 120, 68, and 236 (see Jacob, ZATW.
1890, pp. 244 ff.). The Coptic versions of Esther, that would
presumably show an underlying Hesychian text, have never been
published, so far as I am aware; and the Ethiopic version, which
might also throw light on the Hesychian recension, exists only in
mss. Dr. Littmann of Strassburg kindly informs me that there
are two Mss. in the d’Abbadie Collection at Paris, one in Oxford,
nine in the British Museum, and two at Frankfurt a. M. that con-
tain the Ethiopic text of Esther. None of these have been acces-
THE RECENSION OF LUCIAN 37
sible to me, so that I have been compelled to ignore their textual
evidence.
§ 17. THE RECENSION OF LUCIAN.
According to the testimony of Jerome (Pref.in Paral.; Ad Sunn.
et Fret. 2) the region from Constantinople to Antioch used a re-
cension of the LXX, prepared by Lucian the martyr of Nicomedia
(c. 311). In the Arabic Syro-Hexaplar, Field noticed that certain
readings were designated as Lucianic, and that these also occurred
in one group of cursive Mss. Readings of these Mss. were also
found in Chrysostom and Theodoret of Antioch, who presumably
used the Antiochan text. This created a strong probability that
the codices in question belonged to the Lucianic recension. Sim-
ilar conclusions were reached independently by Lagarde, and they
have commended themselves to most subsequent scholars. The
codices which Field and Lagarde recognize as Lucianic for the
Book of Esther are Holmes and Parsons 19 (=Rome, Chigi, R vi.
38, which Lagarde designates as 1), 93a (=the first recension in
London, British Museum, Reg. i. D. 2, which Lagarde designates
as m), and 108b (=the second recension in Rome, Vat. Gr. 330,
which Lagarde designates as d). The text of 93a was published
by Ussher in his Syntagma (1655) in connection with the Origenic
text found in the same codex; also by O. F. Fritzsche, ΕΣΘΗΡ:
duplicem libri textum ad optimos codd. (1848), and Libri A pocry phi
V. T. Grece (1871), pp. 30/7, with use of the readings of 19 and
108b as given by Holmes and Parsons. Lagarde in his Lib.
V. T. Can. Grece (1883) attempts a reconstruction of the Lucianic
text of the historical books, and in the case of Est. gives also the
text of the uncials in parallel columns. The Lucianic text here
presented is constructed from a comparison of 19, 93a, and 1080,
and in the critical apparatus all the variants are recorded. For
the Lucianic readings this edition has completely superseded the
clumsy and often inaccurate apparatus in Holmes and Parsons.
Scholtz in his commentary on Est. reproduces the two texts of
Lagarde, and gives also in parallel columns the narrative of Jose-
phus and a German translation of 471.
The text which these three late representatives of the Lucianic
38 ESTHER
family contain differs so widely from the text of the uncials in the
Book of Esther that Ussher, Fritzsche, and Langen (‘‘ Die beiden
griechischen Texte des Buches Esther,” 711. Theol. Quartal-
schrift, 1860, pp. 244 ff.) have been constrained to think that it is
an independent translation from the Heb. A detailed comparison
of the two texts, however, shows far too many correspondences
to make this theory possible. This is a recension, not a version;
nevertheless, it is the most widely variant recension that is found
in the whole Greek OT.
Although L has all the long additions to & that are found in B, it has
scarcely any of the shorter additions. In τ΄- ὁ 23 42. 15 54. 6. 8. 61. 2. 1 1,
and B contain similar brief amplifications, but all the other amplifica-
tions mentioned in §14 are lacking here. On the other hand, L has a
long list of passages that are found neither in 4 nor in B. These are
as follows: 15 6 9 10, 12. 18. 16, 19. 20 21. 4. 7. 8. 9. 18 41. 2. ἃ. 7. 8. 9. 12. 16
4:- 3. 4. 8. 10. 12. 14 π΄. δ; .9, 10. 12, 14 61. ῶ. 4. 8. 1] of 4. 6. 8 9 82. 3. δ. 7. 8. 12
ο΄. 2. Some of these additions are of considerable length, as, for in-
stance, the King’s expression of regret that he has not rewarded Mordecai
63, Haman’s conduct on being told to honour Mordecai 611-12, Esther’s
words to the King 75, the King’s words to Esther 8, Esther’s request of
the King 8’, the contents of Mordecai’s letter 812, These are longer
than the ordinary additions in B, apart from the six long passages, and
resemble rather the amplifications in Josephus and the Targums. L
also differs from B in its omissions. It leaves out not merely occasional
words that seem superfluous in 4, but also whole sentences and groups
of sentences particularly in the latter half of the book, e.g., 112: 33. 26 8- 10-18.
19-23 Bue 5. 12 pal 63 wae 83. 4. 6. 13 9": 11. 15. 17-19. 24. 25. 27. 29-32, Here
whole verses are omitted. There are also numerous cases where half
verses are omitted.
In the passages where L runs parallel to both # and B it fre-
quently presents a different translation from that in B, or a
translation which presupposes a different Heb. text: Here, as
elsewhere in the OT., L has a curious and unexpected value
as a witness to an independent Heb. original. Another pecu-
liarity of L in Esther has often been noted in the other books,
namely, a tendency to give side by side alternate versions of
the same Heb. phrase (cf. Driver, Text of the Book of Samuel,
ΡΝ
JOSEPHUS 39
§ τὸ, JoSEPHUS.
In the eleventh book of his Antiquities of the Jews (c.90 A.D.),
beginning with § 186 (ed. Niese), Josephus tells the story of Esther
on the basis of the Greek version, transcribing at times its language
verbatim. He thus becomes a witness of some importance to the
original text of (6. On the whole, his readings are nearer to those
of the uncials than of any otherrecension. The dream of Mordecai
and its interpretation he omits—apparently it did not stand in the
Ms. that he used—but the rest of the long additions in B he inserts.
Most of the small additions of B are unknown to him, as to L. In
his omissions he also agrees with L rather than B, but he leaves
out more than L, and in this respect resembles the Old Latin.
The most curious feature of his text is the numerous additions both
short and long that it contains and that are not found in other
recensions. Some of these are mere exegetical expansions.
Others have no relation to the Greek text and are clearly derived
from an early form of Jewish midrash. Thus in 205-206 he gives
a long account of the law that the King made to prevent any
members of his family approaching him without summons; in 207,
of the way in which Barnabazos, a slave of one of the eunuchs,
discovered the plot against the King and reported it to Mordecai;
in 269, of how Sabouchadas, a royal eunuch, saw the gallows that
Haman had prepared for Mordecai. Such embellishments can
hardly have been invented by Josephus himself, but must have
been derived from some traditional Jewish source. The short
additions which occur in almost every verse, are too numerous
to give here. They are translated in full in the commentary at
the points where they occur in the text. Some of the additions
Josephus has in common with L, and in other respects he often
agrees with that recension against B. Other cases of the same
sort in books v.—vii. of the Antiquities have been noted by Mez,
Die Bibel des Josephus (1895). In general, Jos. gives such a free
paraphrase of the story that it is difficult to draw certain conclu-
sions from him except in regard to additions, omissions, and proper
names.
40 ESTHER
§ το. THE OLD LATIN VERSION.
The Old Latin version was made from the LXX in the middle
of the second century A.p., and is, therefore, an important wit-
ness to the Greek before it underwent the revisions of Origen,
Hesychius, and Lucian. The Old Latin Book of Esther, accord-
ing to Codex Corbeiensis, is given by P. Sabatier, Bibliorum sacrorum
Latine versiones antique, seu Vetus Italica, i. (1751), pp. 796-825.
For Addition A and chaps. 1-2 he gives also the variants of
Codex Oratorius B vii.; and for the rest of the book, the variants
of Codex Pechianus. S. Berger, ‘“‘Notice sur quelques textes
latins inédites de l’Ancien Testament,” in Notices et extratts des
manuscrits dela Bibl. Nat. et autres bibl. xxxiv. 2 (1895), pp. 145 f7.;
publishes a specimen of an Old Latin text of Esther from ms.
356 at Lyons, that differs considerably from the other published
texts, especially at the beginning and the end. J. M. Tommasi
in his Sac. Bibl. veteres tituli, etc. (1688), found in tom. i. of his
Opera (1747), gives the readings of Codex Vallicellanus (cf. Bian-
chini, Vindicie, pp. ccxciv. ff.). Unpublished mss. of the Old
Latin Esther exist in Codex Complutensis of the Madrid Natl.
Libr., Munich 6225 and 6239, Monte Casino 35, and Milan,
Ambros. E 26 inf. (see the article of Berger cited above, pp. 119 f/-).
& is a slavishly literal version of G, but its translator was not
a very good Greek scholar; and, particularly in the more rhetorical
passages, such as are found in the long additions, he fails to under-
stand the meaning. Usually, it is easy to see what Greek words he
had before him. The Old Latin contains all the long additions
of the various Greek recensions, and has besides a number of inter-
esting additions of its own. ‘Thus after 3" it appends a long prayer
of the Jews (see com. a. /.); 4', Esther’s distress on hearing that
Mordecai is clothed in sackcloth; 4:7, Mordecai’s proclamation
of a fast; 15, the deliverance of Noah, Abraham, Jonah, Hananiah,
Azariah, Mishael, Daniel, Hezekiah, and Anna. These additions
bear internal evidence of being translated from a Greek original;
and in certain cases the mistakes show clearly that they are derived
ultimately from a Heb. or Aram. source (cf. Jacob, ZATW.
THE OLD LATIN VERSION 41
1890, p. 257). The passage about the fast occurs in ἃ very
similar form in @2; and, according to a citation of Alkabez in
his Commentary on Esther (Venice, 1585), it was found in a
certain Targum Rabbathi. These additions must be fragments
of ancient Jewish midrashim that were used to enrich the Greek
codex from which this Latin version was made. They are thus
an important witness to the antiquity of the haggada that has
come down in the two Targums.
In its omissions & rivals L, which is the shortest of the Greek
recensions. The following entire verses are wanting:—A!2-17 73. 4
45-6 55-8 813 gis-19. 24-7. 30-32 τοῖς Besides these there are many
short omissions of words and clauses. In most of these £ agrees
with L. As a rule & reproduces word for word a text similar
to that of the uncials, but in other cases it follows the readings of L.
The Greek ms. from which it was made must have belonged to a
group similar to that which Lucian employed in his revision. The
same phenomenon has been noticed in the Old Latin version of
other books of the OT. Often the reading in & has no counter-
part in any of the Greek recensions; é.g., 34 44: 1: & % 16- 17 59 63 (See
com.). In such cases it is difficult to say whether we have to deal
with a variant in the Greek or with a corruption in the Latin. The
text of Corbeiensis differs so widely from those of Oratorius and
Pechianus that some have supposed that the latter are independent
versions, and have appealed to Jerome’s remark in his preface to
Esther, ‘‘Librum Esther variis translatoribus constat esse vitiatum.”
In this state of the text of ἸΏ it is impossible to draw certain con-
clusions from it in regard to the primitive form of @. Only when
it agrees with one of the Greek recensions does its testimony be-
come of any importance. In several cases &@ has readings that
are nearer to than those of any of the Greek recensions. These
cannot be due to reediting of the Latin from the Hebrew, but must
be survivals of better Greek readings than any found in our present
codices.
§ 20. ORIGIN OF THE ADDITIONS IN GREEK.
The long additions to the Book of Esther described in § 14 are
found, as we have seen, in all the recensions of the Greek and in the
42 ESTHER
Old Latin. This fact naturally raises the questions, whether they
were not a part of the original Septuagint, and whether they did
not stand in the Heb. codex from which this version was made.
The presence of these additions in the LXX and Vulg. early led
the Christian Church io regard them as canonical. They were
sanctioned by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. and by several
later councils, including that of Trent in 1546. In order to justify
these decisions, Roman Catholic writers have been compelled to
hold that the additions are translations from a Heb. or Aram.
original that stood in a larger recension of Esther, or in the sources
from which that book was derived. Many suppose the original
to have been the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media
and Persia mentioned in Est. τοῦ; so in recent times, J. Langen,
“Die beiden griechischen Texte des Buches Esther,’ Theol.
Quartalschrift, 1860, pp. 263 ff.; Die deuterocanonischen Stiicke
im Buche Esther (1862); Kaulen, Einleitung in das A. T.* (1890),
p. 271 f.; and Art. “Esther” in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchen-
Lexicon; Scholz, Kommentar (1892), pp. xxi. ff.; Seisenberger,
Kommentar (1901), p. 1333; Willrich, Judaica (1900), p. 15. On
this theory the Heb. Est. is an abbreviation of a fuller original
which has been preserved by 6.
The chief objections to this view are as follows:—(1) There is
no evidence of the existence of Semitic originals for these passages.
De Rossi (Specimen variorum lectionum, iv. 138-161) noted sev-
eral ss. of Esther in which the dream of Mordecai and the pray-
ers of Mordecai and Esther in Aram. were appended to 31
and regarded these as prototypes of the Greek additions (cf. § 3);
but it is now known that these passages are a verbal translation of
the first three chapters of Esther in Yosippon (roth cent. A.D.).
Josephus knows the additions only in the Gr. text of the vulgar
recension,and makes no use of Semiticsources. The Syr. version
contains only the shorter text of the Heb. recension. Jerome knows
only the present Heb. text, and the Talmud has none of the ad-
ditions of 6. The haggadic amplifications of the two Targums
are all based upon # and show no knowledge of the Gr. ad-
ditions. Yosippon is the first Heb. writer that uses them, and he
has evidently derived them directly from Josephus (cf. § 34).
ADDITIONS IN GREEK 43
Wherever analogues to the additions occur in the targumic or
midrashic literature, the works are late and can be shown to have
borrowed the material either directly or indirectly from 6.
(2) The additions themselves bear no evidence of having been
translated from Heb. or Aram. Certain familiar expressions of
the OT. occur in them, such as a Jew would naturally use, but in
general they are written in a florid style that cannot readily be
translated into Heb. (cf. the attempt of 5. I. Frinkel, Hagio-
grapha posteriora . . . 6 textu Greco in linguam Hebraicam con-
vertit, etc. (1830). The best modern authorities, such as Fritzsche,
Noldeke, Bertheau, Ryssel, Bissell, Schiirer, André, Fuller, and
the Jewish scholar Jellinek in Beth ham-Midrash, v. p. viii, are
agreed that the additions of @ never existed in Heb. or Aram.,
but that they were written for the first time in Greek. This, of
course, does not preclude the idea that they may have been de-
rived from traditional Jewish oral sources.
(3) The interpolations contradict the Heb. text in so many par-
ticulars that it is impossible to regard them as having once formed
an integral part of the Book of Est. For instance, in 215 19 Esther
becomes queen in the seventh year of Ahasuerus, and Mordecai
does not appear at court until after this event, but in ΔΑ." (=11
12!) Mordecai holds already a high position at court in the second
year of Ahasuerus. In 22-2) Mordecai has no access to the King,
and is compelled to make use of the mediation of Esther to convey
the news of his discovery of the plot, but in A‘ (=12?) Mordecai
himself reveals the conspiracy. In 6%-* Mordecai receives no pay
for his service, but in A'® (=12°) he is at once richly rewarded.
In 35 Haman is angry because Mordecai refuses to bow down to
him, but in A‘? (=12°) it is because he denounced the two eunuchs.
In 2-18 Esther’s marriage to the King is narrated with evident
satisfaction, but in C2*-27 (=14'*- 16) she describes her horror at
union with one who is uncircumcised and her abhorrence of the
royal crown. In 5'-8 Esther invites Haman twice to a banquet,
but in C**(=14!”) she declares that she has never eaten at Haman’s
table. In 3! Haman is called an Agagite and his father bears a
Persian name, but in E'°(=16'°) Haman is a Macedonian. In
τιϑ 8* the royal edict is irrevocable, but in E'7 (=16'") the first
44 ESTHER
edict sent out by Haman is revoked. In γ19 Haman is hanged,
but in Εἰ" (=16'*) he is crucified. In 959-32 the Jews alone are to
keep Purim, but in E (+16) the Persians also are to keep the
feast.
(4) The additions do not come from the hand of the original
translator of Est., but are interpolations in G itself. Their style
is freer and more diffuse than that of the other parts of the book,
and their author had a much better command of Greek than the
original translator. Josephus does not know two of the additions,
and the Lucianic recension bears evidence that one at least has
been interpolated in it. After 8 (8% in Lagarde) L inserts:
“And the letter which Mordecai sent out had the following con-
tents: Haman sent you letters to the effect that you should hasten
to destroy quickly for me the treacherous race of the Jews: but I,
Mordecai, declare to you that he who did this has been hanged be-
fore the gates of Susa, and his property has been confiscated because
he wished to slay you.” This short addition was evidently the
original draft of Mordecai’s letter in L; and when some later
editor desired to insert the long letter found in the text of the uncials
he was unable to place it after 812 on account of the presence of
this short letter, and was obliged to insert it after 8’. The different
position of Addition E in L from that in B is witness, accordingly,
that it was not an original part of L.
For these reasons the long additions of the Greek must be re-
garded as late interpolations that never stood in the Book of Esther
or in any of its Heb. or Aram. sources. The main reason for
them was the desire to supply the religious element that is so con-
spicuously absent from the Hebrew edition. Thus Addition A
presents Mordecai to the reader at the outset as an inspired man
who seeks to act in accordance with the will of God. The prayers
of Mordecai and of Esther have the same purpose, and even the
second letter of the King (E) is full of references to God and
praises of the Jewish religion. This Tendenz extends so far that
it causes a mistranslation of Heb. passages. Thus in 5? & says,
‘“‘and she obtained favour in his sight’; but @ says, ‘“‘and God
changed the spirit of the King into mildness’’; in 6: & says, “the
sleep of the King fled’’; but G says, “the Lord drove away sleep
ADDITIONS IN GREEK 4
On
from the King.” The additions also serve the purpose of explain-
ing difficulties in the conduct of Esther and Mordecai. Thus
Mordecai’s refusal to bow to Haman is due only to national pride
in 3'*, but in Cs-7 (=1312-4) Mordecai says, “‘Thou knowest all
things, and thou knowest, Lord, that it was neither in contempt
nor pride, nor for any desire of glory, that I did not bow down to
proud Haman. For I should have been content with good will
for the salvation of Israel to kiss the soles of his feet. But I did
this that I might not prefer the glory of man above the glory of
God; neither will I bow down unto any but to thee, who art my
Lord, neither will I do it in pride.”’ Similarly in 2? Esther is will-
ing to become a concubine of the King, receives the dainties that
are sent her from the royal kitchen (25), goes cheerfully to the
King’s couch (2:5), is present at the King’s feast (215), and carefully
hides her race and her religion (27°), but in C27-29 (=1q!8-18)
Esther prays: “‘Thou hast knowledge of all things; and thou know-
est that I hate the glory of the wicked, and abhor the bed of the un-
circumcised, and of every alien. ‘Thou knowest my necessity;
that I abhor the sign of my high estate, which is upon my head in
the days wherein I shew myself. I abhor it as a menstruous rag,
and I wear it not when I am in private by myself. Thy hand-
maid hath not eaten at Haman’s table, neither have I honoured
the King’s feast, nor drunk the wine of the drink offerings. Neither
had thy handmaid any joy since the day that I was brought thither
to this present, but in thee, O Lord, thou God of Abraham.”
Apart from these religious and apologetic motives, the desire to fill
up gaps in the Heb. story and to give specimens of fine Greek
writing, such as are found in the two letters of Artaxerxes, are suffi-
cient explanation of the invention of the longer Greek additions.
On the apocryphal additions to Est. reference may be made to the
following literature: Fritzsche, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu
den Apokryphen des A. T. (1851-60); Keerl, Die A pokryphen des A. T.,
ein Zeugniss wider dieselben (1852), pp. 78 f-,and Die A pokryphenfrage
auf’s Neue beleuchtet (1855), pp. 160 ff.; Stier, Die Apokr., Vertheidi-
gung ihres althergebrachten Anschlusses an die Bibel (1853), Ρ. 158;
Dijserinck, De A pocriefe Boeken des Ouden Verbonds (1874) (not seen);
Hengstenberg, Fiir Beibehaltung der A pok. (1853); Langen, Die deutero-
canonischen Sticke im Buche Esther (1862); Fiirst, Geschichte der bibli-
46 ESTHER
schen Literatur, ii. (1870), pp. 490 ff; Bissell, The A poc. of the’ ΟἹ T.
(1880); Deane, “Ὑπὸ Septuagint Additions to the Hebrew Text,” Ex-
positor, Sept., 1884; Fuller, The Apoc. in the Speaker’s Commentary,
pp- 361-402 (1888); Reuss, Gesch. der heiligen Schriften A. T., 470;
Zéckler, Die Apok. des A. T. (1891); Scholz, Commentar tiber das Buch
Est. mit seinen Zusdtzen (1892); Ball, The Ecclesiastical or Deutero-
canonical Books of the O. T. (1892); Konig, Einleitung in das A. T. mit
Einschluss der A pok. (1893), p. 481; Pfortner, Die Autoritat der deutero-
canonischen Biicher des A. T. (1893) (not seen); Schiirer, Gesch. des
74. Volkes* (1898), iii. pp. 330 f.; and PRE.’, i. p. 638; Ryssel, Zusdtze
z. B. Est., in Kautzsch, Die A pokryphen u. Pseudepigraphen des A. T.
(1900); André, Les A pocryphes de l Ancien Testament (1903), pp- 195-
208 (the clearest and completest recent introduction to the Apocrypha).
The short additions can make less claim than the long ones to be
derived from a Heb. original. Few of them are found in more
than one of the recensions, and this shows that they are not an
integral part of G itself. They are to be regarded as late glosses
that have crept into the several recensions at a time subsequent to
the insertion of the long additions.
As a result of our comparison of the Greek recensions we reach
the conclusion that 6 has little to offer for the emendation of the
Hebrew text of Esther. None of its additions have critical value,
except the short ones that are found in two or more of the recensions.
When Jahn, Das Buch Esther nach der Septuaginta hergestellt
(1901), attempts to reconstruct the Heb. text on the basis of 6,
this can only be pronounced a most uncritical procedure. NG6l-
deke, EBi. 1406, remarks: ‘“‘The tendency, so common at the
present day, to overestimate the importance of (6 for purposes of
textual criticism is nowhere more to be deprecated than in the
Book of Esther. It may be doubted whether, even in a single
passage of the book, the Greek mss. enable us to emend the Hebrew
text, which, as has been mentioned above, is singularly well pre-
served.” This judgment seems to me to be too sweeping. As
will appear in detail in the commentary, there are several pas-
sages where Τῇ gives no good sense and where 6 seems to have
preserved the true reading. The middle course, followed by
Haupt in his ‘Critical Notes on Esther” in HM. ii. pp. 113-204,
avoiding the extremes both of Jahn and of Noldeke in his treat-
OUTLINE OF THE BOOK 47
ment of (6, seems to me to be the soundest method. It must be
said, however, that, on the whole, the Massoretic text is unusually
correct, and that @ has less to offer here than in the case of most
of the other books of the OT.
In regard to the significance of the omissions in @ it is hard to
form a positive opinion. These are found in all the recensions
with a uniformity that is not true of the additions. This seems to
prove that the original Greek Esther was shorter than the present
Hebrew text, and thus raises the question, which form is the more
primitive? In favour of & being original is the fact that through
the centuries the Book of Esther has constantly been receiving
additions, and it is quite possible that this process went on before
it was admitted to the Canon. In that case the Massoretic text
will have to be regarded as a midrash upon an earlier nucleus
that is common to both § and (6. In favour of the view that &
is original, is the fact that other books of the OT., e.g., 1 5. Jb.
Je., have been cut down in the Greek translation. I find myself
unable to decide this question. Haupt, in the article just cited,
omits many passages from 4 on the strength of G, without formu-
lating any theory of a shorter recension of ἢ. I have recorded all
these omissions in my notes, but in the majority of cases I have not
felt sufficiently sure of them to adopt them as emendations. In
general, #4 unquestionably represents the purest form of the text
that has come down to us, and it must be taken as the basis for all
critical discussion of the book. ‘The only attempts that have been
made to construct a revised text of Est. on the basis of all the evi-
dence are the works of Jahn and of Haupt cited above. The
commentaries contain incidentally many textual emendations.
III. HIGHER CRITICISM.
§ 21. OUTLINE OF THE BOOK.
The book of Esther narrates the way in which Esther, a Jewish
maiden, became queen of Ahasuerus, King of Persia, and saved her
people from the destruction planned against them by Haman, the
King’s favourite; and how, in commemoration of this deliverance,
45 ESTHER
the feast of Purim wasinstituted. It falls into six main divisions:—
(1) The rejection of Vashti (1'-*?); (2) The choice of Esther to
be queen (2:-33); (3) The elevation of Haman and his plot to destroy
the Jews (3'-4"7); (4) The fall of Haman and the deliverance of
the Jews (5'-9!°); (5) The institution of the feast of Purim (990-33);
and (6) An appendix telling something about the subsequent his-
tory of Ahasuerus and Mordecai (10!-).
The contents of the book in more detail are as follows:—Ahas-
uerus (Heb. Ahashwérésh), King of Persia, in the third year of
his reign, assembles all the dignitaries of the empire at Shushan
(Susa) and feasts them for 180 days (1'-*). During the seven days
following he entertains the men of the fortress of Susa in a mag-
nificent manner (5-8). At the same time Vashti the Queen makes
a banquet for the women (5). On the seventh day Ahasuerus
commands Vashti to show herself to the assembled guests; but
this she refuses to do, and the King is very angry (15-:5). There-
upon he takes counsel with his seven ministers of state what to do
to punish this disobedience (131-59). Memukhan suggests that the
example of Vashti will encourage women everywhere to rebel
against their husbands; that, therefore, she ought to be deposed
and a successor chosen; and that news of this decision should be
disseminated in all parts of the empire and wives should be com-
manded to obey their husbands ('*-2°). This advice pleases the
King and he acts accordingly (*!-*).
When his wrath has subsided he misses Vashti, and his cour-
tiers advise him to gather the most beautiful maidens from all the
provinces in order to select from them another queen. This plan
also meets with his approval (2'-4). Among the girls who are
brought to the palace is Esther, an orphan, who has been reared
by her cousin Mordecai, a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin (*-*). She
is favoured by Hegai, the chief eunuch, and keeps it secret that
she is a Jewess, although Mordecai comes every day to inquire
how she is (*-"). The maidens are obliged to submit to a twelve
months’ process of beautification and receive whatever ornaments
they desire before they are brought to the King (*-!*). When
Esther’s turn comes, she asks for nothing, yet Ahasuerus regards
her as the most beautiful of all the women and chooses her in the
OUTLINE OF ‘THE BOOK 40
seventh year of his reign as queen in the place of Vashti, which
event is celebrated with a feast and remission of taxes ('5-18).
Mordecai, whose kinship with Esther still remains secret, soon after
this discovers a plot against the life of the King. This he reports
through the Queen, and the conspirators are hanged, but he is
not rewarded, only the deed is recorded in the royal annals (19-33).
Afterward Ahasuerus makes a certain Haman, the Agagite,
chief over all his nobles and commands every one to do obeisance
to him (3's). This Mordecai refuses to do, and the courtiers
report it to Haman (2-5). In revenge Haman determines to de-
stroy, not merely Mordecai, but the whole race of the Jews, and
casts lots in the 12th year to determine a favourable day, either
for laying the matter before the King, or for the execution of his
plan. The lot falls, according to G L, for the 14th (13th) of Adar,
the 12th month (¢-7). Thereupon Haman goes to the King and
asks that the Jews may be destroyed, offering to pay 10,000
talents of silver into the royal treasury if this be done. The King
grants him free hand, and he issues a decree on the 13th day of
the 1st month, that on the 13th day of the 12th month all the Jews
throughout the empire shall be slain. Couriers are sent out with
a dispatch to this effect, and it is published in Susa (8%). The
Jews are filled with consternation, and Mordecai appears before
the palace-gate clothed in sackcloth and ashes (4'-*). Esther hears
of this and sends other clothes in order that Mordecai may come
into the palace, but he refuses to put them on. She then instructs
Hathakh, one of the eunuchs, to find out what is the matter.
Mordecai tells him, and charges Esther to go to the King and beg
for a reversal of the decree (‘-’). Esther at first objects on the
ground that the death-penalty is visited upon any one who appears
before the King without a summons; but, being urged by Mordecai,
she finally consents to run the risk three days later, asking that in
the meanwhile all the Jews in Susa will fast with her (15.117). On
the third day she appears before the King and is graciously re-
ceived. When he offers to grant any request, she asks only that he
and Haman will come to a banquet that she has prepared (5!-*).
At the banquet the King offers again to grant any request, but
Esther asks only that he and Haman will come to another banquet
4
80 ESTHER
with her on the morrow (5). Haman goes out in high spirits,
but when Mordecai refuses to bow to him, he hastens home and
informs his family and friends that all his honours are worthless
so long as this Jew is alive. They advise him to build a gallows.
50 cubits high, and to ask the King the next day that Mordecai
may be hanged upon it (°-").
The following night the King cannot sleep, and has the annals of
the kingdom read to him. He is thus reminded that nothing has
been done to reward Mordecai (6'-*). At this moment Haman
arrives to beg that Mordecai may be hanged, and is asked, What
shall be done to the man whom the King desires to honour? Sup-
posing himself to be meant, he names a number of royal honours,
and is amazed to be told to confer these upon Mordecai (*-").
This order he carries out and returns in despair to his home.
There his family and his astrologers express their fear that this ill
fortune is the beginning of his downfall (11-3). While they are talk-
ing, eunuchs come to fetch Haman to the banquet with Esther (').
Here the King once more offers to give her anything that she may
ask, and this time she tells him of Haman’s plot and begs for her
own life and the life of her people (7!-*). The King goes out in
wrath, and Haman falls upon Esther’s couch to beg for his life.
When the King returns, he is still more angered by Haman’s
posture, and commands to hang him on the gallows that he has
built for Mordecai (7°). Mordecai is then installed in the place
of Haman (8'-2). Esther goes a second time unsummoned to the
King, and being favourably received, begs for a reversal of Ha-
man’s edict of destruction. Full power is given Mordecai, and,
although he cannot countermand Haman’s orders, since the
laws of the Medes and Persians are unchangeable, yet he directs
that on the day appointed for their destruction the Jews shall every-
where defend themselves and slay their enemies (6-). Mordecai
then goes forth in royal apparel, and the Jews rejoice over their
deliverance (15-17). When the thirteenth of Adar comes, the Jews
assemble in accordance with Mordecai’s directions and no one
dares to oppose them. Helped by the governors of the provinces,
they slay their enemies everywhere, and in Susa they kill 500 men,
among whom are the ten sons of Haman (9!-!°). This the King
IDENTITY OF AHASUERUS 51
reports to Esther and inquires if there is anything more that she
would like to have done. She asks that another day be granted
for slaughtering the Jew’s enemies in Susa, and that the ten sons of
Haman be hanged on the gallows (11-5). In the provinces 75,000
enemies of the Jews are slain on the thirteenth day and the four-
teenth day is celebrated by the Jews as a festival; but in Susa the
slaughter continues on the fourteenth day, and the fifteenth is
kept as a holiday. ‘This is the reason why the country Jews feast
on the fourteenth, rather than the fifteenth of Adar ('*-18).
After this Mordecai sends out letters commanding the Jews in
all the provinces to celebrate both the 14th and 15th of Adar
(20-2). This they undertake to do with repetition of the story
of their deliverance (933-95). Thus the annual feast of Purim is
instituted, and is made binding upon the Jews for all generations
(26-28), Esther and Mordecai then write a second time to confirm
the institution of Purim (?9-*).
The story concludes with mention of a tax imposed by Ahas-
uerus, and of the greatness of Mordecai, for fuller information
in regard to which the reader is referred to the Book of the Chron-
icles of the Kings of Media and Persia (το" -").
§ 22. IDENTITY OF AHASUERUS.
For the interpretation of the book it is important to determine
at the outset who is the king that is called Ahasuerus (’Ahash-
werdsh). On this point until recently opinions have differed
widely. Every king of Media and of Persia, from Cyaxares to
Artaxerxes Ochus, has been selected by some one for identification
with this monarch.
(1) In Est. 2° it is stated that Mordecai was carried captive with
Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, and from
this it has been inferred that the Ahasuerus of our book was one of the
kings of Media contemporary with the period of the Babylonian cap-
tivity. Nickes, De Esthere libro, i. (1856), pp. 43-49, identifies him
with Ahasuerus, the father of Darius the Mede, mentioned in Dn. 9',
whom he regards as the same as Cyaxares, son of Phraortes, the con-
temporary of Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiachin. Similarly Ferrand,
Réflexions sur la religion Chrétienne, i. p. 157; Marsham, Canon Chroni-
52
ΕΘ EVO
cus, p. 609; des Vignoles, Chrow. suc., ii. p. 274; Herbst-Welte, Einl. in das
A. T., ii. (1842), p. 253 f-; Kohlreif, Chronologie liphrat katon (1732),
pp- 19277., identify him either with Cyaxares I, or with a supposed
Cyaxares II, his son. A similar view is held by Erbt (Purim, p. 47).
The objections to this view are, that Darius the Mede in Dn. οἱ is so
uncertain a person historically that no safe conclusions can be based
upon the name of his supposed father, and that Cyaxares reigned
over no such vast territory as is assigned to Ahasuerus in τ᾿. Moreover,
the order of the words “Persia and Media”’ in 1: 19 suggests that in
the time of Ahasuerus Persia, and not Media, held the hegemony.
(2) G. Mercator, Chronol. iii., Demonstr. Chron., p. 185; R. Walther,
Hommilarium sylva, Esther, p. 2; P. Wokenius, Commentatio in librum
Esther (1730); Aster, Dissertatio Philologica de Estere cum Ahasuero
conjugio (1870), decide for Astyages; but this view has nothing in its
favour, and is open to all the objections that apply to the identification
with Cyaxares.
(3) Ezr. 45-7. % names the kings of Persia in the following order:
Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, Darius, from which it has been inferred
that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis,
who reigned between Cyrus and Darius. With this Ahasuerus, or
Cambyses, the Ahasuerus of Est. is identified by Lyr., Vat., Gene-
brard, and Winck. (AOF. ii. 214). It is now generally recognized,
however, that the order of the kings in Ezr. 4 is not chronological.
The Chronicler supposed that the narrative of 47-3 referred to the
stopping of the building of the Temple, whereas really it referred to
the stopping of the building of the wall. As a result, he has placed
Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I between Cyrus and Darius. This passage,
therefore, affords no safe basis for the identification of Ahasuerus with
Cambyses.
(4) RaShlI, IE., Tir., Lap., identify Ahasuerus with Darius Hystaspis.
RaShI remarks, ‘‘ He was the king of Persia who ruled after Cyrus, at the
end of the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity.” In support of
this view is urged its correspondence with the statement about Morde-
cai’s captivity in Est. 2°, the extent of Darius’ empire, and his invasion
of India, as narrated by Megasthenes and Arrian. But the name
Darius was well known to the Hebrews, and there is no reason why the
author of Est. should not have used it if he had meant this king.
(5) The Lucianic recension of (6 ordinarily transliterates the name
of this king by Assueros, but in 92°, codd. 19 and 108) read Xerxes
(93a, Artaxerxes) and in τοῦ all the codd. agree in reading Xerxes.
According to @ he was the son of Darius. Eusebius (Chronicorum
libri duo, ed. Schoene (1875), i. 125; ii. 105) also identifies Ahasue-
rus with Xerxes. This view received a learned and elaborate defence
from J. Scaliger, Thesaurus temporum Eusebii (1606), pp. 101 ff.; and
IDENTITY OF AHASUERUS 53
Opus de emendatione temporum (1629), pp. 587 7. He has been fol-
lowed by Drus., Mal., Jun., in their commentaries, and by Pfeiffer,
Dubia Vexata (1704), pp. 257 ff.; Justi, “Versuch tiber den Koénig
Ahasverus im Buche Esther,” in Eichhorn’s Repertorium, xv. pp.
3-38; Carpzov, Introd. i. (1741), pp. 356 7.; Baumgarten, De fide libri
Esthere (1839), pp. 122 ff.; F. M. Schultz, SK. (1853), pp. 624 ff.
(6) The common recension of & translates "Ahashwérésh by Artax-
erxes, and this has led to the identification of this king with each of the
three monarchs who bore that name. Josephus, Ant. xi. 184 ff., identi-
fies him with Artaxerxes I (Longimanus); so also M7zd., Bel., Caj., Sanc.,
Sal., Bon., Men., Cler., and most Roman Catholic commentators down
to modern times. See also Petavius, Lib. xv. c. 27; Lightfoot, Com-
plete Works (1822), ii. pp. 317 7. In support of this view is urged this
king’s good will toward the Jews, as evidenced by his kindness to Ezra
and Nehemiah. The chief difficulty with this view, as with the follow-
ing identifications, is the impossible age that it gives Mordecai, if he
was carried captive under Jehoiachin, as narrated in Est. 6%. This
difficulty is avoided by the supposition that the statement about the cap-
tivity applies, not to Mordecai himself, but to one of his ancestors; but
this is exegetically impossible (see com. a. /.). “The Jewish Chronicle
Seder ‘Olam, which is older than the Talmud, solves all chronological
difficulties by the curious method of identifying all four kings of Persia
mentioned in the OT., namely, Cyrus, Darius, Ahasuerus, and Artax-
erxes, as titles of one and the same person (see chap. xxx. ed. Joh.
Meyer, 1699).
(7) Jerome in hiscommentary on Ezek. 4; Bede, De vi. mundi etat.,
ad A. M. 3588; Rhabanus Maurus, and a few Catholic commentators
think of Artaxerxes Mnemon.
(8) Serarius, Gordon, Huntley, Capellus (Chronol. S., Tab. xi., ad
A. M. 3743), prefer Artaxerxes III (Ochus). The only reason for this
view is the fact that in the apocryphal addition E™ (=16'!) Haman is
said to have plotted to deliver the kingdom of the Persians to the Mace-
donians, which implies the later days of the Persian empire.
This controversy has been brought to a close by the decipher-
ment of the Persian monuments, in which the name Xerxes appears
in such a form as to leave no doubt that he is the king who is
meant by Ahasuerus. In the Persian column of the trilingual
inscriptions of this king from Persepolis, Elvend, and Van, he is
called Khshayarsha; in the Babylonian equivalent, AKhishi’ar-
shu (see Bezold, Achimenideninschriften (1882), and Spiegel,
Altpers. Keilinschriften (1881).
54 ESTHER
In Babylonian tablets such forms occur as Akhshiyarshu, Akkashi-
arshi, Akkisharshu, Akhshiyawarshu, Akhshuwarshi, and Akhshi-
warshu (see Bezold, in Bz. i. 94). In an Aramaic inscription the
consonants Kh-sh-y-’-r-sh appear. These forms are evidently the ety-
mological equivalents of Heb. ’-ki-sh-w-r-sh, which is the form that
appears in Est. 116 2% 212 810. In τοὶ the form is ’-kh-sh-r-sh. The
traditional pronunciation ’Akhashweérésh is inaccurate, and is probably
due to Jewish effort to give the name a Heb. etymology. The original
pronunciation may have been something like ’Akhashwarsh. Instead
of τὸ the Persian and Bab. forms would lead us to expect y, and this is
found in the Syriac spelling ’-kh-sh-y-r-sh. From this Haupt, HM.
ii. 119, infers that τὸ is a corruption of y in the Heb. spelling; but, in
the light of some of the Babylonian forms cited above, this cannot be
regarded as certain (cf. Strassmaier, Actes VII. Cong. Orient., Sect.
Sém. 18 f., and Bevan, Com. on Daniel, p. 149).
With the identification of Ahasuerus with Xerxes all the state-
ments of the Book of Est. agree. He was a Persian king who
also ruled over Media (τ: 13), his empire extended from India to
Ethiopia and contained 127 satrapies (1! 8° 9°), it also included
the islands of the Mediterranean (10'), his capital was at Susa in
Elam (12, ec.). This is all true of Xerxes, but of no other Persian
monarch. ‘The character of Ahasuerus, as portrayed in the Book
of Est., also agrees well with the account of Xerxes given by
Herodotus and other Greek historians (see § 27). For these
reasons there is general agreement among modern scholars,
Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant, that by Ahasuerus the author
of the Book of Est. means Xerxes.
§ 23. PURPOSE OF THE BOOK.
The purpose of the Book of Esther is to commend the observ-
ance of the feast of Purim by an account of the way in which this
feast originated. The goal is reached in g**-%, where we read:
“And [she] sent letters unto all the Jews, unto 127 provinces,
the kingdom of Xerxes, containing friendly and faithful words,
to establish these days of Purim at their appointed time, as Mor-
decai the Jew had established for them and Esther the Queen,
and as they had established for themselves and for their descend-
ants, the matters of the fastings and of their cry of distress. So the
PURPOSE OF THE BOOK 55
command of Esther established these matters of Purim and it was
committed to writing.” ‘Toward this conclusion the whole nar-
rative of the book tends. Xerxes’ feast serves merely to give an
opportunity for Vashti’s degradation. Vashti is degraded in
order that Esther may be -brought to the throne. Haman’s de-
cree of destruction gives Esther an opportunity to interfere on
behalf of her people. In 37 we are told that the lot which Haman
cast was called pur. For this statement no reason appears, ex-
cept that the author wishes to use this word later as an explana-
tion of the name Purim. After Esther has interceded success-
fully for the Jews and the danger is averted, the author remarks
οἱ τ: “And they rested on its fourteenth day, and made it a day
of banqueting and joy. Therefore the country Jews, that dwell
in hamlets of the rural districts, keep the fourteenth day of the
month of Adar as a joy, and a banquet, and a holiday, and a
sending of dainties to one another.” Immediately after in 9*°
we read: ‘‘And Mordecai wrote the following words, and he sent
letters unto all the Jews that were in all the provinces of King
Xerxes, those near and those far, to establish for them, that they
should continue to keep the fourteenth day of the month of Adar
and its fifteenth day in every single year, like the days on which
the Jews rested from their enemies and the month that was
changed for them from sorrow unto joy and from mourning unto a
holiday, to keep them as days of banqueting, and joy, and of
sending dainties to one another. And the Jews made customary
that which they had begun to do and that which Mordecai had
written unto them.” Again in 9%! we are told: ‘Therefore
they called the days Purim, because of the name of the pur. ‘There-
fore, because of all the words of this message, and because of what
they had seen in this respect, and because of what had come
unto them, the Jews established and made it customary for them-
selves, and for their descendants, and for all who should join
themselves to them, that it might not be repealed, to continue to
keep these two days in accordance with the letter that prescribed
them, and in accordance with the time set for them in every single
year; and that these days might be remembered, and be kept in
every single generation, and every single family, and every single
560 ESTHER
province, and every single city; that these days of Purim might
not be repealed by the Jewish community, and that the memory
of them might not cease among their descendants.”’ Then fol-
lows the concluding enactment of Esther (950-33), as quoted above.
In the light of these facts it is clear that the book has one purpose
from beginning to end, that is, the institution of the feast of Purim.
This is so obvious that it has been recognized by nearly all inter-
preters. As curiosities of exegesis it may be proper to mention a few
divergent views. Advocates of an allegorical interpretation regard this
book either as a prophecy, or as a symbol of sacred mysteries. Among
the Jews this method has found little favour, for Purim is a cherished
institution that has no basis in the Law, and they need to treat Est. as
history in order to find a warrant for its observance. Still, Abraham
Saba of the fifteenth century, in his unpublished commentary, and Moses
Isserles of the sixteenth century, try in all earnest to carry through an
allegorical interpretation. Hugo of St. Victor, in his Appendix ad
Opera Mystica de spirituali Christi convivio in Migne, Pat. Lat. clxxvii.
1185-1191, understands the 180 days’ feast of Ahasuerus as the period
of preparation for the Gospel; and the seven days’ feast that follows as
the New Testament dispensation. Among Roman Catholics this kind
of exegesis has lasted down to our own day. The most elaborate at-
tempt of the sort is that of Didachus Celedeiis, Comm. cum duplici
tractatu de convivio Ahasueri mystico, i.e., de Eucharistia et de Esther
jigurata, i.e., beata Virgine (London, 1646). Even commentators that
follow in the main the historical method are prone to treat Esther as a
type of the Virgin Mary. Scholz’s Commentar iiber das Buch Esther
mit seinen Zusitzen (1892) is a remarkable recent effort to allegorize
the book. On p. xxxvi he says: “‘The Book of Esther is a prophetic
repetition and further development of Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning
Gog. Ahasuerus is humanity that has entered into the Messianic
kingdom, in which the Messianic God lives and works, with which also
he is one, but which is prone to fall, and for the most part does actually
fall more or less frequently.’ (See also δὰ 35, 36.)
Against all such interpretations is the fact, that the book never sug-
gests that it wishes to be taken in any other than a literal sense. It is
a fundamental characteristic of genuine allegory that it is incapable of
a complete literal interpretation, but this is not the case here. Est. is
a plain, straightforward prose narrative, just like all the historical
books of the OT., and it does not contain a single statement that cannot
be understood literally. If the author had meant it to be a prophecy,
he would have used the future tense, as all the prophets do, and would
not have cast his message into a narrative form that was certain to be
INDEPENDENCE OF g®=10? 57
misunderstood by his readers. Moreover, if this were prophecy, analogy
would lead us to expect the use of poetry rather than prose.
J. S. Bloch, Hellenistische Bestandtheile im biblischen Schrifttum
(1877), advocates the extraordinary hypothesis that Est. was written
during the Maccabeean period, and that its aim was “‘to justify the party
that was friendly to the Greeks.”” This view emphasizes the absence
of the name of God and of all distinctly Jewish religious colouring,
also Esther’s and Mordecai’s friendly relations to Xerxes; but these
features throw no real light upon the purpose of the book. It is hard to
see how an author who was favourable to Greek heathenism could have
represented Mordecai as refusing to bow down to Haman 3?, or how he
could have related with such evident satisfaction the slaughter of the
heathen in chapter 9.
ὃ 24. INDEPENDENCE OF 905-τοῦ.
In regard to the unity of the larger part of the Book of Esther
no doubt can be felt. The outline of contents given in § 21 shows
that there is a systematic and harmonious development of thought
at least as far as 919, and the discussion of purpose in § 23 shows
that one aim dominates the entire book. Only in regard to the
section 9?"-10 can doubt be felt whether it comes from the same
hand as the rest of the narrative. J. D. Michaelis, Deutsche
Uebersetzung des A. T. mit Anmerkungen fiir Ungelehrte, xiii.
(1783), first noticed the peculiarities of this section, and concluded
that they indicated that it was derived from an independent
source. He has been followed by Bertheau in his commentary
(1862) as far as 935-33 is concerned, by Ryssel in the second edition
of the same work (1887), by Kamphausen in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk
(1868), and by Wildeboer, Kommentar (1898). In support of
this view the following facts may be noted:—
(1) In τοῦ the author refers to the Book of the Chronicles of
the Kings of Media and Persia for additional information in re-
gard to the matters that he has just been narrating. This sug-
gests that he has derived his material from the work that he cites.
In 9* it is stated that ‘‘the commandment of Esther established
these matters of Purim and it was committed to writing” (RV.
‘“‘written in the book’’). Here Pisc., Jun., Grot., Raw., see an-
other reference to the Chronicle, but this is doubtful; the expression
58 ESTHER
probably alludes only to the letter of Esther mentioned in 97
(see com. a./.). This Chronicle of the Kings of Media and Persia
was not the royal diary mentioned in 2% 61, but was probably
some Jewish compilation of the traditional history of the Medo-
Persian kings, like the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of
Judah and Israel that is so often cited by the Chronicler (see
com. on τοῦ). From it the author of Est. must have extracted
some of the material that precedes τοῦ, unless this reference be
regarded as an invention designed to give additional authority
to his book.
(2) 9*-5 contains an account of Haman’s conspiracy that is
a duplicate to chapters 3-7. Details vary in these two narratives
in the manner that is usual in parallel accounts of the same
events.
(3) In a number of particulars 92103 contradicts the earlier
part of the book to such a degree as to indicate that it comes from
a different hand. According to 915, the Jews of the author’s
region kept partly the fourteenth and partly the fifteenth of Adar
in memory of their escape, but in g'-?* Mordecai commands, and
the Jews agree, to keep both the fourteenth and the fifteenth of
the month. The editor treats Mordecai’s command as though it
were only a modification of the observance of the Jews at the time
of the first celebration of the feast, but οἱ indicates clearly that its
author regarded this observance as an established practice. The
two accounts show apparently the customs of the Jews in different
regions. In 9%! Haman acts without the King’s knowledge in
planning the destruction of the Jews (cf. 9%, ‘‘When it came
before the King’’); but in 38-1! the King knows the plan from the
beginning and aids Haman in carrying it out. In 9* no refer-
ence is made to the part that Esther played in averting the disaster.
The opening words of this verse cannot be translated, ‘“‘when
she came before the King,”’ but mean only, ‘‘when 7 came before
the King”; in chapter 7, on the contrary, the whole credit of the
deliverance belongs to Esther. In 9%, when the King learns of
Haman’s plot, he says, “‘ Let his wicked plan, which he has devised
against the Jews, return upon his own head.” In 7**- a different
account is given of the transaction and of the reason for the King’s.
INDEPENDENCE OF 9*%=10? 59
sentence. In 9% Haman and his sons are apparently hanged at
the same time. In γι" 91: Haman is executed first, and his sons
are not hanged beside him until after the massacre of the 13th
of Adar. In 9” the sending of gifts to the poor is prescribed as
part of the observance of Purim, and in 95: fasting and crying
accompany the feast; but in 9'7-! these customs are not men-
tioned as part of the initial observance.
(4) The language of this section exhibits many points of simi-
larity with that of the body of the book, as one would expect even
in independent documents that belong to the same age and the
same school of thought; on the other hand, a number of the most
characteristic phrases of the body of the book are wanting here,
and expressions are found here that do not occur in the body of
the book. On the whole, the linguistic evidence is favourable
to the literary independence of this section.
The following words and phrases are common to both parts of the
book: 738 P72. 39: 18 g!2- 4 and oft.; Sax 4? 97; τὸ 379!7 al.; 38 78 9% al.;
ΠΟ x4 63 τοῦ; Saya 37 9%; ON Niph. g}- 2; »Ὲ 618. g27- 28. 81 τοῦς 55m
Hiph. 613 973; awn 83 gf; aw oY 81:1 019. 32. 3n> 119 g20. 29. #24 73f,;
an2 1% 927+ 6t.; 5 with inf. introducing a command 1 9! and oft.;
BRD ΤΙ 220 ΟΥΣ᾽ ΠΣ 19. τ 050: 58. 20 and oft.; Navn 88: ὅ 9%; 1272 oft. in both;
nop oft. in both; ma>p in both; mp 2° g!% % mvp gi% 2; anvp
τῇ 9% and oft.; ΠῚ) 915- 17-2; yp ΡΠ 37 g%; vipa ‘self? 413 g%; ἼΡΌ oft. in
both; 73y 119 g?7- 285 Ἢ» 315 g?8 and oft.; oy 15 τοῦ and oft., py 278 o%
and oft.; ney 9”. 23 011. 185 ΟἿΣ 43 31; Gk; 410 8ι 910. 3; Yap 4! 92-27; ANT
935 and oft.; εν 9% and oft.; 25 51} τοῦ; » g® and oft.; Ὁ) 1o! and oft.;
an’ 9” and oft.
The following common expressions of the body of the book are omitted
in 92103: — IAN 217 510. 14 G13; ΠΝ 38. 18 411 79 B12; Gane 1 413 9"; 713
919. 15. 16; 1772 218 811, M72 1? and oft. to 012; Avp2 7 times in 1'-g!*; NF 109 t.
in body; 297 τὸ t.; ΠῸΠ 6 t.; 0 6 t.; yen 7 ἴ.; MIA WN 3 t.; TNS t.;
wan 3 t.; onn 3 ἐν; nyaw 6 t.; WON 7. 15) AY 3! 8M; Wart; yy 7 t;
2M 5 ἵν; Ὁ) 6 ἔν; 553 t.3 ΝΕ Ὁ t5-1P)g ἵ.; 30 4 Ἐν; πρὸ 6 ἐι; 1 5 t;
ΓΙ 3 t.; Nop 4 ἔν; ΝΕ 8 £.; ὈΥΡῸ 3 t.; ὭΣ Hiph. 14 t.; yas 8 t.5 728)
Qal 7 t.3 1M) 26 t.5 DD 6 t.; WD 3 t.; DID 12 t.; Tp 6 Ἐν 12,
mm 3t.; MW 8 {.; papot; ΝᾺ τα {.; 2. γ 1.0; 5 4 ἴ.; 3904 ΓΝ 3 t.;
ww 13 t.; NONY 6 t.; τοῦ 5 t.; ν᾽ ot.
The following expressions are found only in οὐ --τοῦ τ Ν 9”;
N7aN οὐδ. 28; nN, of a fellow-Jew, τοῦ; ON rol; MPN O%; VT οὐδ; WIT τοῦ;
60 ESTHER
Onn 94; ΒΡ 938; 12? g??- 31; pay 9”; D2 by 9"; ay Niph. 92"; Ν Ἢ aD
ὩΣ ΕΘ. τ. (TEED Flot (aN ἀρ EP EMO OPE, een Oe:
AyD 928; op (plural) 926: 28. 29. 81. 3, oO Pz. ‘made obligatory,’
g?7- 31. 32; Dh g? τοῦ, The use of the perfect with simple Waw, instead
of the imperfect with Waw consec., is also peculiar to this part of the
book (cf. 9%).
In view of these facts it is difficult to think that 92°-10*comes from
the same hand as the rest of the book. It is equally difficult to
vegard it as an interpolation. The purpose of the author is evi-
dently to lead up to the establishment of Purim, as recorded in this
section. If these verses be omitted, no adequate account of the
origin of the feast is given, and the book is left without a head.
The theory that best explains the facts, probably, is that the sec-
tion 92-10! is quoted by the author of Est. from the Chronicle
mentioned in τοῦ, from which also he has derived the ideas that
he has worked up in an independent fashion in the rest of the book.
Erbt’s analysis of Est. into a Mordecai story and an Esther
story (Purimsage, pp. 19 sq.) is so obviously the product of his
theory in regard to the origin of Purim that it demands no de-
tailed consideration at this point (see pp. 78-81).
§ 25. AGE OF THE BOOK.
In regard to the age of Est. many opinions have been held.
Josephus identifies Ahasuerus with Artaxerxes I, and assigns the
book to the reign of that king. Augustine supposes that Ezra
was the author; the Talmud (Baba Bathra, 15a), the men of the
Great Synagogue. Clement of Alexandria conjectures on the
basis of 92°-*? that Mordecai was the author, and this view has been
followed by many of the ancient Jewish and Christian scholars.
R. Azariah de Rossi, in his Heb. Intr. to the OT., suggests that
it was written by Jehoiakim b. Joshua. Conservative critics of
the last generation assigned it to the reign of that particular king
of Media or Persia with whom they happened to identify Ahas-
uerus. Modern critics are unanimous in believing that the book
is a product of the Greek period. The only dispute is, whether
it belongs to the earlier or the later part of that period. Most
AGE OF THE BOOK Ol
recent writers incline to the view that it dates from a time after
the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the deliverance by
Judas Maccabzeus in 165 B.c.
For the solution of the problem the book contains the follow-
ing data:—
(1) It makes no claim of age or authorship for itself. The
statement of 935, ‘‘ Mordecai wrote these things,” does not refer to
the foregoing narrative, but to the letter that follows. The
“book” mentioned in 9% is not Est., but the letter that Esther
has just written.
(2) There is no external evidence for the existence of this book
before the beginning of the Christian era. It is never cited by
any pre-Christian writer. Ch., Ezr., Ne., Dn., Philo, and the
apocryphal books contain no mention of it. The silence of the
son of Sirach (c. 170 B.C.) is specially significant, since in Ecclus.
44-49 he gives a long catalogue of Hebrew worthies. The
absence of Est. and Dn. from this list can be explained in no other
way than that the books telling about them were not yet written.
The earliest evidence of the existence of Est. is the LXX version,
which is first cited by Josephus (Cont. Ap. i. 8). Purim is first
mentioned in 2 Mac. 15°%* as “‘the day of Mordecai’’ that follows
the day of Nicanor. This reference does not show that Purim
was observed in the time of Judas Maccabeeus, but only that it was
known to the author of 2 Mac. The earlier and better informed
author of 1 Mac. 7} mentions the 13th of Adar as the day of
Nicanor, without reference to its proximity to the day of Morde-
cai. There is no evidence, therefore, that Purim was kept by
the Palestinian Jews before the rst cent. B.C.
(3) The historical standpoint of the book indicates its origin
in the Greek period. In 1'- 15: ™ 4" 88 the author speaks of the
times of Xerxes as long passed. The halo of romance cast about
the Persian empire also indicates that it had ceased to exist. In
35 the statement that the Jews are scattered abroad and dispersed
among all peoples shows knowledge of the Diaspora of the Greek
period. The conversion of multitudes to Judaism (8'7 9%") did
not occur in the Pers. period, but was a result of the proselyting
zeal of Greco-Roman times (cf. Matt. 23!°). In the opinion of
62 HSTHER.
many critics Ahasuerus’ edict of destruction (3'? f-) shows knowl-
edge of Antiochus’ determination in 169 B.c. to root out the Jew-
ish religion.
(4) The intellectual standpoint of the book also indicates its
origin in the late Gr. period. ‘There is no trace of the Messianic
hope that characterized the early days of the restoration of the
commonwealth. The bitter hatred of Gentiles, and the longing
for their destruction that this book discloses, were first induced by
Antiochus’ resolve either to Hellenize or to exterminate the nation.
Mordecai’s refusal to bow before Haman (3?) is not in accord with
old Heb. usage, but shows a new spirit of independence awakened
through contact with the Greeks. The prominence given to
financial considerations (3°) is also indicative of the commercialism
that developed among the Jews during the Greek period. The
national pride bereft of religious enthusiasm indicates that the
book was not written at the time of the Maccabezan struggle,
but in the period of worldliness and self-complacency that followed
the attainment of national independence in 135 B.c.
(5) The language of the book leads to the same conclusion.
Its Heb. is as late as any in the OT., and most resembles that of
Ec., Dn., Ch. Many words are not found elsewhere except in
the Mishna and other rabbinical writings. Aramaic influence
is conspicuous in diction and construction. The style is awkward
and laboured, and shows that the author used Heb. only as a
literary language. The late words of the book are as follows:—
Tras 8° οὐ a.A.=Syriac; ΤῸΝ 816 late, Mishnic; ἢν 74 Ec. 68, as Aram.
and Mishna; 5 ἼῺΝ ‘command to,’ where early Heb. uses the direct
address, 117 413 gM τ Che 134 1516 2718 222 2 Ch. 2g2tb. 27. 30 274. 11 3318
Ne. 8! οἵδ᾽ pax 18, Aram. and Mishna; 573 Qal 2Ec. 51 792 Ch. 352, Pu. 84
Pr. 20%, Hiph. 64 2 Ch. 262° (in these late passages the word means
‘hasten,’ ordinarily ‘terrify’); Υ3 ‘byssus’ τὸ 8% 1 Ch. 4% 2 Ch. 238
414. 512 Ez. 2718, a late word instead of the older ww; 733 ‘spoil’ g!% 15. 16
Dn ταῦ.) Chor4at 1 Ὁ, ἘΠ 713. τἰϑ ον saan Hiph. inf. 17 ar;
m2 ‘fortress,’ a late loan-word through the Aram. 1? and oft.; 13
only in Est. 15 77- 8, ph. Pers.; nya Niph. ‘be afraid,’ only 75 Dn. 817
τ Ch. 2130; by vipa ‘ask for’ 48 77, late usage, as Ne. 2! Ezr. 8%; nv
5% 6 7. 872. 312 Ezr. 75; 313 Niph. 2! 2 Ch. 267! La. 35 Ps. 88° Ez. 371
Is. 538, in the sense of ‘was determined,’ an Aramaism; v3 ‘rod’
AUTHORSHIP 63
m Ct. -54; -o%22 ‘treasury’ 3° 47, NH. and Aram.; N57 ‘drive’
35 612 84 2 Ch. 262°, NH. and Aram.; 737 ‘rest’ 2!8, ἁ.λ.; ΠΟΣῚ “46-
liverance’ 414, ἁ.λ., δὴ Aramaizing form; yy 59 Ec. 12%, Aram.; 1}
g?7- 3! Ne. 26 Ec. 31, Aram.; bin Hithpalp. 4", 4.d.; τοῦ ‘white stuff’
16 815, Aram.; 37) Hithp. 817; 21009 ‘holiday’ 8!7 ο19- 2, as in NH.;
joan” “more than’ 68, cf. Ec. 2% 716 12° and NH.; 73° 1!+-8 t., a
late word and Aram.; vv» Hiph. ‘extend’ 4" 5? 8!, NH. and Aram.;
722 by 926 &.A.; 133 415 Ec. 810. as in Aram-;|D33/Qal 415 Ee. 28 26°Ps. 337
τ Ch. 22? Ne. 12, as NH. and Aram.; 1372 89> 12 5!, instead of ND>
nobnn in older books; 1v’> ‘be legal’ 8° Ec. ro! 11°, as NH.; 12 ‘turban’
111 217 68, only in Est. and NH.; δ with inf., introducing the contents of
a letter or command, 1” and oft.; an Aramaism; TOND 15 220 93, an
Aram. word; 72°72 1'+ 28 t., an Aram. word found only in late Heb.;
ND ΠῸ 955, as in NH.; mab 24 t.; so regularly in Dn., Chr., Ezr., the
ancient language does not use this word in similar constructions; ΠῚ)
Hiph. inf. 38, constr. w. acc. as in Aram.; pj 7!, Aram. loan-word;
ΠΝ) 215-17 52, instead of the ancient jm xn, which occurs here only in
the set phrase 58 7? 85; Ὁ» py 811 g!6 Dn. 8% 114 1 Ch. 21! 2 Ch. 20%
2618, and in general the use of 1y instead of 0x; AvP 47 τοῦ, only in
Est.; 0's ‘fasting,’ as in the late books; nix ‘selected’ 29, as in
NH.; 73% ‘think’ οἱ, an Aram. loan-word; 1981p 4!- 3 Dn. 93; aw
38 74, an Aramaism; στ οἱ Ec. 219 89 Ne. 5%; mav* Pi. ‘transfer’ 29, an
Aramaism; 027% 4" 5? 81, Aram.; ww ‘alabaster’ τὸ Ct. 515; mny
184..; p12n 85, Aram.; 97M 929 τοῦ Dn. τα], Aram.
§ 26. AUTHORSHIP.
The intense national spirit of this book and its insertion in the
Canon indicate that its author was a Jew. From 2° we may
perhaps infer that he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. In re-
gard to his place of residence there is a difference of opinion.
Willrich thinks that he lived in Egypt. Bloch thinks that he
was a Palestinian Jew who sympathized with the Hellenizing move-
ment in the days of Antiochus. Gratz and Meijboom hold that he
was one of the Palestinian opponents of Antiochus. The absence
of reference to Jerusalem and the mention of the Jews “‘scattered
abroad and dispersed”’ (35) indicate rather that the author was
himself one of the Diaspora. That Heb. could not be written
outside of Palestine, except during the Babylonian captivity,
as Gritz asserts, is more than doubtful, The Persian words and
64 ESTHER
the knowledge of Persian customs that the book contains, suggest
that its writer lived in Persia. Purim, as we shall see presently
(ὃ 28), was a feast of foreign origin, and it is probable that its
observance was learned outside of Palestine. It is a plausible
conjecture that the author was a Persian Jew who had come to
live in Judea, and wished to commend the observance of Purim
to the people of that land.
§ 27. HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE BCOK.
For the history of opinion, see ὃ 39. In regard to the historical
character of Est., the following facts may be noted:—
(rt) The book wishes to be taken as history. It begins with
the conventional formula ‘‘and it came to pass,” which puts it into
the sequence of the historical books. The argument for the ob-
servance of Purim also has no force unless the events narrated
actually occurred. Similar claims, however, are made by Jon.,
Ru., and parts of Ch., that cannot be held to be historical.
(2) The book was regarded as historical by the Jewish authori-
ties who admitted it to the Canon; but their opinion has no critical
value, inasmuch as it is notoriously incorrect in regard to other
books of the OT.
(3) A few of the statements of Est. are confirmed by external
historical evidence. Ahasuerus is a historical personage (cf. § 22),
and the picture of his character given in Est. as a sensual and ca-
pricious despot corresponds with the account of Xerxes given
by Herodotus, vii. ix.; Aesch. Pers. 467 ff., Juv. x. 174-187; yet
monarchs of this type were common in the ancient Orient, and
the narrative contains so little that is characteristic, that earlier
scholars were able to identify Ahasuerus with every one of the
kings of Media and Persia. The incidents of Esther can be fitted
into the life of Xerxes without great difficulty. He reigned 20
years, and Est. goes no higher than his 12th, or possibly his 13th
year (37 12). The banquet in the 3d year (13) may plausibly
be combined with the great council which Xerxes held before his
invasion of Greece (Herod. vii. 8). The four years that intervened
between the deposition of Vashti and the coronation of Esther
HISTORICAL CHARACTER 65
(τ 215) may be identified with the four years during which Xerxes
was absent on his expedition against Greece, only (2:5) Esther
was taken to the palace by Xerxes in his 7th year (480 B.c.), when,
according to Her., he was still in Greece, unless we assume that
the years are reckoned in Babylonian fashion from the first full
year.
Some of the statements of Est. in regard to Persia and Persian
customs are confirmed by classical historians. Thus the arrange-
ment of the banquet (1*-*), the seven princes who formed a council
of state (1:3), obeisance before the King and his favourites (33),
belief in lucky and unlucky days (37), exclusion of mourning
garb from the palace (42), hanging as the death-penalty (5"),
dressing a royal benefactor in the King’s robes (68), the dispatch-
ing of couriers with royal messages (313 8'°). (For details see the
commentary.) ‘The palace of Xerxes as described in Est. is not
unlike the palace of Artaxerxes Mnemon as excavated by Dieulafoy
at Susa (see com. on 1°). All that these facts prove, is that the
author had some knowledge of Persia and Persian life which he
used to give local colour. They do not prove that his story is
historical any more than the local colour of the Arabian Nights
proves them to be historical.
The following Persian words occur in the book: —od.3577vnN ‘sa-
traps’ (312 8° 9%)= Pers. khshatrapavan, ‘protectors of the realm’;
oyyaAviNs ‘royal horses’ (810. '), from Pers. khshatYa, ‘realm’; 1003
‘palace’ (15 77: 8), according to Dieulafoy, REJ. 1888, cclxxvii. = Pers.
apaddna, ‘throne-room,’ but this is very doubtful (see com. a. /.);
o432 ‘treasury’ (3° 47), ph.=N. Pers. kanja (Vullers, Lexicon, ii.
1032; Lagarde, Ges. Abhi. 27); ny ‘law’ (1°+ 18 t.) = Pers. data;
ppt ‘cotton’ (15) =Skr. karpdsa, N. Pers. karpas (Lagarde, Armen.
Stud. § 1148); ΠΡ ‘turban’ (1" 217 68), ph. Pers. loan-word (Lagarde,
Ges. Abhl. 207); oon a, ‘nobles’ (13 6%) = Pers. fratama, ‘first’;
pins ‘decree’ (1?°)=Pers. patigdma; ΓΒ ‘copy’ (3! 45 8%)=
ere (Ezr. 411:- 2% 5%)=Pers. paticayan (Lagarde, Ges. Abhl. 79;
Armen. Stud. § 1838). These words all belong to the language of
government and of trade, and, therefore, do not indicate any peculiar
knowledge of Persia on the part of the author of Est.
(4) Most of the statements of Est. are unconfirmed by external
evidence. The chief personages of the book, Vashti, Haman,
5
66 ESTHER
Esther, Mordecai, are unknown to history. Ezr., Ne., the later
Psalms, Sirach in his list of Hebrew worthies (Ecclus. 44-49), say
nothing of the Jewish queen who saved her nation, or of the mighty
Jewish chancellor who was “‘next unto King Ahasuerus, and
great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his
brethren, seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to
all his seed” (10). Greek historians are equally silent about
these two great personages.
The book of Est. gives many proper names; e.g., the seven
eunuchs (119), the seven princes (1:4), the chief eunuch (2°. ὃ),
the ancestors of Mordecai (25), and of Esther (21:5 92°), the two
conspirators (231), the royal officials (2 4° 7°), the relatives of
Haman (3! 5!°97-°). This fact has often been claimed as proof of
the historical character of the book, but similar lists are found in
Ch., Judith, Tob., ©, G2, and other late and untrustworthy
writings. Mere names prove nothing, except the inventive genius
of an author, unless they are confirmed by external evidence. In
the case of these names such evidence is not forthcoming. Not
one of these persons is mentioned in the Greek account of Xerxes’
reign, and their names cannot even be shown to have been in use
in the time of Xerxes. In Problémes Bibliques,=REJ. xxviii.
(1894), J. Oppert makes an elaborate attempt to show that the
proper names of Est. belong to the idiom of the Achzemenid dy-
nasty, and could not have been invented by an author of the Gr.
period; but in the opinion of the best authorities, he has not suc-
ceeded in proving his contention. He assumes extensive textual
corruption, and even then finds hardly any Old Pers. names that
are known to us. A number of the names are certainly Persian,
but it is not clear that they are Old Pers. Some are probably of
Bab., Aram., or even Heb. origin. In the lists of 11 * g7-° some
of the names are so much alike as to suggest that they are only
traditional variants of a single form. All might have been gathered
in the Gr. period by an author who knew something about Persia.
The supposed Persian names are as follows:—
19: 11. 12 16. 16. 17. 19 2]. 4. 17, amv: eedumo §: Vastht LI: Αστιν
@: Aort C: αὕτη 55: Ουασθειν 9%; Ουαστιν L. This is identified
by Justi, Handbuch der Zendsprache, p. 271; Oppert, Prob., p. 9, with
HISTORICAL CHARACTER 67
Pers. Vahista, ‘best’; but as a proper name this form is unknown.
Jensen (WZKM. 1892, p. 70) connects it with Mashti (=Vashtz), an
Elamite goddess, just as he connects Haman with Humman, an Elamite
god, Mordecat with Marduk, and Esther with Ishtar (see § 28). This
identification is regarded as possible by Wild., Sieg., Zimmern, Haupt.
According to Cheyne (£51. 5247), Vashti is a corruption of Asshurith,
‘Asshur,’ being often used as ἃ synonym for Jerahmeel.
i, ypinp: Tw ἅμαν (6: Maosma (Maosinan) DZ: Maovpay 936:
Agav 249: Mauman J: LSaumt (‘eunuchs’) 85: om. L. The older
comm. compare with Pers. Meh-hum-van, ‘belonging to the great
Hum’ (Hum being one of the Izeds). Oppert identifies with Pers.
Vahumana, ‘the generous’; similarly Scheftelowitz (Arisches im A. T..,
p- 47), Marquart (Fundamente, p. 71), comparing with the syllable
man the Pers. names Ariamnes, Arsamenes, Artamenes, Smerdomenes,
Spitamenes, as recorded by Gr. writers. ‘The name admits of a natural
Semitic etymology from the root }2x, and will then mean ‘the trusty.’
It is so understood by 9.
10, xnj3: Bazatha J: 1285 S$: Μαΐαν (6 (Βαζαν αὶ ο. =: Βαΐζεα A: Ταΐαν
64: Αμαν 249: Βαζαθα C: Ζαβαθα 93): ZaBa(v) 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120,
236: Nabattha (Abathan) &: om. L. This was formerly compared
with N. Pers. Bista, ‘castrated.’ Oppert identifies with Pers. Barita,
‘lucky’; Scheftelowitz, with Vijzta, ‘victory.’ Marquart prefers the form
in G, and supposes that the original text in # was 12 or ;WD=
Pers. Mazdana (cf. Βαζάνης in the Alexander-Romance, 2").
19, xpaIn: (H)arbona J: anus S: Θαρρα G (ApBwva 93b: XapBwva
C): (N)arbona &: om. L. In 7° this appears as ΠΣ) Ἴπ: Pans Ὁ:
Βουγαθαν G: Bovyagay xe-*: Βουταθαν N: Bovyaéa 8* 71: Bovyaday
64: TaBov6as 93a: Βουχαθαν 236: Ayabas L: ABovxadas (ZaBovxadas)
Jos. xi. δὲ 261, 266: Buzatas (Baguas) DH: ApBwva 93b: XapBwra C.
Oppert identifies with Pers. Uvarbava, gen. Uvarbauna, ‘splendour’;
Schef., with O. Bactr. Kahrpuna, ‘lizard’; Justi, with N. Pers.
Kherban, ‘ass-driver’; Marq., on the basis of Jos. Zafovxadas,
emends to x313°n= Pers. Huwar-baugana.
10, xn23: Bagatha J: p= $: Bwpain ὦ (Bayaba 93b C): Thares
(Tharas) &: om. L. Apparently the same as (27) 1033: Bagathan J:
ἂς : om. ὦ (A Γαβαθα)ὴ: Ασταου L (Α:): Ταββαθαν 93b*:
Βαταθαν 249: Βαγαθωος Jos. xi. ὃ 207 w. var.: Βαγαθαν καὶ ὁ- αὶ me sup;
Bartageus (Bastageus) @: and 6? x3n33: Bagathan J: «ὃς 9 8:
Hastageo (Bastageo) 15: om. LG (exc. 8 & * ™, 93b under *) (cf. 1
Meres and Marsena). Justi identifies with Bagadata and Bagadana,
‘gift of God’; Oppert, with Bagita, ‘divine’; Schef., with Skr. Vighata,
‘defense’; Marq. emends to xn22= Bagadata.
110, NNJIN wed no Zon, $: ABrata G (Αβγαθα g3a): Achedes
68
PSTHER
(Cedes) &: om. L., Justi regards as the same as the last; Oppert,
as Pers. Abagita, ‘teacher’; Schef., as Skr. Avaghata, ‘blow.’ Haupt
(HM. ii. p. 125) regards asa gloss (or variant) to the preceding one;
and thinks that the original name here was wn, which is coupled
with Bigthan in 2% 6? G AY. 95. reads Teresh here along with
Abhaghtha, (6 has Oappa as the equivalent of Harbona, and & has
it as the equivalent of Bightha.
11%, ant: Zethar J: Zathi (Azatat) L: 3.2) H: Ladodba G (Ζηβαθαθα A:
Zaboroa 249: Ζαραθ 93b: LZnbap C: Ζαθολβα 71: Ζαθολα() 44, 106): om.
L. Oppert and Schef. identify with Pers. Zatar, Skr. jétar, ‘victor.’
110, D272: δῷ H: Θαραβα G (Oafag A: BapoaBa 249: AxapBas
93b: XapaBas C: A@apaBa 44, 71, 106) T(h)arecta Z: om. L. Justi,
Oppert, Schef., identify with Pers. Karkasa, ‘vulture.? Marq. com-
pares the form in @ with Tiribazos.
τ, sawa2: Charsena J: waded SU ὧν H4: Αρκεσαιος G
(Xapoay 93b: Mardocheus @: om. L. Justi identifies with Pers.
Keresna, ‘black’; Oppert, with Pers. Karsana, ‘killer’; Schef.,
with O. Bactr. Karasna, ‘the slender’; Marq. reads s3v721=Warka-
Cina, ‘wolfish.’
14, An; so Ν᾽ S N? Br. C B' ΒΞ 6: Ang Ba.: Sethar J: sda] 5:
Σαρσαθαιος (6 (Zapecbeos A: Σαραθαιος 249: Ασαθα g3b); Soratha
(Soratheas) &: om. L. Formerly identified with Sitar, ‘star.’ Oppert
and Schef. identify with O. Bactr. Shéthra, Pers. Kshathra, ‘lord.’
Margq., on the basis of @, emends to »nwnw, in the second part of
which he recognizes the Pers. word shiyatish, ‘joy.’
τ, xno: Admatha J: 2as03| $: om. GLL: Justi, Oppert, and
Schef. identify with Pers. Admata, ‘unconquered,’=Gr. "Αδμητος.
Raw. emends to δ) 3 ἜΝ ΞΞ Artabanus.
τι, wwoan: Tharsis J: «λὦὸ..52. 85: Pabataleus L: om. GL. Ac-
cording to Oppert,=Pers. Darsis, preserved in the Gr. form Dadarsis,
a general under Darius. The Heb. form has been corrupted through
influence of the geographical name Tarshish. Schef. identifies with O.
Bactr. Tarshush, ‘greedy.’ On account of its absence from 6,
Marq. regards it as merely a variant form of 1nw above.
14, Ὁ: Mares J: wwases $ (wate $4): Eas Z: om. BL. Ac-
cording to Oppert, Schef., = Pers. Marsa, ‘trial’; according to Marq.,
Haupt, it is a variant of the following name ΝΣ (cf. above, 1",
Bigtha and Bigthana).
14, xy070: Marsana J: lapmso S: Μαλησεαρ G: Ῥαμαθα 93b: Malesar
(Malesath) &. According to Oppert,=Pers. Marithna, ‘he who re-
members’; according to Schef., derived from the same root as the last
name; according to Raw., ‘‘Mardonius is Marduniya in Old Persian,
and would have been best expressed in Hebrew by ΝΥ. It may,
HISTORICAL CHARACTER 69
however, not improbably have been originally written by the author
(without the yod) 3172. This form would easily become 2070, the
Ὁ replacing the two letters 1”? (Ὁ). Marq. (Fund., p. 69) thinks that
there were originally only three names in this list, as in (5 and Dn. 6%,
and that the list of seven has been manufactured in # by insertion of
variants and names borrowed from other parts of the book.
114. 21, 729012: Mamuchan 3: a $: Mucheas DB: om. 6L. In
1186, ἸΌΝ: 72D Q: Mamuchan 3}: -333.: $: Μουχαιος (6: Βουγαιος
L: Micheus (Mardocheus) &. Oppert equates with Pers. Vimukhna,
‘delivered’; Schef., with Skr. Mumucana, ‘cloud.’
23, x2: so S N? Br. CB! G Ba.: xa. N! B? M Norzi: Egei 3: mr
$: om. & (v. § Ta): Twyaov L. In 28: 15, an: οἵ J: Tar G (Tanv 249):
Twyaor 93h: Βουγαιος 1, (l'wyaios 93a): Οξέδο GZ. Benfey (Monatsna-
men, p. 192) compares Skr. Aga, ‘eunuch’; Roediger (Ges. Thes. Add.,
p- 83) compares ‘Hyias, an officer of Xerxes (Ctesias, Pers., c. 24; ren
ix. 33); Schef. compares O. Bactr. Hugdo, ‘possessing beautiful cows.’
27, NDS: commonly identified with Pers. Stara, ‘star’; but, ac-
cording to Jensen, =Jshtar, the Babylonian goddess (see καὶ 28).
214, τοῦ : some codd. S Bi: ον C Ba. G: Susagazi 3]: ;
§: Tar (6 (Σασαγαζ 93b): om. L. Schef. identifies with Ὁ. Bactr.
Sasakshant, ‘one anxious to learn’; most commentators suggest no
identification.
271, 133, see above (11°) Ν 23.
2 62, wan: Thares 3: «κ᾽ $: om. ὦ (A? Oappa): Θεδευτου 1,
(A): Θαρας 93b *: Θαρραν 249: Θεοδεστος Jos. xi. § 207 w. var.: The-
destes &. Oppert compares with Tiridates; Justi, with N. Pers. Tursh,
‘firm’; Schef., with Pers. Tarsha, ‘desire,’ see above (1'°) ΝΙΝ,
3! sq., 124: Vrss. the same: Cod. 19 has ἄμμαν. Oppert and most of
the older comm. connect with N. Pers. Hamayun, supposing an O. Pers.
form Hamana, ‘illustrious.’ Raw. identifies with Omanes, a Pers.
name in classical writers, which he regards as etymologically the same
as Eumenes. Benfey (in Bert. Com. a. 1.) compares Pers. Homa=Skr.
Soma, the sacred drink. Haman,=Soman, will then mean ‘offerer
of the Soma’ (so Schef.). Jensen, WZKM. 1892, pp. 58 ἢ.» identifies
with Humban or Humman, the chief ἄν of the Elamites. In this
view he is followed by many recent critics (see § 28).
31, ΝΘ: pon S: Αμαδαθου G&L: Αἰναμαθαδοῦ A: Αμαθουν το:
Αμαδαθοὺν 93a: Αμαθαδου 106: om. 312. Benfey, Oppert, and Schef. *
identify with Hama-data, ‘given by Hama’ (the sacred drink). Oet.
compares with Mdh-data, ‘given by the moon.’ Pott (ZDMG. 1859,
p- 424) identifies with Maddrms. Jensen sees a compound of the same
god Humman as in Haman.
3}, aNd: qui erat de stirpe Agag YJ: Βουγαιον & L: Μακεδόνα L (A"):
γ19)
ESTHER
Τωγαιον g3a: Ουγαιον C: om. 44, τοῦ L. Oppert claims that it means
‘belonging to the tribe Agazz’ (= Agag7?), mentioned in the inscriptions
of Sargon (cf. Winckler, Sargon, p. 110). Haupt regards it as a cor-
ruption of ‘xan, ‘the Gogite’ (cf. Ez. 38). Most comm. think that it
means a descendant of the Agag mentioned in 1 5. 15 (see com. on 3!).
45: 6. 9. 10, 397: 309 var. Oc.: Athach 3: «(σι &: Αχραθαιον (ῷ: Αχραθεον
A: Εγχραδαιον 44: Αθακ ο5Ὁ: Εγχραθαιον 106: Αθαχ (. Oppert identi-
fies with Hdtaka, ‘good’; Schef., with O. Bactr. Han-taka, ‘courier.’
510. 4 613, vin: Zares 1: 05] 5: Ζωσαραν & 1,: Σωσαραν A: Ζαρασαν
(Vagacav, Tagayav) Jos. xi. § 245: Zosarra (Gozarra) LH: Zwpav 953}.
Oppert and Raw. connect with Pers. Zara, ‘gold’ (cf. Vullers, Lexicon,
ii. 128b); Schef., with O. Bactr. Zarsh, ‘desirous.’ Jensen, WZKM.
1892, suggests that wv may be a corruption of wv (cf. the forms in
some of the Vrss. above), and that Φ Ἢ) may be the same as the Elamite
goddess Kirisha. Of late he has been inclined to identify her with
Siris, the Babylonian goddess of wine (see § 28).
οἵ, Xn 72: so HM (with small Ὁ): Φαρσαν και Neoraw BN 52, 248,
Ald.: Φαρσαν(ν)εστα(ιὴν αὶ A 55, 64, 243: Φαρσαν L: Φαρσαννεσιαν ro8a:
Φαρσανιστὴν 249: Φαρσενδαθα 93h: Φαρσανδαθα C: Lop mes BA: LO rete ay
SMU: om. GB. Benfey, Keilinschr., and Oppert interpret as Per.
Frasna-data, ‘given to prayer’; Raw., as ‘given to Persia, or the
Persians’; Schef., as Pers. Parshnoddata, ‘formed for defence.’ Accord-
ing to Justi (Eran. Namen, p. 243), the name occurs in Ph. letters on a
seal. Cf. also the Pers. name Παρσώνδης.
9’, neo3: Delphon J: ora Bi: aad, SUV: Δελῴων G:
ἀδελφῶν N*: καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ LL: Δελῴον 93h, τοϑα: om. LB.
According to Raw. ‘‘ Dalphon, which in Persian must have been Dar-
phon or Darpon, is probably the Pers. representative of the Skr.
Darpin, ‘arrogant’”’ (similarly Oppert, Schef.).
οἵ, xnaDN: Esphatha J: Zaan| 5: Φασγα ὦ: Paya καὶ *: Φαγα A:
Papva L: Αφαρναρ 93a: Pactra 74, 70?: Apipaba o3b: Payya 249:
Ασῴφαθα C: om. &. Benfey, Raw., Schef., and Oppert connect with
aspa, ‘horse,’ and regard as a shortened form of Aspadata, ‘gifted with
a horse,’ 7.e., ‘horseman,’ or ‘given by the sacred horse’ (cf. Ges. Thes.
Add., p. 71).
98, NOD: 9 8: Dogpo SMU: Φαραδαθὰ G: Φαρααθα
sv: Βαρδαθα A: Ταγαφαρδαθα L: Oapdaba 71, 74, 120, 236: Poupa-
θα 93b: Φαρδαθα 243, 249, Ald.: Φοραδαθα C: om. &. According
to Benfey= Pur-data, ‘given by lot, or fate’; according to Oppert,=.
Pers. Puruvata, ‘aged’; according to Raw.,=Paru-ratha, ‘having
many chariots’; according to Schef.,=O. Bactr. Pouruta, ‘mountain.’
οὐ, οὔτοι δὼ), $: Bapoa B: BapeX x A: Bagea many codd.: τοὺς
ἑτέρους 71: om. L.&. According to Justi (ran. Namen),=’AddNos;
HISTORICAL CHARACTER 71
according to Schef.,=Adarya, ‘honourable’; according to Oppert,=
Adalya (for Adardiya), ‘brave.’
98 NOTIN: Zpuy SA: |? SIMU: Σαρβαχα G: TapBaxa some
codd.: Σαρμαχα 76: Σαρμακα 120: Σαραβαχα 236: Apidada 93b, C: om.
L, 71,%. According to Benfey,= Hari-ddta, ‘given by Hari (Vishnu)’;
according to Raw.,—Ari-data, ‘generous’; according to Oppert and
Schef.,=Ariya-data, ‘sprung from the Aryan.’
9%, 8MyDTD: Nnwhr (both w and n small) G: Phermesta J: 2osax;zs|
$A: Zomas SIMU: Μαρμασιμα G: Μαρμασιμ x 55, 64, 243, 248,
Ald.: Μαρμασιμνα A: Μαρμασιακν N: Σαρμασιν 74: Σαρμασιμ 76:
Μαρμασαιμα L: Σααρμασιμ 120: Σααρμασειμ 236: Φαρμοσθα g3b: Pap-
μασθα C: om. @. According to Benary,=Skr. Parameshta, ‘the
greatest’; similarly Raw.,= Pers. Fra-mathista, ‘premagnus’ (so also
Oppert and Schef.).
95, ὍΝ: wiley ὅ5: Αρσαιον G (tr. with next): Apoeov x: ἄρισαι
93b, C: om. 1, 33. Composed, according to Raw., from the intensive
particle ari and saya, ‘to conquer,’ or ‘to go.’ According to Oppert,
the true reading is mx Aryiz=Ariacdya, ‘shade of an Aryan.’ Ac-
cording to Schef., =Skr. Arya-saya, ‘having Aryan property.’
95, “DIN: δὴ] 5: Ῥουῴαιον G: Povdavoy A: Apovpaioy N 55, 64,
74, 76, 108a, 120, 236, 243, 248, Ald.: Αριδαι 93b, C: om. LZ. Raw.
regards as composed of the intensive particle arz and the root da, ‘give’;
according to Ges. Thes. Add.,= Hari-dayas, ‘pleasure of Hari’; accord-
ing to Schef.,=Arya-daya, ‘gift of the Aryan.’
99, ΝΠ: large 1, small; so M: Jezatha J: 20] BH: Ζαβουθαιον ὦ:
Ζαβουδεθαν x: Ζαβουγαθα A: Ζαβουθαιθαν N 55, 64, 243, 248, Ald.:
Zapovdaiday 52: ZaBovdabav τοδα: Ιζαθουθ L: Βαιζαθα C: Οναιζαθα
93). Benfey identifies with Pers. Wahyaz-data, ‘gift of the Mighty
One’; similarly Oppert. Raw. identifies with Vayu-zatha, ‘strong as
the wind,’ and Schef. with O. Bactr. Vaya-zdta, ‘son of maturity.’
From the above survey it appears that the text of these names is very
uncertain, that there is no agreement as to their Pers. identifications,
and that none of the supposed Pers. names are otherwise known.
(5) Some of the statements of this book are contradicted by the
Greek historians. For instance, during the period between the
7th and the r2th year (2° 31) Xerxes’ queen was not Esther but
Amestris (Her. vii. 114; ix. 112). Since Scaliger’s identification
of Ahasuerus with Xerxes it has been customary to identify
Esther with Amestris, but this is phonetically impossible. We
know also from Her. vii. 61; Ctesias, 38), that Amestris was not a
Jewess, but the daughter of a Persian general, and that she married
72 ESTHER
Xerxes long before the action of this book begins. The suggestion
of Sayce, that Esther was not the actual queen, but only a royal
favourite, is contrary to the statement of 21:7.
According to τὶ 89, the Persian empire was divided into 127
satrapies, but Her. iii. 89 knows only 20, and the Achemenian
inscriptions name no more than 27 (but see com. a. /.). In 19-2
it is assumed that Persian women were veiled, and that they could
not show themselves at feasts, but this is contrary to the testimony
of classical writers (cf. Her. ix. 110 f.). So far as we know, there
was no reason why Vashti should refuse to show herself to the
guests. The statement that the laws of the Medes and Persians
could not be altered (1'° 88), which appears also in the late book
of Daniel (6955), is unconfirmed by any ancient evidence. It is
a Jewish legend that is introduced here for the sake of making
the decree of Purim more binding. The idea that no person could
approach the King without summons on pain of death (4"), so
that the only way in which Esther could communicate with her
husband was by risking her life, is an effective feature in the story,
but is contrary to all that we know of old Persian court life (for
further details, see the commentary on these passages).
(6) There are a number of incidents in Est. which, although
they cannot be shown to be unhistorical, are yet so contrary to
Persian law and custom as to be improbable. Thus the sugges-
tion of the King’s servants (22) and the edict of the King (2!- 5)
that maidens of all nations should be gathered in order that from
them he might select a successor to Vashti, and the choice of Esther
without inquiry as to her race (2! 17), are contrary to the law of
the Avesta and the testimony of Her. iii. 84, that the Queen might
be selected only from seven of the noblest Persian families. Mor-
decai’s free access to Esther (2" 4?-!7) is contrary to the custom
of Oriental harems. According to 4? he might hdve entered,
but for the fact that he was dressed in sackcloth. The appoint-
ment of two foreigners, Haman the Agagite (cf. Nu. 2471 5. 158),
and Mordecai the Jew, as prime ministers (3! 10%) is not consistent
with Persian usage. The issuing of decrees in the languages of
all the provinces (133 312) was not the ordinary method of the Per-
sian empire. For this purpose Aramaic was employed.
HISTORICAL CHARACTER γ3
(7) The book contains a number of inconsistencies with itself.
In 25 Mordecai is one of the captives carried away with Jehoia-
chin in 596 B.c., but in 37 82 he becomes prime minister in the 12th
year of Xerxes, 474 B.C., 7.6., 122 years later, and apparently en-
joys his office for a considerable time after this (10?-*). In 3? +
4! Mordecai parades the fact that he is a Jew, but in 2:5 he forbids
Esther to make her kindred known. Esther successfully conceals
the fact that she is a Jewess from the King, Haman, and everybody
else (21° 2 78f-), and yet Mordecai, who is well known to be a Jew,
is her uncle and comes to the palace every day to inquire after
her (2:1), and all the Jews in Susa fast for her before she ventures
to go to the King (4:5). Haman obtains an edict to destroy the
Jews, because Mordecai the Jew will not do obeisance to him
(3°), but Haman’s friends and family are ignorant of Mordecai’s
race (613). Xerxes delivers the Jews to destruction (3:1), yet heaps
honours upon Mordecai (615:.). Haman is still the royal favourite,
but he is given the menial task of conducting Mordecai through
the streets (6'°f-). Xerxes authorizes the act of Haman (3"), yet
he is much surprised at the information Esther gives him of Ha-
man’s plot (7°*).
(8) The book contains a number of statements which cannot
be proved to be untrue, but which are so intrinsically improbable
that one has difficulty in believing that they are historical. Such
are the gathering of nobles from all the provinces from India to
Ethiopia for a feast of 180 days (1'-*); Vashti’s refusal to come
at the King’s command (1:3); the council of princes to determine
what should be done to Vashti (1'*-1°); the decision that her con-
duct endangered the authority of husbands throughout the empire,
and the decree sent out to all the provinces that wives must obey
their husbands (1'*-); the gathering of droves of fair maidens out
of all the provinces (2'~‘); the 12 months’ rubbing-down with per-
fumes required of each maiden before she was brought to the King
(212); the four years that Esther had to wait before her turn came
(215); Haman a descendant of Agag, King of the Amalekites, the
earliest enemies of Israel (Ex. 178 Nu. 247 1 S. 155); and Mordecai
a descendant of Saul who overthrew Agag (3! 2°); the failure to
reward Mordecai when he discovers the plot, but the writing of
74 ESTHER
his deed in the royal annals (25); the long toleration of Mordecai
by Haman (3°); the 10,000 talents offered the King by Haman
for the destruction of the Jews, based apparently upon a calcu-
lation of a mina each for the 600,000 males of Nu. 265 (39, cf.
@: and @: a. 1.); the edict for the universal destruction of the
Jews and the promulgation of it a year in advance (35:15); the sorrow
of the city of Susa over the edict (3:5); Esther’s failure to ask for
the life of her people when the King is favourable toward her
(5‘), and again at the banquet (57); the gallows 83 feet high (5);
the King’s reading in the chronicles at night (61); Haman’s coming
at night to ask that Mordecai may be hanged (64); Haman’s failure
to plead ignorance of Esther’s race (7°); the way in which the
King is brought to condemn him (78); the edict allowing the Jews
to kill the Persians and take their property (811); and the non-
resistance of the Persians (g?!-); the second day of slaughter (9!*'-).
The account of the origin of Purim given by this book is also
historically improbable. It represents this feast as instituted by
Esther and Mordecai and as adopted by the Jews in commemora-
tion of their deliverance from the destruction planned by Haman;
but Purim is not a Heb. word, and it is not natural that a Jewish
national commemoration should be called by a foreign name.
In 37 92° it is said that the feast is so called because ‘‘ Haman cast
pur, that is, the lot”; but it is unlikely that this trivial circumstance
of the way in which Haman determined the day of destruction
should give its name to the day of deliverance. The author also
does not explain why the plural Purim is used. Moreover, there
is no Pers. word pur with the meaning ‘lot.’ If Purim had orig-
inated in the time of Xerxes, as Est. represents, and had been en-
joined upon all the Jews in all provinces of the empire (929), and
had been accepted by the Jews for themselves and their posterity
(927), there is no reason why it should not have been included in
the Priestly Code as promulgated by Ezra. That code contains
other late institutions, such as the Day of Atonement and Feast of
Trumpets, that are unknown to the early codes. The oft-repeated
argument, that the existence of the feast of Purim is a witness to
the historical character of the Book of Est., since institutions do
not come into existence without a reason, has no value, Purim,
HISTORICAL CHARACTER 75
of course, must have had an origin, but it is not necessary that it
should have been the origin recorded by Est. Religious tales are
often a secondary invention designed to explain already existing
religious institutions.
In view of these facts the conclusions seem inevitable that the
Book of Est. is not historical, and that it is doubtful whether even
a historical kernel underlies its narrative. It comes from the same
age and belongs to the same class of literature as the Jewish
romances Daniel, Tobit, Judith, 3 Ezra (1 Esdras) and the story
of Ahikar. Its main ideas are derived from the same cycle of
legends from which these works have drawn their materials, and
in many particulars it bears a close resemblance to them.
In all these legends the scene is laid at the court of a powerful and
splendour-loving king of ancient times (cf. Nebuchadnezzar and Bel-
shazzar in Daniel; Darius, in 3 Ezr.; Holophernes, in Judith; Sarche-
donus, son of Sennacherib, in Ahikar (cf. Tob. 17!-). In all mag-
nificent feasts are described, wise men who know the times and the seasons
play an important part, numerous edicts are sent out by the King to
all parts of his empire, and these decrees are irrevocable, even when the
King himself wishes to change them. In all an enemy arises who
seeks to destroy the Jews, and who has a special animosity against one
leading Jew. In Esther it is Haman; so also in Tob. 14!, according
to one form of the text, in other recensions his name is Adam or Nadab;
similarly in the story of Ahikar; in Daniel it is the officers and satraps
of the King (cf. 65 5.); in Judith it is Holophernes, the general of Neb-
uchadnezzar. Esther, the deliverer of her people, has a counter-
part in Judith; in fact, the resemblance between the two characters is
so close that Jensen and Erbt hold that the Book of Judith was written
for the same purpose as Est., namely, to be read at the celebration of
the feast of Purim. Mordecai, the Jewish chancellor, who is next to
the King, is the analogue of Daniel, who is set by Nebuchadnezzar
over all the wise men of Babylon (Dn. 2‘), who maintains this position
under Belshazzar (5:1: 2°), under Darius (65) and Cyrus (6%); also
of Zerubbabel, who in 3 Ezr. wins the first place among the pages in
the reign of Darius; and of Ahikar, the cup-bearer, keeper of the seal,
chancellor, and chief treasurer of Sarchedonus, King of Assyria, in the
Story of Ahikar, and Tob. 1%f 210 1118 τ410, In all these stories the
enemies of the Jews fail at the moment of their expected triumph, and
perish by the same fate that they had planned for the Jews. So in Est.
Haman is hanged on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai.
76
ESTHER
In Dn. the accusers of Daniel’s three friends are cast into the fiery
furnace that they had made ready, and the enemies of Daniel are flung
into the lions’ den to which they had condemned him. (For further
details see Erbt, Purimsage, pp. 45-49.)
De Goeje, in the Dutch journal De Gids, iii. (1886), pp. 385-413, ἀπά
in the article ‘““Thousand and One Nights” in £B.%, xxiii. (1886)
traces parallels also between the Book of Esther and the tales of the
Arabian Nights. In the article in EB. he speaks thus: ‘Persian tra-
dition (in Firdausi) makes Princess Homdai the daughter and wife of
Bahman Ardashir, 7.e., Artaxerxes I. Longimanus. .. . Firdausi
says that she was also called Shahrazdd. This name and that of Dindzad
both occur in what Mas‘tdi tells of her. According to him, Shahrazdd
was Homdi’s mother (ii. 129), a Jewess (ii. 123). Bahman had married
a Jewess (i. 118), who was instrumental in delivering her nation from
captivity. In ii. 122 this Jewish maiden who did her people this service
is called Dindzdd, but ‘‘the accounts,” says our author, “vary.” Plainly
she is the Esther of Jewish story. Tabari (i. 688) calls Esther the
mother of Bahman, and, like Firdausi, gives to Homai the name of
Shahrazid. The story of Esther and that of the original Nights have
in fact one main feature in common. In the former the king is offended
with his wife, and divorces her; in the Avabian Nights he finds her un-
faithful, and kills her. But both stories agree that thereafter a new wife
was brought to him every night, and on the morrow passed into the
second house of the women (Esther), or was slain (Nights). At length
Esther or Shahrazdd wins his heart and becomes queen. The issue
in the Jewish story is that Esther saves her people; in the Nights the
gainers are ‘‘the daughters of the Moslems,” but the old story had, of
course, some other word than “Moslems.” Esther’s foster-father
becomes vizier, and Shahrazdd’s father is also vizier. Shahrazdd’s
plan is helped forward in the Nights by Dindzad, who is, according
to Mas‘tdi, her slave girl, or, according to other Mss., her nurse, and,
according to the Fihrist, the king’s stewardess. The last account
comes nearest to Esther ii. 15, where Esther gains the favour of the king’s
chamberlain, keeper of the women. It is also to be noted that Ahasuerus
is read to at night when he cannot sleep (Esther vi. 1). . . . It appears
that (at least in part) the book of Esther draws on a Persian source.”
This comparison finds the approval of Kuenen, Onderzoek, i. 551, and
of A. Miiller, in Beitr. zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen, xiii.
p. 223.
In the presence of these analogies there is no more reason why
one should assume a historical basis for the story of Est. than for
these other admittedly unhistorical works which it so closely re-
ORIGIN OF PURIM "ἢ
sembles. If it is not historical, the question then rises, How did
this story originate? It is connected in the closest way with the
feast of Purim; and if the events here narrated did not create the
feast, then the feast probably created the story, for comparative
religion shows that institutions which do not have a historic origin,
are often provided in course of time with a supposedly historical
interpretation. That raises the question of the real origin of
Purim; for if this can be discovered, it will probably throw light
upon the genesis of the Esther-legend and of its counterparts in
Jewish romances of the last two pre-Christian centuries.
§ 28. ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF PURIM.
(1) Theories that assign Purim a Jewish origin—A number of
critics who have doubted the historical character of Est. have
nevertheless believed that Purim must have a Jewish origin, and
that it must be based upon some fact of deliverance in Jewish
history, for otherwise they cannot explain its admission by the
religious authorities into the sacred calendar.
Bleek, Einleitung®, p. 238, suggests that the feast may originally have
been a commemoration of the deliverance from the Babylonian Exile.
H. Willrich, Judaica (1900), pp. 1-28, “Der historische Hintergrund
des Buches Esther und die Bedeutung des Purimfestes,” maintains
that Est. was written in 48 B.c. and reflects the historical experiences of
the Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt under the rule of the Ptolemies.
Ahasuerus is the counterpart of Ptolemy Physcon (Euergetes I),
Vashti is Cleopatra II, Esther is Cleopatra III, and Mordecai is Dosi-
theus. Haman is the anti-Jewish party at the Egyptian court. The
massacre of the enemies of the Jews is the massacre of the Cyreneans
at the beginning of Physcon’s reign (Diod. xxxiii. 13). The feast of
Purim is the commemoration of the founding of Jewish military colonies
by Ptolemy Philometor and the name ‘lots’ refers to the lots that were
drawn at the distribution of lands. This fanciful theory rests upon the
assumption that the Greek text of Est. is more original than the He-
brew (cf. § 20), and that the subscription at the end of the Greek recen-
sion is trustworthy (see § 13). It has found no favour thus far among
critics.
According to T. K. Cheyne, EBi. iii. (1902), 3983, “Mordecai has
no connection with Marduk, but is simply a corruption of a name such
78 ESTHER
as Carmeli (one of the popular distortions of Jerahmeeli). . . . Hadas-
sah and Esther seem to be equally remote from Istar, being simply
variants of the same name, which in its original form is Israelith (cp.
Judith). Haman is Heman or Hemam. Hammedatha is an out-
growth of Hemdan (Gn. 36%). In fact, the original Esther referred
to a captivity of the Jews in Edom (cp. Obadiah). . . . The origin of
‘Purim’ cannot be finally settled. In the view of the present writer,
however, it is not improbable that Pur and Purim are corruptions of
a place-name, and that place-name very possibly was some collateral
form of Ephrath, for there seems to have been an Ephrath in Jerah-
meelite territory. . . . It is at Ephrath that the peril and the deliver-
ance of the Jews are localized.” This theory can be estimated only as
a part of Cheyne’s elaborate reediting of the OT. in the interest of
Jerahmeel, on which see H. P. Smith, in American Journ. Theol., Oct.,
1907; N. Schmidt, in Hibbert Journal, Jan., 1908.
More plausible than any of the foregoing hypotheses is that of
J. D. Michaelis, Orient. Bibl., ii. (1772), p. 36, and in his German
translation of Maccabees (1778), p. 168, that Purim was founded
to commemorate the victory of Judas Maccabzeus over Nicanor,
the general of the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes, on the 13th
of Adar ror Bic (67. τὸ Mae. 7 20 Mac bes loss Aut esa
409; Megillath Ta‘anith, c. 12). After this victory it was decreed
that the 13th of Adar should be kept as a holiday (1 Mac. 749
2 Mac. 1535), but this is the day on which, according to the Book
of Esther, Haman planned to destroy the Jews, and on which they
were rescued by the intervention of Esther. According to Mi-
chaelis, Purim is derived from ρήγα, ‘wine-press,’ with allusion
to the victory, which is regarded as the wine-press of God’s wrath
against the enemies of his people.
This view has been followed by Reuss, Geschichte? (1890), p. 616,
and by W. Erbt, Die Purimsage in der Bibel (1890), who also compares
Esther’s other name Hadassah with Adasa, the scene of Judas’ victory
over Nicanor (1 Mac. 7% 4; Jos. Ant. xii. 408). Following Halévy,
Erbt derives the name Purim from the root parar, ‘break in pieces.’
On this view the Esther-legend stands in no genetic relation to the feast of
Purim, but is a combination of a Persian saga with a late Babylonian
myth, that has been taken by the author as a symbol of the victory
over Nicanor.
This is also the theory of C. H. W. Johns in EB7. iv. 3980: ‘‘ Whilst
ORIGIN OF PURIM 79
the Nicanor day is probably the starting-point of the specifically Jewish
festival, which may be artificial and intentional, the older sources of
the Megillah are probably Gentile, Babylonian, with some Persian in-
fluence, and a free adaptation of material.”
A similar view is held by P. Haupt, Purim (1906). On p. 3 he says:
“The Book of Esther was composed by a Persian Jew (under the reign
of the nephew of Judas Maccabzus, John Hyrcanus, about 130 B.C.)
as a festal legend for Nicanor’s Day which was observed in commem-
oration of the great victory gained by Judas Maccabeeus over the Syrian
general Nicanor at Adasa on the 13th of Adar, 161 B.c. This com-
memoration of Nicanor’s Day was combined with the observance of
the ancient Persian New Year’s festival which is celebrated at the time
of the vernal equinox. The Persian spring festival, known as Naurész,
whose institution is ascribed to the mythical king Jemshid, or Yim, is
no doubt based on the Babylonian New Year’s festival.” On p. 21
he sums up his argument thus: “I believe therefore that Purim is de-
rived from an Old Persian equivalent of Vedic parti ‘portion.’ Péirim
‘portions, gifts’? (Heb. manéth Est. 919. 33) corresponds to the Latin
strene, French étrennes. ‘The explanation of Yémé Pirim as ‘Days
of the Lots’ is a subsequent popular etymology suggested by the Heb.
word for ‘portion’ in the sense of ‘lot, destiny’ as well as by oracular
practices observed on New Year’s Eye. The Book of Esther, just as
the Book of Judith, is a festal legend for the Feast of Purim; it is not a
historical book, or a historical novel, but entirely fictitious. The inci-
dents related were suggested by the sufferings of the Jews during the
Syrian persecution and their glorious victory over Nicanor on the 13th
of Adar, 161 B.c. Nicanor is the prototype of Haman, and the honors
bestowed on Mordecai correspond to the distinctions conferred on the
Maccabee high-priest Jonathan, the younger brother and successor of
Judas Maccabeus. The names of Haman and Vashti are Susian or
Elamite, while Mordecai and Esther correspond to the Babylonian
Marduk and IStar. The antagonism between Haman and Vashti, on
the one hand, and Mordecai and Esther on the other, may have been
suggested by an ancient Babylonian festal legend celebrating a victory
gained by the chief god of Babylon over the principal deity of the Elam-
ites; and this may ultimately be a nature myth symbolizing the victory
of the deities of Spring over the frost-giants of Winter who hate the sun-
shine and always plot to bring back Winter to the earth, just as the
frost-giants of Jétunheim in old Norse mythology hated the beautiful
god Balder, with whose presence Summer came back to the ice-bound
earth. Mordecai, the god of the vernal sun, triumphed over the frost-
giant Haman, who was a braggart like Hrungner, the strongest of the
giants in Jétunheim, and the winter of Judah’s discontent and oppression
was made glorious summer by the sun of Judas Maccabzus.”
80 ESTHER
The difficulties of this theory of an origin of Purim in Nicanor’s
Day are, first, that the feast of Purim does not fall on the 13th of
Adar, the day of the victory over the Syrians, but, according to
the Book of Est., on the r4th and the r5th of Adar (911-31); and on
these days, according to all our historical evidence, they were
always celebrated. 1 Mac. 749 speaks of the institution of Nicanor’s
Day, on the 13th of Adar, but does not call it Purim or make any
mention of the story of Esther and Mordecai. 2 Mac. 15% says
that, in memory of the victory over Nicanor, ‘‘They all ordained
with a common decree in no wise to let this day pass undistin-
guished, but to mark with honour the thirteenth day of the twelfth
month (it is called Adar in the Syrian tongue), the day before the
day of Mordecai.” Here the ‘“‘day of Mordecai” on the 14th is
carefully distinguished from the day of Nicanor on the 13th. In
like manner Josephus, Avt. xi. 292 says, ‘‘The jews that were in
Susa gathered themselves together and feasted on the fourteenth
day and the one that followed it; whence it is that even now all
the Jews that are in the habitable earth keep these days as a feast
by distributing presents to one another.” The ancient Aramaic
chronicle Megillath Ta‘anith, which is old enough to be cited in
the Mishna, gives a list of days on which it is forbidden to fast.
In xii., lines 30-31, it says, ‘‘The 13th (of Adar) is the Day of
Nicanor. The 14th and 15th are the Days of Purim. Fasting
is forbidden” (see Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 442 ff.).
In these, our oldest authorities, there is no confusion between the
Day of Nicanor and the Days of Purim, but the two are regarded
as independent festivals. Reuss suggests that the feast of Nicanor
commemorating a purely political event, was soon forgotten, and
that then the 13th of Adar became a preparatory fast to the feast
of Purim; but this does not explain why Purim is kept on the
14th and 15th of Adar, if it commemorates the victory, over Nicanor
on the 13th. Erbt, Purimsage, pp. 79 ff., solves the difficulty
by the assumption of an earlier shorter recension of Est. in which
the keeping of the 13th day was prescribed. Subsequently the
Jews dedicated the 14th to Mordecai; but in Jerusalem, where two
Nicanor Days were kept, the Day of Mordecai could not be ob-
served until the 15th. Afterward the Day of Nicanor, from
ORIGIN OF PURIM 81
which the whole development had started, was forgotten, and a
late redactor tried to reconcile the differences of practice between
Jerusalem and the rural districts by enjoining the keeping of two
Days of Purim. ΑἹ] this is artificial in the last degree. It is simply
a piling up of unlikely hypotheses in order to prove another un-
likely hypothesis.
In the second place, Esther, the heroine of the book that bears
her name, has nothing to do with the victory of Judas Maccabeus.
If Haman is the counterpart of Nicanor and Mordecai of Judas,
we should expect to find some woman conspicuously concerned
in the overthrow of Nicanor, but this is not the case. Here once
more Erbt comes to the rescue of his theory with another theory.
He splits the Book of Est. into two narratives, a story of Mordecai
and a story of Est., and maintains that the former was the original
commemoration of the victory over Nicanor, and that the latter is
an addition to the legend. According to Haupt (p. 7), ‘‘The
prototype of Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther is Alexander Balas
of Syria, while the prototype of Esther is Alexander’s wife, the
Egyptian princess Cleopatra, daughter of Ptolemy VI. Philometor
and his sister Cleopatra, who both were very friendly disposed
toward the Jews. ... The figure of Esther also bears some
traces of Ithaca or Irene (the favourite concubine of Ptolemy
Philometor’s coregent and successor, his brother Ptolemy Physcon)
who besought Ptolemy Physcon to abandon his plan of extermi-
nating the Alexandrian Jews.” But the only point of similarity
between Cleopatra and Irene and Esther is that both were favour-
able to the Jews. They had nothing to do with the overthrowal
of Nicanor, and therefore it is hard to see why they should be
dragged into a legend that is meant to commemorate Judas’
victory.
A third objection to this theory is that it recognizes no organic
connection between the feast of Purim and the festal legend com-
posed for its celebration. ‘The feast is of Jewish origin, but the
legend associated with it is of Babylonian-Persian origin. How
did this peculiar combination come about? If Purim were a
Babylonian or a Persian feast, one could understand how the story
that had been connected with it from time immemorial should
6
52 ESTHER
still be attached to it when this feast was adopted by the Jews; but
one cannot see how the Jews came to tell a Babylonian or a Persian
story, that originally had an entirely different meaning, in con-
nection with a Jewish historical anniversary. On p. 11 Haupt
says, “The contemporaries of the author of the Book of Esther
understood the allusions to Nicanor, Jonathan, Alexander Balas,
Cleopatra, Irene, &c. . . . just as well as the readers of Heinrich
von Kleist’s Hermannsschlacht perceived the contemporary refer-
ences in the patriotic drama of the Prussian poet. This can hardly
be called a very good Hebrew or Semitic analogy. The Book of
Job, that Haupt also alludes to, has no bearing on the case. Where
have we another instance in the OT. of the observance of a holy
day by the reading of a story that has no obvious connection with
the meaning of the day in question? The deliverance from
Egypt is celebrated by the reading of the story of the Exodus, not
of an account of Marduk’s victory over Tiamat. ‘The destruc-
tion of Jerusalem is commemorated by the reading of the Book of
Lamentations, in which this event is described, not by an account
of the fall of Humbaba before Gilgamesh. Why then should
not Judas’ victory over Nicanor be celebrated by a narrative of
that event, instead of by an allegorical adaptation of a Persian-
ized Babylonian myth?
A fourth objection to this theory is its failure to give a satis-
factory Hebrew etymology for the name Purim. A feast that the
Jews themselves had invented to celebrate an important event in
their own history they would not have called by a Babylonian or
Persian name for which no rational explanation can be given.
This consideration applies with equal force to any theory that
assigns Purim a Hebrew origin. A feast that bears a foreign
name must have been derived from a foreign source—such is the
opinion of the majority of critics of the present day., As Kuenen,
Onderzoek, p. 545, also observes, this theory best explains the un-
historical character of the book, A feast that hada historical Jew-
ish origin could best be justified by telling the true story of its insti-
tution, but a feast derived from the heathen could only be justified
by a fiction. The a priori objection raised by Konig, Einleitung,
p. 292, and Erbt, p. 76, that religious scruples would have pre-
ORIGIN OF PURIM 83
vented the post-exilic Jews from borrowing a heathen festival,
is not weighty. In their early history the Hebrews adopted all
the agricultural festivals of the Canaanites and transformed them
into national memorials. Several Babylonian holy days have
been similarly transformed in the Priestly Code. In later times
difficulty would doubtless be felt in adopting religious festivals,
but the same opposition would not be raised against secular anni-
versaries and holidays, such as the feast of Purim is. Many
modern Jews keep Christmas and other national holidays as secular
celebrations, and it is quite conceivable that in process of time
they should make them a part of their calendar and give them a
Jewish interpretation. The newspapers lately reported that a
convention of Jewish rabbis had decided to keep the American
national holiday of Thanksgiving Day, and to make it a celebra-
tion of the first landing of the Jews in America. This is a good
illustration of the process that in all ages has been going on in
Judaism of absorbing all sorts of alien elements and assimilating
them to the national genius. There is no difficulty, therefore, in
supposing that Purim was originally a heathen festival that the
Jews learned to keep in one of the lands of their exile, and for
which they subsequently invented the pseudo-historical justifica-
tion that the Book of Esther contains. The history of religion is
full of analogous instances in which heterogeneous institutions have
been given a new interpretation by the sects which have adopted
them.
(2) Theory of a Greek origin of Purim.—H. Gritz, ‘Der
historische Hintergrund und die Abfassung des B. Est. und der
Ursprung des Purimfestes,” MGWJ. χχχν. (1886), pp. 425 ff;
473.ff-; 521 f., maintains that Purim is the Greek feast of πεθοιγία͵
or ‘the cask-opening,’ the Vinalia of the Romans, a season char-
acterized by wine-drinking and sending of presents just as Purim
was. This he holds was introduced by Joseph, the tax-gatherer,
in the reign of Ptolemy Philopator (222-205 B.c.) (cf. Jos. Ant.
xii. 160 ff.). Following J. D. Michaelis, he explains Purim as an
otherwise unknown plural of the Heb. word pfra, ‘wine-press,’
and supposes that this name was given with reference to the open-
ing of the wine-casks. But wine-presses are not wine-casks, and
84 ESTHER
they suggest rather the autumn than the spring-time, when the
Pithoigia were celebrated. The intense reaction against every-
thing Greek that obtained during the Maccabzan period makes
it unlikely that a Greek festival, so recently introduced as this
theory assumes, could have gained so strong a hold on the affec-
tions of the people that the religious authorities were unable to
dislodge it. Moreover, this theory fails to give an explanation
of the way in which the Esther-legend, which evidently is not of
Greek origin, came to be connected with a Greek feast. This
theory, accordingly, has found no favour among critics.
(3) Theories of a Persian origin of Purim.—If a foreign origin
is to be sought for the feast of Purim, one naturally thinks first of
Persia. The scene of the Book of Est. is laid in that land, and
it contains a number of Persian words and allusions to Persian
customs (cf. ὃ 25, and ὃ 27, 3). In 37 the word pur, from which
Purim is supposed to come, is explained as though it were Persian.
In 9'7 sq. it is the Persian Jews who inaugurate the keeping of
the feast. These facts suggest that Purim was originally a Persian
feast that was learned by the Jews residing in Susa and its vicinity,
and that from them it spread to the Jews in other parts of the
world.
E. Meier, Geschichte der poetischen National-Literatur der Hebriéer
(1856), p. 506, speaks thus: “‘ The name of this feast suggests at once its
foreign origin. It is Persian, and our author interprets it as ‘lot’
(Pers. bahr), but incorrectly. Purim is clearly originally the great
feast of the redemption of Nature, the spring festival (otherwise known
as neurtiz among the Persians), but here derived from Pers. behér,
‘spring.’ In Persia the Jews became acquainted with this feast, took
part in it, until at length it became quite their own, and then retained
it even after the Persian dominion was past. Our author wishes to
recommend this feast to his fellow-countrymen in Palestine, and seeks
to give it, like the Passover, a historical basis, and thus to nationalize
it” (cf. Meier, Hebr. Wurzelwérterbuch, p. 716).-
F. Hitzig, Geschichte des Volkes Israels (1869), p. 280, says: ‘‘The
Persian in our author’s field of vision seems to be traversed by another
language that is neither Aryan nor Semitic, in which pur meant ‘lot’
(37); but that the feast of Purim derived its name from this (925) does not
sound probable. Adar (March) is the last month, and in the spring
the Persians also began their year. Now, in modern Arabic New Year
ORIGIN OF PURIM ὃς
is called phur; the Persian purdeghdn (intercalary days) belong here
also, being derived from Skr. pirva, ‘the first, the preceding,’ just as
stjah, ‘black,’ goes back to Zend ¢jéva. Since, moreover, on account of
the description which 3° gives of the Jews, the book must be brought
down to the times after the colonization by Seleucus Nicator, efc., it was
probably composed under Parthian rule after the year 238. The Par-
thians of Scythian stock may have had words like pur, ‘lot,’ Agha,
from which perhaps comes A gag, and others.”
Similarly J. Fiirst, Kanon des A. T. (1868), pp. 104 f., and L. Zunz,
ZDMG. xxvii. (1873), p. 686, hold that Purim is an adaptation of a
Persian spring festival.
L.S. P. Meijboom (not Meyboom, as his name is spelled in all the pana
books) in his chapter on Esther in Raadselachtige Verhalen uit het
Oude en het Niewe Verbond (1870), p. 114, also identifies Purim with
the Persian New Year festival; and in addition to this seeks to give the
characters in the Book of Est. a mythological interpretation: “The name
Vashti may be the Persian behischta, ‘belonging to Paradise,’ Esther,
the Sanskrit stéré, which agrees with the Greek astron, our star, and may
denote the star par excellence, i.e., the sun. She is also called Hadassa,
1.6., ‘the swift.’ For Mordecai the dictionaries give the meaning of
‘mannikin,’ and this name of the faithful guardian of Esther is excep-
tionally appropriate to the moon. The conception of the moon as a
man, sometimes as a woman, we find also among the Indo-Germans.
It is better, however, to think of the Sanskrit chdyd, ‘shadow,’ and
mard, ‘make weak,’ then ‘melt’; and consequently to give the name
Mordecai the meaning of ‘shadow-melter,’ which is not less appropriate
to the moon. Haman’s name finally is related to hima, hiems, cheimén,
which all mean winter, and all agree with the Sanskrit heman.” Meij-
boom then proceeds to show how the story of Esther depicts the victory
of the gods of summer over the gods of winter.
A more important form of the Persian theory is that first proposed
by J. von Hammer in the Wiener Jahrbiicher fiir Literatur (1872),
XXXviii. p. 49, namely, that Purim is the same as the Pers. Parvardigan,
a feast in memory of the dead, that was kept on the last ten days of the
year and included the 5 intercalary days that were necessary to equalize
the civil year of 360 days with the solar year. Lagarde, Purim, ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Religion (1887), observed the fact that in the
Lucianic recension of the Greek version Purim is represented by
Phourdaia (in the common text Phrourai). This he regarded as the
original form of the name, and as etymologically identical with Pers.
Farvardigan. In New Pers. this appears as Pérdigan, which seems to
be the same as Phourdigan, a feast of the Persians mentioned by the
Byzantine historian Menander in the sixth century. The original Heb.
form of the name he holds was Purdatya, which has been preserved in
80 ESTHER
the Lucianic text, and Purim is a late Jewish corruption of the name.
The testimony of 37 that the feast was named after pur, ‘the lot,’ he
rejects as a textual corruption. Similarly Renan, Histoire du peuple
d@’Israel, iv. (1892), connects the name with Pers. Fourdi=Aram.
Pourdai=Heb. Pourdim= Purim.
F. Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode (1892), pp. 42-45, rejects
Lagarde’s etymology of the name Purim, but follows him in his identi-
fication of this feast with Farvardigdn, the Persian All Souls’ Day.
The avoidance of the name of God in Est. is best explained, he main-
tains, as due to the fact that this feast belonged to the cult of the dead.
The fast and the feast of Purim must have had originally a religious
meaning; but if they had been dedicated to the God of Israel, there
would have been no reason for inventing a story to explain them. They
cannot have been of heathen origin, for then they would not have been
adopted by post-exilic Judaism. Midway between Yahwism and
heathenism, however, stands the cult of the dead, that was practised
in Israel from the earliest times and that never died out. In Farvar-
digan the Jews found something congenial to their ancient beliefs and
practices, and therefore adopted it more readily. The banquets that
accompany Purim suggest the feasts of the dead, and the presents are
a survival of offerings to the dead. In Jewish tradition the month
Adar is specially connected with commemorations of the dead. In it
fall the death-days of Moses, Elijah, and Miriam. In it the graves are
whitewashed, and this is a custom that can be traced back to Persia.
In a Purim-legend published by Sachau, Haman sits by the graveyard
and exacts 34 dirhams for every corpse. Purim is best explained as a
“disguised feast of the dead.” ‘This view has found the approval of
Wildeboer, Lit. des A. T., pp. 445-450; Commentar, p. 176; Siegfried,
Com., p. 137; Haupt, Purim, p. 20, although these critics recognize also
the presence of Babylonian elements in this festival.
So far as this theory depends upon an etymological identifica-
tion of Purim with Pers. Farvardigdn, it rests upon a very insecure
foundation. There is no reason why the notoriously incorrect
text of Lucian should in this instance be preferred tothe Heb. text.
The Greek forms of the name can easily be explained as corrup-
tions or attempted interpretations of the Heb. form, and there is
no need of going to Persian for an explanation of Phrourai,
Phourdaia, or any of the other variants of the name. Lagarde
himself in his later writings abandoned this etymology and _pro-
posed to connect Purim with Mandaic puhra, ‘meal.’ With the
ORIGIN OF PURIM 87
failure of this identification there falls, however, the main reason
for identifying Purim with Farvardigén. Moreover, Farvardigén
came on the last ten days of the year, while Purim was celebrated
on the 14th and 15th of Adar, the last month. It is difficult to
see how or why the date of the feast was changed, if it was derived
from Farvardigan. In such matters religions are usually very
conservative. It is also uncertain that Farvardigén coincided
regularly with the spring month of Adar. The Persian year had
only 365 days, and consequently in the lapse of time New Year
Day must have fallen in different seasons of the year (see Kuenen,
Onderzoek, p. 546). The evidence that Purim was originally a
feast of the dead, which is the only argument left for identifying
it with Farvardigaén, is not very impressive (cf. Griineisen, Der
Ahnenkultus und die Urreligion Israels (1900), pp. 187 ff.).
(4) Theory of a Babylonian origin of Purim.—lf{ Purim was
derived by the Jews from a foreign source, it is natural to think
that Babylonia may have been its original home. Even if it was
learned in Persia, it may still be ultimately of Babylonian origin.
The archeological discoveries of the last fifty years have demon-
strated with ever-increasing fulness how much Hebrew civiliza-
tion borrowed from Babylonia from the earliest down to the
latest period. May it not be that Purim is one of the many ele-
ments derived from this source? Such is the opinion of a large
number of recent critics.
F. Hommel, in an Appendix to N. Weisslovits, Prinz und Derwisch
(1890); H. Zimmern, “‘Zur Frage nach dem Ursprunge des Purimfestes,””
ZATW. xi. (1891), pp. 157 ff. (cf. Muss-Arnolt, Christian Intelligencer,
June το, 1891); P. Jensen, ‘“‘Elamitische Eigennamen,” WZKM. vi.
(1892), pp. 47 ff., 209 ff-, and in Nowack, Arch. ii. 199, and Wildeboer,
Com. p. 173; W. Nowack, Archdologie (1894), ii. pp. 194 ff-; Gunkel,
Schépfung und Chaos (1895), pp. 309 ff.; B. Meissner, “Zur Entste-
hungsgeschichte des Purimfestes,’ ZDMG. 1. (1896), pp. 296 77;
H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, ii. (1898), pp. 91 ff., 182,
354 f.; C. H. Toy, ‘Esther as a Babylonian Goddess,” New World,
1898, pp. 130 f.; H. Zimmern, KAT.* (1902), pp. 514 ἥ-.; J. G. Frazer,
The Golden Bough? (1903), pp. 138 ff. (cf. EBi. iii. (1902), 3980; H.
Winckler, ‘‘ Esther” in A/ltorientalische Forschungen, iii. (1902), pp. 1-66;
all agree in tracing Purim and the Esther-legend to a Babylonian source.
88 ESTHER
Other critics, such as Erbt, Haupi, and Johns, who give Purim a Jew-
ish origin, or Schwally, Wildeboer, and Smend, who give it a Persian
origin, nevertheless recognize Babylonian influence in the story.
On this theory Purim is a Babylonian feast, and the story
of Esther is the legend that belongs to this feast. The main
characters are Babylonian and Elamite gods, and the narrative
is transformed Babylonian mythology. Mordecai (Greek Mar-
dochaios) is Marduk (Merodach), the chief god of Babylon.
@ and @ on τοῖ say that he was like the morning star.
Esther is Ishtar, the chief Babylonian goddess. This is the
regular form which her name assumes in Aramaic (cf. Haupt,
“The name Istar,” ASSL. xxviii.’ (4907), pp.’ 112 ἢ ‘Her
other name, Hadassah, is Bab. ladaSsatu, ‘myrtle,’ then
‘bride,’ that is often used as a title of goddesses. She is the
cousin of Mordecai, as Ishtar is of Marduk. In later Jewish
literature there are many allusions to the connection of Esther
and Ishtar. Thus the Babylonian Talmud, M°ghilla 13a,
says, “‘According to Rabbi Nehemiah her name was originally
Hadassah. Why then was she called Esther? Because the
people of the world called her after the name of the planet Venus
(annox).”” Similarly @? in Est. 27 (ed. David, p. 19) says, “Her
name was called after the name of a bright star, in Greek Astéra
(xno) (cf. also Yalqut 44). Haman is Humman or Humban,
the chief god of the Elamites. Strabo 512 says, ‘‘There were
founded the sanctuaries both of Anaitis and of the associated gods
Omanos and Anadatos, Persian divinities; and they celebrated a
festival and yearly rites, namely, the Sakea.” In 733 he says,
“These things were customary in the sanctuary of Anaitis and of
Omanos.” Anaitis is the chief Persian goddess, the counterpart
of the Babylonian Ishtar, and Omanos and Anadatos bear a
striking resemblance to Haman and Hammedatha; his father.
Midrash Esther Rabba in its comments on 51° says that ‘“‘Haman
had 365 counsellors, as many as the days of a solar year”’; so also
Midrash Abba Goryon on τι". This seems to preserve a recollec-
tion that Haman was originally a solar deity. Vashti Jensen
identifies with Mashti (Vashti), a deity of the Elamite inscrip-
tions, who has the epithet zana that elsewhere is applied only to
ORIGIN OF PURIM 39
goddesses. Clay, JAOS. 1907, p. 137, notices certain Aramaic
dockets on Babylonian tablets which seem to indicate that the
much discussed ideographic divine name NJN-IB should be
read En-Mashti (Vashti) ‘Lord of Vashti,’ and suggests that this
may throw light on the origin of Vashti. The command of the
King to Vashti in @ on 1", “ Rise from thy royal throne, and
strip thyself naked, and put a crown upon thy head, and take
a golden cup in thy right hand, and a golden pitcher in thy
left hand,” suggests the representations of goddesses in West-
Asiatic art. Zeresh of the Book of Est., Jensen conjectures,
may be a textual corruption of Geresh (cf. Gazasa and Gozarra in
some of the texts of Jos. and Gin Est. 5'°), which he identifies
with Girisha or Kirisha, an Elamite goddess, apparently the con-
sort of Humman. In ZDMG. lv. (igor), p. 228, he suggests
rather that Zeresh may be the same as Siris, the Babylonian
goddess of wine.
These similarities of names are certainly striking and can hardly
be accidental. If the leading characters of the Book of Est. be
identified with the chief gods of Babylon and of Elam, then the
conflict of Mordecai and Esther against Haman, Vashti, and Zeresh
must be regarded as a euhemeristic version of an ancient Baby-
lonian myth describing a conflict of Marduk and Ishtar against
Humman, Vashti, and Kirisha (or Siris), and Purim must be
identified with the Babylonian feast with which this myth was
connected. There is general agreement concerning the main
points of analogy just described, but in regard to the further in-
terpretation of the myth and the identification of the Babylonian
feast opinions differ.
Jensen in Wildeboer’s Com., p. 174, finds the prototype of the story
of Est. in the Gilgamesh Epic. Gilgamesh, the sun-god of Erech, the
counterpart of Marduk, the sun-god of Babylon, is the hero of an expe-
dition against Humbaba (a compound of Humman, Humban), King of
Elam. Humbaba is the custodian of a lofty cedar that belongs to the
goddess Irnina (=Ishtar), the prototype of Haman’s gallows. Hum-
baba is killed by Gilgamesh with the aid of a goddess called Kallatu,
‘Bride’ (=Hadassah). (For the original of the Gilgamesh Epic, see
Jensen in KB. vi. 1900, and Das Gilgamesch-Epos in der Weltliteratur,
1906.) With the unification of Babylonia under the rule of the city of
go
ESTAR
Babylon this legend became the national epic, and the exploits of Gil-
gamesh were transferred to his counterpart Marduk, the chief god of
Babylon. As a Marduk-legend this epic eventually became known
to the Jews, and was transformed by them into the story of Esther.
By most critics these combinations are regarded as rather far-fetched,
and it is a serious weakness in the theory that in the Book of Est. Esther
plays the leading role as the ally of Mordecai and the overthrower of
Haman, while in the Gilgamesh-Epic Ishtar is the enemy of Gilgamesh.
Gunkel, Schdpfuing, p. 313, modifies this theory so that the Book of
Est. becomes an account of the struggle between Babylonia and Persia
rather than an individual episode of the Gilgamesh-legend. For him
the conflict of Mordecai and Esther against Haman and Vashti is the
conflict of the gods of Babylonia against the gods of Elam, which in its
turn is a reflex of the century-long battle for supremacy between Baby-
lonia and Elam, ending in the victory of Babylonia. The prominence
given Esther-Ishtar is due to the fact that the city of Ishtar, not the city
of Marduk, was the leader in the war of emancipation. The subse-
quent turning over of her authority to Mordecai and his exaltation cor-
respond to the subsequent supremacy of Babylon, Marduk’s city.
Zimmern finds the prototype of the Esther-legend in the Babylonian
creation-myth. Humman and Vashti, the gods of the hostile Elamites,
are the equivalent of Kingu and Tiamat, the powers of darkness and
disorder, who in the creation-story seek to reduce the world to chaos.
Marduk and Ishtar are the gods of light and order, who vanquish
Humman and Vashti and bring peace and blessing to the world. A
trace of this origin of the legend still survives in the dream of Mordecai
and its interpretation, Greek Add. A (=11) and F (=10o), where the
sun and a fountain and two dragons are interpreted to mean Mordecai,
Esther, and Haman. The principal difficulty with this view is that in
the Babylonian creation-story, as it has come down to us, Marduk alone
is the hero, and Ishtar plays no such important part as is given Esther
in our book. Meissner suggests that in late Babylonian times Ishtar
began to supersede Marduk in popular esteem, and that in a late form
of the creation-story Ishtar may have taken a more conspicuous part in
the victory over the powers of darkness, but this is all conjecture.
Winckler is disposed to find analogies with the Tammuz-Ishtar myth.
Haman is the deposed sun-god, who through the six winter months is
condemned to dwell in the under-world. The 180 days of Ahasuerus’
feast is the half-year period of Haman’s reign. His name Agagite is
connected with agdgu, ‘be angry,’ and corresponds to the myth of the
drunken and tyrannical god whose rule is brought to an end with the
vernal equinox. His death by hanging is a characteristic fate of solar-
heroes. Vashti, the beautiful, who refuses to come at the command
of the King, is the virgin Ishtar, who accompanies her lover to the under-
ORIGIN OF PURIM gl
world. She cannot come, because the period of her reign on earth is
over. Mordecai and Esther are Marduk and Ishtar, the terrestrial
counterparts of Haman and Vashti in the under-world. They release
the earth from the tyranny of the powers of winter and darkness, and
reign over the six summer months. The seven eunuchs and the seven
viziers are the Annunaki and Igigi, the spirits of the upper and the lower
world. The first seven are sent to bring up Ishtar out of Hades, the
other seven advise that Vashti be deposed. Ahasuerus represents the
summus deus, the abiding element in which the contradictions of nature
find their reconciliation. This theory does not differ essentially from
that of Zimmern, inasmuch as the gods of creation and of the spring-
time are closely connected in Babylonian thought.
The theories as to the particular Babylonian feast of which Purim
is a descendant depend for the most part upon the form of mythical
interpretation that is given to the Esther-legend. Lagarde, GGA.
1890, p. 403,= Mittheilungen, iv. p. 147, abandoned the identification
of Purim with Pers. Farvardigén, and connected it with the Mandaic
word puhra, ‘meal.’ Hommel in the same year suggested that this
might be the same as Bab. pulru, ‘assembly.’ Zimmern then called
attention to the fact that the Babylonian New Year feast was known as
pulru, and on the strength of this identified Purim with this feast.
Under the name of Zagmuk, ‘beginning of the year,’ this feast in honour
of Marduk was celebrated in the opening days of Nisan, the first month.
It was the most solemn day in the whole year, for on it the gods were
believed to meet in a pulru, or ‘assembly,’ to determine the fates of
men for the ensuing year. In symbol of this assembly the images of
the gods were brought in festal processions from their various temples
to meet with Marduk in the “‘Chamber of Fate.’’ This assembly,
which took place at the beginning of every year, the Babylonians also
believed to have preceded creation. ‘The creation-story narrates how, at
the foundation of the world, a pulru was held at which Marduk was
given supreme authority, and the tablets of fate were placed in his hands.
Thus, according to Zimmern, a creation-myth, such as he thinks under-
lies the Book of Est., was the original story that belonged to the Zag-
muk feast. By this theory the explanation of Purim in Est. 37 9%
becomes intelligible. The “lots” of the Heb. narrative are a reminis-
cence of the lots or destinies of men that were determined on New Year
Day. The banqueting on Purim is like the Babylonian celebration of
Zagmuk; and this also had its divine counterpart, for at the assembly
of the gods at creation they drank until they lost their senses and be-
came stupefied (cf. Delitzsch, Weltschopfungsepos (1896), pp. 79, 103;
139; Jensen, KB. vi. (1900), pp. 20, 135). In the name “Day of Mor-
decai” (2 Mac. 15%*) Zimmern finds a strong evidence that Purim was
originally a feast of Marduk.
ESTHER
A serious difficulty with this theory is its assumption that the strong
guttural in pukru could have been lost in Aram. and Heb. so that
Purim could have arisen from it. It is generally thought that this
change is phonetically impossible (cf. Jensen, ZA. x. (1896), p. 339 n.;
Cornill, Einleitung, p. 255; Haupt, Purim, p. 20). Zimmern himself
abandons this etymology in Κα 7.3 p. 518, but he still holds to the identi-
fication of Purim with the Zagmuk feast. Another difficulty with this
theory is that Zagmuk was held in the first two weeks of Nisan, while
Purim was celebrated on the 14th and the r5th of Adar, the preceding
month. Zimmern thinks that it has been transferred to Adar from an
original position in Nisan through the influence of Nicanor’s Day, or
through desire to avoid conflict with Passover, and in favour of this view
he cites the facts that in Est. 37 Haman casts lots in Nisan, and that in
Greek A! (=112) Mordecai’s dream occurs on the first of Nisan. This
is not a satisfactory explanation. Sacred days are not changed in this
free fashion, but hold their original position, even though they may
change their meaning. Another objection to this theory is that Ishtar
plays no more important part in the ceremonies of the Zagmuk feast
than she does in the creation-myth, while in the Book of Esther she is
the central figure and Purim is instituted in her honour. Moreover,
Zagmuk was so distinctly a religious celebration that it is hard to believe
that the post-exilic Jews could ever have been brought to adopt it so
completely.
Meissner’s theory is a modification of Zimmern’s. It assumes that
Zagmuk is the prototype of Purim, but holds that it came to the Jews
through the intermediate link of the Persian Sakea, which is etymo-
logically the same as Zagmuk. ‘This feast is described by Berossus
(in Athenzus, xiv. 639 c, cf. Dio Chrysostom, Or. iv. 6,9, f.M.). Strabo,
512, as cited above, connects Sakea with the gods Omanos and Anadatos,
7.6., Haman and Hammedatha. This feast was of a Bacchanalian
character, and in it Ishtar, the goddess of love, played an important
part. A slave or condemned criminal was made king for five days,
ruled over the nobles, and had the right to use the royal concubines. At
the end of that time he was hanged or crucified to typify the death of
the god of winter. During this period all the usual social relations
were reversed, as in the Roman Saturnalia and the Italian Carnival,
which are survivals of this same feast. This feast the Jews came to
know in Susa, and they were attracted to it because of the release that
it brought them from their ordinary servile position. This accounts for
their adoption of it, and for their subsequent development of it into a
festival of national deliverance. Frazer, Golden Bough?, iii. (1903),
pp. 138-200, develops this theory still further. He holds that at the
feast of Sakea, at the close of the year, ἃ mock-king and a mock-queen
were chosen to impersonate the god and the goddess of winter, whose
a Ὑ ΥΥΥ ΎΥΎΥΨΨ ΘΝ 0Ν
ORIGIN OF PURIM . 93
reign was now over, and that by sympathetic magic the union of these
two persons was supposed to promote the fertility of the earth. When
the brief period of the feast was ended, the mock-king was put to death
and his bride was deposed, to represent the death of the god of winter.
Haman and Vashti are the temporary king and queen who typify the
god and goddess of fertility regarded as decaying and dying with the
old year. A vestige of the right of the Zoganes, or king of the Sakea,
to use the royal concubines, is seen in the suspicion of Ahasuerus, Est. 78,
that Haman intends to force Esther. Mordecai and Esther, on the other
hand, are the representatives of the god and goddess of fertility, coming
to life again with the beginning of the new year. A memory of the
original conjugal relation between Mordecai and Esther is preserved
in the Talmudic exegesis of 27 (cf. Meg. 13a; Schudt, Jiidische Merk-
wiirdigkeiten, ii. p. 316).
Against this theory Zimmern, KAT.* p. 516, argues that there is
no sufficient evidence of the etymological connection of Sak@a with
Zagmuk, and that the statement of Berossus cited above shows that the
feast of Sak@a was celebrated on the 16th of Loos (July-August=the
Bab.-Heb. month of Ab). Strabo, 512 and 733, also connects the Sakea
with Anaitis (=Ishtar) rather than with Marduk, which seems to show
that this feast is to be identified with the Ishtar-feast in the month of
Ab rather than with the Marduk-feast in Nisan. Jensen, who formerly
adopted Zimmern’s identification of Purim with Zagmuk, has latterly
been moved by these considerations to identify it with the Ishtar-feast
in Ab, which he regards as the prototype of the Sakea. In support
of this he urges the prominent position that Esther takes in the Book of
Esther, which suggests that the feast of Purim was originally in honour
of Ishtar. (Cf. Hoffmann in ZA. xi. 1897, p. 259.) Zimmern, KAT.8
p- 516, is so far influenced by Jensen’s views as to hold that Purim has
resulted from a mixture of the Marduk feast with elements derived from
the Ishtar feast. The chief difficulty with this theory is that the Sakea
came in July-August, while Purim came in February-March. No sat-
isfactory explanation can be given of this changing of the date of the
feast, if it was derived from the Persian Sakea.
Jensen in Lit. Cent. Bl., 1896, No. 50, col. 1803, first suggested that
there was an Assyrian word pfru with the meaning ‘stone’ or ‘lot’
(of. Peiser, KB. iv., p. τοῦ f.). Following up this suggestion, Johns,
Expositor, Aug., 1896, pp. 151-154, and Bz. 3997, maintains that in
Assyrian this word also ‘“‘denotes a ‘term of office,’ specially the year of
eponymy. These offices were entered upon at the New Year feast in
Assyria. Hence whilst that festival may have been called the Pufru
festival, it may also have been called the Puru festival. Such a name
for the New Year festival, however, remains undiscovered in cuneiform
literature. If it were fully established, we should still have to account
04 ESTHER
for the transference of the date. As on the New Year festival all off-
cials entered on their offices, however, it is conceivable that those
offices were previously fixed in Adar. ‘Then the Puhru and the Puru
festivals would be separate. Marduk’s fixations of the fates may have
been anticipated by a previous appeal to the ‘lot.’ True, in historical
times, the eponyms appear to follow a regular order, and an appeal to
the lot seems out of question. Still, in the later Assyrian times this
order is widely departed from, and granting the royal favour to have
‘loaded the dice,’ we may imagine a formal appeal to the ‘lot.’ The
Babylonian hemerologies have yet to be consulted as to the observances
in Adar. Unfortunately, these await publication. But the 13th of
Adar was so far a fast day that on it no fish or fowl might be eaten: in
one tablet the 13th is marked ‘not good,’ whilst the 14th and 15th are
‘good.’”’? On this view Purim, ‘the lots,’ was originally the Baby-
lonian Election Day; and, as a secular occasion, was the more readily
adopted by the Jews as a time of merrymaking. ‘The great advantage
of this theory is that it assumes a Babylonian prototype that corresponds
with the days on which Purim has always been kept, so far as we have
historical records. ὙΠῸ difficulty with this theory is the doubt whether
piru really means ‘lot’ and ‘eponymy.’ Zimmern, KAT.3 p. 518,
gives the subject an elaborate discussion with full citation of the passages,
and comes to the conclusion that piérw means ‘a sacrificial bowl, or
table’ (cf. Haupt, Purim, p. 20). If so, then this attractive theory
loses its foundation. (
As a result of the survey of theories just given it appears that,
while the feast of Purim is probably borrowed either directly from
Babylonia, or indirectly by way of Persia, no certainty has yet
been reached as to the precise Babylonian feast from which it is
derived. The story which accompanies it has many points of
similarity to Babylonian mythology, but no close counterpart to
it has yet been discovered in Babylonian literature. For the
history of the observance of Purim in post-biblical times, see the
article of H. Malter on “Purim” in JE. and the literature that is
there given.
IVs \CANONICIRY;
§ 29. OMISSION OF THE NAME OF GOD.
A curious phenomenon of the book is its omission of the
name of God, even in passages like 4", where it seems almost
impossible to avoid using it. In 167 verses the King of Persia
CANONICITY 95
is named 190 times, Persia 26 times, Ahasuerus 29 times, but
Yahweh never. Some early Jewish exegetes attempted to remove
this difficulty by the discovery of anagrams of the divine name
in three passages of the book, and this theory has led to the en-
largement of the initial letters of the words in question in a few
codd. (see § 3). Jehring (1722), Bullinger (1889), and Cumming
(1907) hail this as evidence that the author was a religious man,
who wished to indicate that Yahweh is present in history, even
though his working may be veiled. Such conceits need no refu-
tation.
Steinthal, Zu Bibel- und Religions philosophie (1890), pp. 53 7.»
holds that the author’s avoidance of the name of God is due to the
fact that he is a skeptic. But belief in God is at least implied in
the fasting and wailing of 4*- 15 and in the circumlocution of 4",
“then will relief and deliverance arise to the Jews from another
place.” The author knows the story of Joseph, and probably
other portions of the sacred literature of his people. His mention
of proselytes (8'7 927) shows also that he was not indifferent to
religion. He valued the feast of Purim, if no other feast, and its
observance can hardly have been destitute of religious association.
The avoidance of the name of God cannot be due to residence
in Persia (Scholtz, Judith, xvii.), since God is frequently named
in the Persian inscriptions, and since Ez., Wisd., efc., that were
written in heathen lands, mention Him freely. This silence is
not parallel to the substitution of Lord, Heaven, Highest, Name,
etc., for Yahweh in late Jewish literature, since these are not cases
of omission but of substitution. It cannot be due to the fact that
the author is writing about a godless age, or that Purim was orig-
inally a heathen, or a merely secular, institution.
The most probable explanation of the phenomenon is found in
the occasion for which the book was written. Est. was meant
to be read at the annual merrymaking of Purim, for which the
Mishna lays down the rule that people are to drink until they are
unable to distinguish between ‘‘Blessed be Mordecai!’’ and
“Cursed be Haman!” (cf. 9'* 3). On such occasions the name of
God might be profaned, if it occurred in the reading; and, there-
fore, it was deemed best to omit it altogether. The book is not
οὐ ESTHER
irreligious, but it is non-religious. The author believes in God,
but he has no such consciousness of his presence as appears in
the Prophets and the Psalms. Alone of all the books in the OT.
he ascribes deliverance to men instead of God. Fasting is the
only religious rite that he mentions.
§ 30. MORAL TEACHING OF THE BOOK.
There is not one noble character in this book. Xerxes is a
sensual despot. Esther, for the chance of winning wealth and
power, takes her place in the herd of maidens who become con-
cubines of the King. She wins her victories not by skill or by
character, but by her beauty. She conceals her origin, is relentless
toward a fallen enemy (7°*-!°), secures not merely that the Jews
escape from danger, but that they fall upon their enemies, slay
their wives and children, and plunder their property (8" 953-15).
Not satisfied with this slaughter, she asks that Haman’s ten sons
may be hanged, and that the Jews may be allowed another day for
killing their enemies in Susa (g'*-*). The only redeeming traits
in her character are her loyalty to her people and her bravery in
attempting to save them (4:5). Mordecai sacrifices his cousin
to advance his interests (28), advises her to conceal her religion
(21°. 20), displays wanton insolence in his refusal to bow to Haman
(32), and helps Esther in carrying out her schemes of vengeance
(89 -5.). All this the author narrates with interest and approval.
He gloats over the wealth and the triumph of his heroes and is
oblivious to their moral shortcomings. Morally Est. falls far be-
low the general level of the OT., and even of the Apocrypha. The
verdict of Luther is not too severe: “1 am so hostile to this book
that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much, and has too
much heathen naughtiness”’ (Tischreden, W. A. xxii. 2080).
§ 31. ESTIMATE OF THE CHURCH.
The Alexandrian Jews were so conscious of the religious and
moral deficiencies of Est. that they tried to remedy them with the
apocryphal additions noted above (§ 14). This free treatment
EARLIEST JEWISH EXEGESIS Q7
shows that no sacred character was yet attached to the book. In
Palestine there was long opposition before it was admitted to the
Canon. It is never quoted by Christ, nor by any of the NT.
writers. The early Christian Church made no use of it, and no
Church Father attempted an exposition of it. Melito (c. 170 A.D.)
omits it from his Canon, and Origen (c. 225 A.D.) does not include
it among the historical books. The Syrian Christians regarded
it as apocryphal, and the Nestorians never had it in their OT.
In significant contrast to this attitude of early Judaism and
early Christianity stands the high esteem of this book in later
Judaism. The Synod of Jamnia in the first century decreed it to
be canonical. Later writers sought to explain away the opposition
of their predecessors, and praised the book in most extravagant
terms. Rabbi Simeon b. Lakish (c. 300 A.D.) ranked it next to the
Law. Maimonides declared that although the Prophets and the
Writings should pass away when Messiah came, yet this book and
the Law should remain. Est. is inserted with the Law in the
synagogue-rolls and is treated with the highest reverence. More
targums and midrashes are based upon it than upon any other
portion of the OT.
With this verdict of late Judaism modern Christians cannot
agree. The book is so conspicuously lacking in religion that it
should never have been included in the Canon of the OT., but
should have been left with Judith and Tobit among the apocryphal
writings.
V. INTERPRETATION.
§ 32. EARLIEST JEWISH EXEGESIS.
In the second century B.c., when the Book of Esther was written,
two main types of exegesis were already fully developed among
the Jews. These were known as halakha, ‘walking,’ 1.6., ‘con-
duct,’ and haggada, ‘narrative.’ The first was applied primarily
to the Law, and consisted in a casuistical method of reasoning,
by which new meanings, not naturally suggested by the language,
were deduced from the words of Scripture, or by which justifica-
tions were found for existing ritual customs. The second was
7
98 ESTHER
applied chiefly to the historical books, and consisted in an imag-
inative filling out of incidents not narrated in the original records.
The Book of Esther lent itself to both these methods of interpre-
tation. Although it was not a part of the Law, yet it instituted
a feast that was regarded as equally binding with those of the Law,
and that took its place among the feasts as a regular part of the
sacred calendar. It was natural, therefore, that Est. should early
become a basis for halakhic discussions analogous to those that
were carried on over the Law. When, for instance, in 919 it is
enacted that the Jews in unwalled towns shall keep the fourteenth
day of Adar, there is opportunity for protracted debate as to what
towns are to be regarded as unwalled, and what is to be done in
case that a town once had a wall but has lost it, or in case that it
did not have a wall originally but has since received one. The
halakhoth that arose in this way out of the discussions of the
rabbinical schools were not written for fear of making additions
to Scripture, but they were transmitted orally for several centuries.
By the time of Christ an immense number of /alakhoth to Esther,
as well as to the Law, must have been in existence. Philo (in
Eusebius, Preparat. Evang. villi. 7, 6) speaks of ‘‘ten thousand
unwritten customs and rules,” and Josephus, Ant. xiii. το, 6,
speaks of ‘“‘many precepts which the Pharisees deliver to the people
from the tradition of the elders” (cf. Mt. 152 Mk. 73: 5). In
the case of Esther it was not possible to trace the origin of all the
halakhoth back to Moses, as was done in the case of the halakhoth
on the Law, yet the Babylonian Talmud comes very close to this
in M°’ghilla τοῦ, when it says, ‘‘What is the meaning when it is
written, Upon it stood all the words which the Lord spoke with
you in the mount? From this it follows that the Holy One,
blessed be He, revealed to Moses the careful investigation of the
Law and the careful investigations of the scribes, and: what new
thing the scribes would one day introduce. What is that? The
reading of the Roll of Esther.”
In process of time the difficulty of remembering the vast number
of detached halakhoth led to the attempt to arrange similar hala-
khoth in collections. Thus arose the form of tradition known as
the Mishna. The rabbi to whom the chief credit is to be given for
EARLIEST JEWISH EXEGESIS 99
bringing the Mishna into its present form is Judah the Prince,
who flourished c. 160-220 A.p. Of the 63 tractates, or collections,
of the Mishna one entire tractate, M°ghilld, is devoted to a collec-
tion of the halakhoth on the Book of Esther. It occupies the tenth
place in the second Seder, or ‘arrangement,’ that is known as
Mo‘ed. The contents of this tractate are mainly halakhic dis-
cussions concerning the proper observance of Purim, and the right
dates, places, and manner of reading the Roll of Esther in con-
nection with this feast.
The Mishna having received its final form from R. Judah, there
at once began to grow up about it the further oral discussions of
its meanings that constitute the Gemara. This bears the same
relation to the Mishna that the Mishna bears to the original text.
It is a casuistical commentary on the older commentary that dis-
covers all sorts of new and unexpected meanings. The Amorin,
or teachers of the Gemara, who flourished from about 220-500 A.D.,
were divided into two main schools, one at Tiberias in Palestine,
the other at Sura in Babylonia. As a result of their division there
grew up two independent but parallel forms of oral tradition of the
combined Mishna and Gemara. One is known as the Jerusalem
Talmud, the other as the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian
tradition finally prevailed among the Jews, and as a result the
Jerusalem Talmud has come down only in a fragmentary con-
dition. The tractate M%ghilla, however, has survived in both
recensions.
Toward the close of the fifth century and the beginning of the
sixth both Talmuds were at length reduced to writing. Their
enormous size rendered it almost impossible to transmit them orally;
and persecution, which cut off many of the leading rabbis, roused
the fear that this learning might perish if steps were not taken to
record it. With this literary fixing the Talmudic development
reached its completion, and since that time there has been no further
development of the halakha.
The tractate Méghillad in the Jerusalem Talmud may be found in
the editions, Venice, 1523-4; Cracow, 1609; Krotoschin, 1666; Shitomir,
1660-7. The Babylonian M¢ghilla may be found in all the numerous
editions of the Babylonian Talmud (for a list of editions see Strack,
100 ESTHER
Einleitung in den Thalmud?, pp. 73 7.). German translations of the
Babylonian M¢ghilla are given by L. Goldschmidt, Der Babylonische
Talmud; and by M. Rawicz, Der Traktat Megilla nebst Tosaphoth
vollstindig ins Deutsche tibertragen (1883); English translation by
M. L. Rodkinson, New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, viii. (1899).
While this development of the halakhic exegesis was going on,
another development of haggadic exegesis was also taking place.
The Book of Esther was not merely a law establishing the feast of
Purim, it was also a story describing the origin of that feast. The
popularity of this story and the brevity of the original narrative
early led to the growth of all sorts of legendary embellishments.
At first these were transmitted like the halakhoth as detached oral
traditions. Subsequently it was found more convenient to gather
the legends that belonged to a single book, and to arrange them
in the form of a commentary upon the original text. Thus arose
what is known as midrash. It systematizes the haggada in the
same way in which mishna systematizes the halakha. The
numerous additions to the text of Esther in G (see § 14), in Jo-
sephus (§ 18), in L (§ 17), and in & (§ 19) show that the midrash
to Esther had already attained a luxuriant development by the
beginning of the Christian era. In fact, @, L, and Jos. may
properly be described as Greek midrashim to the Book of Esther.
The effort of this sort of exegesis is not interpretation in any true
sense, but entertainment and edification. The original text is
used merely as a foundation upon which all sorts of imaginary
incidents are constructed.
Among the Jews of Palestine the haggadic tradition was not
reduced to writing so early as among the Greek-speaking Jews
of Alexandria. Haggadic legends similar to those found in 6,
L, and & continued to be transmitted orally along with the
halakhoth throughout the entire period of the Talmudic develop-
ment. ‘The ancient Jewish work on Chronology, Seder ‘Olam, in
which chapter xxviii. treats of Esther, makes use of this material
(editions, Genebrard, 1577; Meyer, 1699; Ratner, 1897; Leitner,
1904). In the Gemara which follows the fifth Mzshna in the first
chapter of the tractate M°%ghilla quite an extended midrash to the
Book of Esther is inserted. This was put into writing along with
EARLIEST CHRISTIAN EXEGESIS IOL
the rest of the Talmud in the sixth century, and is the earliest
Hebreo-Aramaic form of the haggada that is known to us.
The haggadic portions of the Babylonian Talmud are translated into
German by A. Wiinsche, Der babylonische Talmud in seinen hagga-
dischen Bestandtheilen (1886), and the corresponding portions of the
Jerusalem Talmud by the same author in Der Jerusalemische Talmud
in seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen (1880). ‘The two recensions
differ widely from each other. The BT. has preserved the fuller
collection of material. Both recensions contain only excerpts from a
rich fund of oral tradition that continued to exist among the Jews and
that was drawn upon by many later targums and midrashes.
§ 33. EARLIEST CHRISTIAN EXEGESIS.
During the period when both the halakhic and the haggadic
exegesis of Esther were having such an elaborate development
among the Jews, the book received almost no attention from
Christians. Dislike of its revengeful spirit and doubts in regard
to its canonicity led the Fathers of the Eastern and of the Western
Church for the most part to ignore it. In discussions of the Canon
the book is named by Epiphanius, Origen, Athanasius, Hilary,
and Junilius (see § 31). Augustine alludes to the story of Esther
in Civ. Dei, xviii. 36; also Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, i.
p. 319; Eusebius, Chronicorum libri duo, ed. Schoene, i. 125; il.
104; other Fathers contain passing references to Esther in ser-
mons; but not a single Christian commentary was written on this
book during the first seven centuries of our era.
§ 34. THE TARGUMS AND MIDRASHES.
In the period immediately after the completion of the Talmud
there was great activity among the Jews in gathering the numer-
ous halakhic and haggadic traditions connected with the Book of
Esther and in reducing them to writing. The names of several
old Esther midrashes and Esther targums are given by Alkabez
(1585); but these have not survived, except as they have been in-
corporated into the First or the Second Targum or into some of
the later midrashes. The Tirst Targum, which dates from the
102 ESTHER
seventh century, is also a midrash or ‘commentary.’ In ὃ 9
the additions which this targum makes to the text have been de-
scribed. As there stated, these additions have no text-critical
value, but are merely examples of halakhic and haggadic interpre-
tation of the Heb. original. The same oral tradition that is fol-
lowed in the Tractate M°ghilla is also used here, and M°ghilla
itself is frequently transcribed. This discloses, accordingly, the
second stage in the literary fixing of the oral exegetical tradition
connected with the Book of Esther. The third stage is seen in
the Second Targum, which dates from the ninth century. Here
the haggadic element so outweighs the version that it is more cor-
rect to speak of it as an Aramaic midrash than as a targum. ‘The
additions of [5: have been described already in ὃ 10. They are
of the same general type as those found in Meg. and ©', namely,
a combined halakhic and haggadic commentary on the Heb. text.
To a somewhat later date than the two targums belong a series
of midrashes on the Book of Esther that, for number and extent,
are without a parallel in the case of any other book of the OT.
The first in order of time is the Pirge de-Rabbi Eliezer, composed in
the ninth century, and ascribed to Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. It is a
haggadic midrashic commentary on Gn., Ex., part of Nu., and selected
later portions of the OT. Chapters xlix. ff. contain a midrash on the
Book of Esther that has many points of similarity with the Talmud
and Targums, but which contains also much new material. The
editions of the Pirge are as follows: Constantinople, 1518; Venice, 1545;
Sabionetta, 1568; Amsterdam, 1712; Wilna, 1837; Lemberg, 1864.
The next midrash is that of Yosippon, or Joseph b. Goryon (Josephus
Gorionides), which is now generally believed to be the work of a south
Italian Jew in the tenth century. It is a history of the Jews from the
fall of Babylon to the fall of Jerusalem, and is based in large measure
either directly or indirectly upon Josephus, whose name “ Yosippon”’
the author assumes. Book ii., chapters 1-5, contain the story of Esther.
Here we meet for the first time in Heb. the dream of Mordecai, his high
office in the palace and discovery of the plot of the eunuchs, Mordecai’s
prayer and Esther’s prayer, just as in @ These additions seem to
have been derived from the shorter form of the narrative given by
Josephus, but the dream of Mordecai, which is not found in Jos., must
have been taken from the Greek or Latin Apocrypha, unless it was
interpolated in the copy of Josephus which Yosippon used. By the
Jews of the Middle Ages Yosippon was highly valued, and in modern
TARGUMS AND MIDRASHES 103
times there have been many editions of his work. The following may
be mentioned: Mantua, 1476-9; Constantinople, 1510; Basel, 1541;
Venice, 1544; Cracow, 1588-9; Frankfurt a. M., 1689; Gotha, 1707;
Amsterdam, 1723; Prag, 1784; Warsaw, 1845; Jitomir, 1851; Lemberg,
1855. A Latin translation of Yosippon is given along with the Heb.
text by J. F. Breithaupt, Josephus Gorionides, sive Josephus Hebraicus
(4797), ΡΡ- 72 7.
The Midrash Esther Rabba, found in all the current Midrash editions,
was written apparently in the Eastern Roman Empire in the eleventh
or twelfth century. It uses all the midrashim previously mentioned
and also the midrashim on several of the other books of the OT. It is
an extraordinary collection of halakhic and haggadic material of every
description. MHair-splitting discussions of the meaning of words, long
anecdotes concerning Esther, Mordecai, Ahasuerus, Haman, and the
other characters of the book, sermons of famous rabbis on certain texts,
fables, parables, and all other sorts of legends, relevant and irrelevant, are
piled in here in wild confusion. The Heb. text serves merely as a thread
on which stories of the most diverse origin are hung. Exegetically the
midrash does not possess the least value, but as a repository of tradition,
and as a monument of medieval Jewish thought, it has considerable
interest. A German translation is given by A. Wiinsche, Der Midrasch
zum Buche Esther (1881).
From the beginning of the twelfth century comes also the Midrash
Legah Tob of Tobiah b. Eliezer. This is a partly grammatical, partly
haggadic, commentary on the Pentateuch and the Five M¢ghilléth. The
portion covering the Book of Esther is given by S. Buber, Sifre de-
Agadta, Sammlung agadischer Commentare zum Buche Esther (1886),
pp. 85-112. The author stands under the influence of the literal school
of interpretation that began to assert itself in this period, but he still
values the ancient haggadic method. His excerpts from ancient mid-
rashes, many of which are known to us only from his quotations, he
arranges in logical order in connection with the verses to which they
apply, abbreviates, and reedits so as to improve their Hebrew.
To the same century belongs Midrash Abba Goryon, printed by
Jellinek, Beth ham-Midrash (1853-73), i. 1-18; Buber, Sifre de-A gadta
(1886), 1-42; German translation by A. Wiinsche, Aus Israels Lehr-
hallen, ii. 2 (1908), pp. 95 ff Most of the material in this midrash
seems to be derived from Esther Rabba, although it also contains much
additional haggada. The author has subjected the Rabba to a rigid
revision, rejecting irrelevant matter, and bringing the amplifications
into closer conformity with the order of the Heb. text.
To the thirteenth century belongs the midrash-fragment known as
Midrash Megillath Esther, published by A. Jellinek in Beth ham-
Midrash (1853-73), i. pp. 18-24; German translation by A. Wiinsche,
104 ESTHER
Aus Israels Lehrhallen, ii. 2 (1908), pp. 139 ff. This little midrash,
which deals only with Est. 2°-, is probably only a fragment of a larger
work. It contains almost entirely new haggadic material. From the
same period and bearing the same name is another midrash that is
found in the Constantinople edition of 1519; also in Horowitz, Samm- Ὁ
lung kleiner Midraschim (1881), pp. 56 7. This contains an entirely
different collection of haggada from the one just mentioned.
To the same or a little later period belong the Midrash Ponim Aherim
to Est., given by Buber in Szfre de-Agadta, pp. 45-82; the Midrash
Shoher Tob, on Ps. 22, which contains the Esther-legend (known to me
only from the reference of André (Les A pocryphes, p. 198); the midrash
from Yemen published by Buber in Agadische Abhandlungen zum
Buche Esther nach einer Handschrift aus Jemen (1897), and the midrash
published by M. Gaster in Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut,
pp- 167-178. This last midrash Gaster regards as the earliest of all
the Esther midrashim, but in this opinion he is not followed by other
critics. All these midrashim are little more than excerpts from earlier
midrashim and targumim.
The Yalqut Shim‘oni, a work of uncertain date, but later than those
that have just been mentioned, is a huge compilation of all accessible
halakhic and haggadic comments on the twenty-four books of the
Hebrew Bible. In Esther the editor gives the best that is to be found
in earlier midrashim, quoting in full, and stating the sources from
which he has derived his material. On the Dream of Mordecai, which
should be included in a list of the midrashim on Est., see ἢ 3. On the
story of Esther as given by the Persian Jewish poet Shahin, see Bacher,
Jahresbericht d. Rabbinerschule in Budapest, xxx. 1906-7.
§ 35. OTHER MEDIAZAVAL JEWISH COMMENTARIES.
The rise of Islam and the contact of Jewish scholars with
Arabic learning gave a new turn to Biblical interpretation. Toward
the close of the eighth century Anan b. David, a bitter opponent
of the traditional rabbinic exegesis, founded the sect of the Kara-
ites, which insisted upon a literal interpretation of Scripture
without use of either halakha or haggada. This movement ex-
erted a strong reflex influence upon orthodox Judaism, and in
928 Sa‘adia, an advocate of the peshat, or ‘simple’ interpreta-
tion, became head of the Babylonian rabbinical school at Sura.
His Arabic version of the Pentateuch and other books of the Bible,
unlike the ¢argumim and midrashim, aims to give a clear, literal
translation; and the accompanying commentary advocates every-
MEDIZVAL JEWISH COMMENTARIES 105
where the natural grammatical meaning. The Arabic version of
Esther in Heb. characters from a prayer-book of Yemen, pub-
lished at Vienna in 1896, comes either from his hand or from one
of his disciples (see Poznansky, MGW/J. xlvi. 364). Aaron ibn
Sargado (7 942), a follower of Sa‘adia, left a commentary on Est.,
parts of which are still extant in manuscript at St. Petersburg
(Seen ΜΕ Ὶ 20).
In 1036 the schools of Jewish learning in Babylonia were closed
and their rabbis were forced to seek refuge in other lands. Many
of them migrated to Spain, where, under the protection of the
Moors, they enjoyed peace and prosperity. Through the in-
fluence of Arabic scholarship a new scientific study of the Heb.
language began, that was fruitful for later exegetical studies.
Philological research reached its culmination in Abulwalid ibn
Ganah (}c. 1050). He left no commentaries on the Bible, but
his Luma and Book of Roots are so full of exegetical material as
to constitute an almost complete exposition. ‘Through this gram-
matical philological work the commentaries of the golden age of
medieval Jewish literature became possible. RaShI (=Rabbi
Solomon ben Isaac (f 1105), of Troyes in France, was the founder
of the peshat or literal school of interpretation in Europe. At a
time when the Jews stood completely under the domination of the
ancient midrash method of interpretation, he came under the in-
fluence of the Arabic-Spanish philological school and introduced
a new type of grammatical exegesis. With him the literal sense is
always the first consideration. He does not break entirely with
the midrashic method, but uses it only when it is not in conflict
with the literal meaning. To this policy of compromise RaShI
doubtless owes much of the popularity that he has enjoyed among
the Jews from that day to this. His commentary on Est. is found
in all the Rabbinical Bibles (Latin translation by L. H. d’Aquine,
1622, and J. F. Breithaupt, 1714). It is full of sound lexical and
grammatical remarks. Only the difficult points are discussed,
and to the elucidation of these the author brings a wealth of
biblical and of rabbinical learning that is without a parallel.
R. Menahem b. Helbo, a contemporary of RaShI, belonged to the
same literalistic school of interpretation, His com, on Est, is known
100 ESTHER
only from the citations of his nephew Joseph Kara, in Hiibsch, Die
Siinf Megilloth (1866). Joseph Kara (7 σ. 1130) was a still more pro-
nounced advocate of the peshat. His com. on Est. is published by
Hiibsch (/. c.); by Berliner, in MGWJ. 1878; cf. 7b. 1876, p. 158. Frag-
ments of it are also found in Jellinek, Commentarien zu Esther, etc.
(1855). It holds itself aloof from the haggada and gives an admirable
grammatical philological interpretation. Abraham b. Meir ibn Ezra
({ 1167), the greatest of all the exponents of the peshat, introduced a
knowledge of Arabic-Jewish exegesis into Europe. His com. on Est.
is found in all the large Rabbinic Bibles. A somewhat different recen-
sion is published by Zedner, Abraham Aben Ezra’s Commentary on the
Book of Esther after another version (1850). This lucid exposition
ignores tradition, and gives the best fruits of the golden age of Jewish
learning in Spain. It often criticises RaShI for his continued use
of the haggadic method. RaShBaM (=Rabbi Samuel ben Meir)
(fc. 1174) was a grandson of RaShI and a thoroughgoing advocate of
the literal method of exegesis. His com. on Est. is known only from
the quotations of an anonymus given by Jellinek, Commentarien zu
Esther (1855).
In the thirteenth century Jewish exegesis declined rapidly
from the high standard set by RaShI and his successors through
the entrance of the allegorical method of interpretation. Con-
temporaneously with the rise of mysticism in Christianity the
Cabala developed in Judaism, and from Christian theologians the
doctrine of a fourfold sense of Scripture was adopted. The
four senses recognized by Jewish scholars were the Peshat, or
simple meaning; the Midrash, or traditional meaning; the Hokhma,
or philosophic meaning; and the Cadala, or mystical, allegorical
meaning. From this time onward all the commentaries combine
these four methods, with a strong preference for the last, and the
result is the death of genuine exegesis.
Eliezer b. Judah of Worms derived his mystical interpretations
through cabalistic combinations of the Heb. words and calculations of
the numerical values of their letters. His com. on Est. exists in manu-
script, but has never been published, so far as I am aware. Joseph
Nahmias’ com. on Est. (6. 1327) has been published by M. L. Bam-
berger, Commentar des R. Josef Nachmias sum Buche Esther (x89r).
The com. of Immanuel b. Solomon b. Jekuthiel (7 1330) has been pub-
lished in auto-lithograph by P. Perreau, Commento sopra il libro di
Ester del Rabbi Immanuel ben Salomo romano transcritto e publicato da
Pietro Perreau secondo il codico ebreo-rabbinico derossiano No, 615
MEDIAVAL CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION 107
(Parma, 1880). The com. of RaLBaG (=Rabbi Levi b. Gershom,
otherwise known as Gersonides, Leon de Bagnols, or Magister Leo
Hebrzus), which was finished in 1329, has enjoyed considerable popu-
larity. It was published at Riva di Trenta in 1560, and in the Rab-
binic Bible of Frankfurter, Amsterdam, 1724-7. Isaiah b. Elijah di
Trani in the fourteenth century wrote a com. on the Five M¢ghilloth
which exists only in manuscript (see Steinschneider, Heb. Bibl. ix. 137).
Joseph Caspi (1340) wrote a com. entitled Gelile Keseph, “Rings
of Silver,?? which was published at Pressburg in 1903. These com-
mentaries have some value on account of their preservation of frag-
ments of otherwise lost midrashim, and on account of their quotations
of the earlier literalistic school, but as independent contributions to the
interpretation of Est. they have no value.
§ 36. MEDIAEVAL CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION.
A few Christian comm. on Est. were produced during the
Middle Ages. All are homiletical and devotional rather than
exegetical, and all make free use of the allegorical method. The
following may be mentioned :—
Rhabanus Maurus (} 836), Expositio in librum Esther, in Migne,
εἶχ. 635-670; Wallafridus Strabus (7 849), Glossa Ordinaria, Liber
Esther, in Migne, Pat. Lat. xciii. 739-748; Rupertus Abbatis Tuitiensis
(1135), De Victoria Verbi Dei, viii. cap. 1-26, in Migne, clxix. 1379-
1395; Hugo of St. Victor, Appendix ad Opera Mystica, De spirituali
Christi convivio, in Migne, clxxvii. 1185-1191; Nicholas de Lyra,
Postille perpetue, seu brevia commentaria in universa Biblia (1293-
1339); Paulus Burgensis, Additiones ad postillam magistri Nicholai
de Lyra (1429); Petrus Comestor, Historia Libri Esther, in Migne,
cxcviii. 1490-1506. The most important of these is the work of de
Lyra, through which the exegesis of RaShI and Ibn Ezra became known
to the Church. In this way the foundation was laid for the more
scientific interpretation of the next period.
§ 37. THE REFORMATION PERIOD.
The revival of learning in the second half of the fifteenth century
brought with it not only a knowledge of the Greek and Latin
classics, but also of Hebrew. ‘The Protestant Reformation, with
its doctrine of the sole authority of Scripture, stimulated enor-
mously the study of the Biblical books in the original tongues.
Allegory and tradition were rejected, and an effort was made to
obtain the literal, historical and grammatical sense. The result
τοῦ ESTHER
was the production of a large number of commentaries that have
not yet lost their value.
Luther and Calvin left no commentaries on Esther, but their con-
temporaries well supplied the deficiency. The following Protestant
authors may be mentioned: A. Stenco (1529), 5. Miinster (1546), S. Cas-
talio (1551), S. Pagninus (1556), Junius and Tremellius (1590), D.
Pareus (1571), V. Strigel (1571-2), L. Osiander (1574), D. Wolder
(1575), J. Brent (1576), C. Pellican (1582), L. Lavater (1586), J. Dru-
sius (1586), R. Walther (1587), A. M. Jackson (1593), G. Diodati
(1607), T. Cooper (1609), the Dutch Annotations (1618), J. Molder
(1625), C. Sanctius (1628), H. Grotius (1644), J. Piscator (1646), L. de
Dieu (1640), J. Trapp (1654), the Westminster Assembly's Annota-
tions (1657), T. Wilson (1663), J. Richardson (1665), B. Kerner (1666),
J. Ὁ. Zeller (1669), C. ἃ Lapide (1669).
The most important of these are Miinster, Drusius, and Grotius.
The others are mainly practical and homiletic. All assume
Est. to be strictly historical, and the main questions discussed are,
whether Ahasuerus had a right to divorce Vashti, whether Esther
had a right to marry a heathen, whether Mordecai was justified
in advising Esther to conceal her nationality, whether Esther
ought to have eaten of the King’s food, whether the Jews did right
to slay their enemies, and other similar moral and religious ques-
tions. A solid knowledge of Heb. is shown by most of these com-
mentators, and their interpretations of difficult passages are full
of acumen.
The Catholic comm. of the same period are also for the most
part familiar with Heb., but they make the Vulgate the basis of
their discussion, and in their interpretation follow the authority
of the Fathers and the tradition of the Church. The apocryphal
additions of ( are regarded as of equal authority with the Heb.
text. The medizval allegorical exegesis is not abandoned so
thoroughly as among the Protestants, and by many Esther is treated
as a type of the Blessed Virgin. In spite of these defects, some of
these commentaries take a high rank for the historical and linguistic
learning that they display. The Catholic comm. of the Reforma-
tion period are as follows:—
Dionysius Carthusianus (1534), T. de V. Cajetanus (1 1534) (Est.
in Opera Omnia, ii. 1639, pp. 391 ff-), F. Vatablus (1545), J. Benter
REFORMATION PERIOD 10g
(1547), J. Ferns (1567), F. Feuardentius (1585), P. Serarius (1610,
see Migne, Cursus Completus, xiii.), T. Malvenda (1610), ἃ. Estius
(1614), J. Mariana (1619), E. Sa (1624), J. Couzio (1628), F. Harus
(1630), J. 8. Menochius (1630), Biblia cum Commentariis (1632),
J. Tirinus (1632), O. Bonart (1647), D. Celadzis (1648), Crommius
(1648), Montanus (1648), A. Escobar et Mendoza (1667). The most
important of these are Cajetanus, Feuardentius, Estius, Mariana,
Serarius, and Menochius, who show sound exegetical judgment and
make full use of Jewish and Protestant writers.
The close of the Reformation period is marked by three great
compendia, which sum up the results of a century and a half of
labour both on the Catholic and on the Protestant side. The
first of these is the Biblia Magna Commentariorium, of J. de la
Haye (1643) and the Biblia Maxima of the same author (1660),
which contain an elaborate study of the texts and versions and the
Esther comm. of the Catholic writers, Estius, Sa, Menochius, and
Tirinus. The second is the Critict Sacri, a similar collection of
the best comments of the Reformation period from the Protestant
point of view (London, 1660). On the Book of Esther this con-
tains the comments of Miinster, Vatable, Castalio, Drusius,
Amama, and the version of Pagninus. The third is the Synopsis
criticorum aliorumque S. Scripture interpretum, of M. Poole
(1669), which in the Book of Est. summarizes the views of Bonart,
Cajetan, Drusius, de Dieu, Estius, Grotius, Junius, 4 Lapide,
de Lyra, Malvenda, Mariana, Menochius, Miinster, Osiander,
Piscator, Sanctius, Sa, Serarius, Tirinus, Vatablus, and the
versions of Montanus, Pagninus, Junius, and Tremellius, as well
as the Tigurina and Genevan versions. Here the leading Catholic
and Protestant commentators of the preceding century and a half
are admirably collated.
The Jewish commentators of the Reformation period are un-
affected by the work of Christian scholars, and exhibit the same
degenerate type of exegesis that flourished during the Middle
Ages. Most of them are destitute of originality, and simply ex-
cerpt from the earlier midrashim and from the great commentators
of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Some are interesting for
their preservation of fragments of otherwise lost writings, but in
110 ESTHER
themselves they contribute nothing to the understanding of the
Book of Est. Their names are as follows:—
Solomon ibn Melech (Abenmelech), 901 5$22 (Venice, 1518, and
oft.), grammatical scholia taken chiefly from Kimhi,; Joseph b. David
ibn Yahya, wip (1538); Meir b. Isaac Arama (7 1556), Est. Com.
in ms. in Cod. Rossi 727; Zechariah b. Seruk, wrywne ‘p by wry
(Venice, 1565); Azariah de Rossi, Dy WN (1573-5), a sort of general
introduction to the OT. The third part, 72:2 ‘92s, treats of the origin
of Esther; Eliezer b. Elijah Ashkenazi, πρὸ yp» (Cremona, 1576, and
oft.); Elisha Ὁ. Gabriel Galliko, ‘x ‘2 wp (Venice, 1583); Shemtob
Melammed, 277 ἜΝ (Constantinople, 1585); Solomon Alkabez,
nba τ (Venice, 1585), important for its copious citations from lost
targums and midrashes; Samuel b. Judah Valerio, qbnn Ὁ (Venice,
1586); Solomon b. Zemah Duran of Algiers (+ 1593), Sxqw> naNen
(Venice, 1632), contains a discourse on the Amalekites and a com. on
Est.; Abraham b. Isaac Zahalon, πον pe (Venice, 1595), compiled
entirely from earlier commentators with use of the fourfold method of
interpretation; Aaron Abayob, 7127 ὦ (Salonica, 1596); Moses Al-
mosnino, 7vn 7, a diffuse haggadic commentary, completed in 1570,
first published, Venice, 1597; Moses Alsheikh of Safed, vp nxwn
(Venice, 1601, and oft.); Joseph b. Solomon Taitazak, Ὁ. Ὅτ ond (Venice,
1608); Judah Low b. Bezalel, wtn 1s (Prague, 1600, and subs.), con-
tains also a discussion of Purim; Mordecai b. Jehiel Merkel, x»33 ΝΣ
(Lublin, 1637); Abraham b. Moses Heilbronn, }~¥ na7x (Lublin,
1639).
§ 38. THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD.
In the second half of the seventeenth century and during the
entire eighteenth century few remarkable commentaries on Est.
were produced. ‘This was a period of theological narrowness both
in the Protestant and the Catholic Church that was unfavourable
to exegetical progress. ‘The comm. are mostly dogmatic, homi-
letic, and practical, and their authors are content to borrow their
materials mainly from the elaborate works of the previous period.
The following names may be mentioned :—
Among the Protestants, A. Calovius (1672), T. Pyle (1674), J. Mayer
(1683), G. Meissner (1687), S. Clarke (1690), F. Burmann (1695),
M. Henry (1706), E. Wells (1709), C. Adamus (1710, on Est. 2), T. Pyle
(1717), J. J. Rambach (1720), S. Patrick (1727), F. Wokenius (1730),
MODERN CRITICAL PERIOD Ta
J. le Clere (Clericus) (1733), S. Horsley (1733), J. Marchant (1745).
Of these Clericus is probably entitled to the first rank as the ablest
exegete of the period.
The Catholic commentators of this period are J. B. du Hamel (1706),
A. Calmet (1707), J. Martianay (1708), C. Chais (1743), Biblia Sacra
Vulgata cum plur. interp. (1745), C. Nestorideo (1746). Calmet is the
chief of these, but all fall below the standard of the Catholic commen-
taries of the preceding period.
B. Spinoza in his T’ractatus theologico-politicus (1670), x. 22, discusses
the origin of Est. in a truly critical spirit, but here, as in so many other
particulars, he is in advance of his age. His opinions made no impres-
sion upon his coreligionists, and little upon Christian thinkers. The
only Jewish commentator of this period known to me is Meir b. Hayyim,
my ΓΠΦῸ (1737).
§ 39. THE MODERN CRITICAL PERIOD.
In the middle of the eighteenth century there arose the remark-
able movement of thought known as the Aufklérung. In all
realms of knowledge men broke away from tradition, and sub-
jected everything received from the past to a searching examina-
tion. The result was a revolution in Biblical exegesis. One of
the first-fruits of this movement was a critical study of the text of
the OT. As early as 1720 J. H. Michaelis in his Biblia Hebraica
collected a number of variants in the Heb. text. He was followed
by C. F. Houbigant,. Biblia Hebraica cum notis criticis (1753),
and Note critice (1777); B. Kennicott, V. 7. Heb. cum variis
lectionibus (1776-80); C. F. Schnurrer, Varie lectiones Estheris
(1783); and J. B. de Rossi, Varie lectiones V. T. (1784-8). The
importance of these works for the lower criticism of Est. has been
noticed already in § 3.
At the same time a new interest was awakened in the problems
of the higher criticism. The rationalists, who denied supernatural
revelation, took a free attitude toward the Biblical books, and had
no hesitation in questioning their historical character, if they
found reason for so doing. The historical and moral difficulties
of the Book of Est. early became objects of their attack. These
assaults called forth replies in defence of the historical and relig-
ious value of the book from theologians of the traditional school.
From this time onward scholars are divided into two hostile
ΤΕΣ ESTHER
camps, the one attacking, and the other defending, the traditional
Jewish conception of Est. The critical problems of composition,
age, authorship, and historical credibility have been discussed
for the most part in Biblical introductions, Biblical histories, and
special introductions to the Book of Esther. These works have
exerted so strong an influence upon modern interpretation, and
are frequently so much more important than the commentaries,
that it is proper to enumerate them at this point.
So far as I am aware, Semler, in 1773, was the first critic to make a
formal attack upon the historical credibility of Esther; but in 1736 the
adverse strictures upon this book in the writings of the English deists
and early German rationalists were already sufficiently numerous to
call forth the treatise of C. A. Heumann, De in qua historie sacre de
Esthera Aste regina sua vindicatur auctoritas. A similar position was
held by Chandler, Vindication of the History of the OT. (1741); J. H. D.
Moldenhauer, Introductio (1744), ΡΡ- 75 ff-; J. ἃ. Carpzov, Introductio3
(1741), pp. 350 #f.; T. C. Lilienthal, Gute Sache der gottlichen
Offenbarung, xv. (1776), pp. 195-271. G. F. Oeder, Freye Unter-
suchung tiber den Kanon des A. T. (1771), pp. 12 7., and Freye Unter-
suchung tiber einige Biicher des A. T. (1771), p. 1 f., denied that the book
had any historical value. ‘This called forth the replies of C. F. Sar-
torius, De utilitate librorum Κ΄. Τ᾽. historicorum apud Christianos (1772);
J. Aucher, Disquisitio de canonica auctoritate libri Esthere (1772); E. A.
Schulze, De fide hist. lib. Est., in Bibl. Hag. v., vi. (1772); and C. A.
Crusius, De usu libri Esthere ad praxin vite Christiane (1772), German
edition, 1773. J.S. Semler, Apparatus ad liberalem V. T. interpreta-
tionem (1773), pp. 152 f-, and Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung
des Kanons (1771-5), ii. p. 251, renewed the attack with extraordinary
ferocity. This called forth the replies of J. A. Vos, Oratio pro libro
Esther (1775); J. J. Hess, Geschichte der Israeliten (1776-88); P. J.
Bruns, Entwurf einer Einleitung (1784); F. 5. Eckard, Philos. u. krit.
Untersuchung iiber das A. T. τι. dessen Gottlichkett (1787); 5. G. Unger,
De auctoritate librorum V. T. in familia Dei (1785). In various forms
the attack on the historical credibility of the book was renewed by J. D.
Michaelis, Bibl. Orient., ii. (1775), pp- 34 7.; J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung
(1780); H. E. Giite, Einleitung (1787); H. Corrodi, Versuch einer
Beleuchtung d. jiidischen Bibelkanons (1792), pp. 64 7.; A. H. Niemeyer,
Characteristick der Bibel, v. (1782), pp. 224 ff., who remarks that Vashti
is the only decent character in the book.
From the nineteenth century come the following works in which the
problems of the higher criticism of Est. are discussed. ‘Those marked
MODERN CRITICAL PERIOD IE,
with (C) are conservative treatises that defend the traditional concep-
tion of the book, the others regard it as wholly or in part a work of the
imagination:—J. Jahn (Catholic), Einleitung, il. (1803), pp. 295 ff- (C);
G. L. Bauer, Einlettung (1806), pp. 364 f7.; J. C. W. Augusti, Einleitung
(1806); L. Bertholdt, Hindeitung, v. (1815), pp. 2413 f.; L. D. Cramer,
Hist. sent. de sac. lib. V. T. auctoritate (1818) (C); C. ἃ. Kelle, Vindicie
Estherts, libri sacri, ad castigatam histor. interpretationis normam
exacte (1820), see Theol. Anal. (1822), pp. 431 7. (C); F. Ackermann
(Catholic), Introductio (1825), 4th ed. (1869), pp. 186 ff. (C); W. M. L.
de Wette, Einleitung (1817, and oft.); M. Baumgarten, De fide libri
Esthere (1839); H. A. C. Havernick, Eznlettung, 11. τ (1839), pp. 328 ff.
(C); J. G. Herbst (Catholic), Eznlettung, 11. (1842), pp. 249 ff. (C);
F. C. Movers, Loci quidam historie canonis Κ΄. T. illustrati (1842),
p- 27 f.; H. Ewald, Geschichte (1843), 3d ed. (1864), iv. pp. 296 ff.;
Eng. Trans., v. 230; J. M. A. Scholz (Catholic), Eznlettung, i. (1845),
ΡΡ- 514 ἢ. (C); J. G. B. Winer, Art. “Esther” in Bib. Realworterbuch®
(1847); E. Meier, Geschichte der poetischen National-Literatur der
Hebriéer (1856), pp. 505 ἤ.; J. A. Nickes (Catholic), De Esthere libro
(1856), two large volumes (C); S. Davidson, Introduction, ii. (1862),
pp- 151 ff; iii. (1863), pp. 391 7:; Εἰ. Riehm, SK. 1862, p. 407/f.; J. J.
Stahelin, Eznleitung (1862), pp. 170 7.; H. H. Millman, History of
the Jews (1863), ed. N. Y., 1881, pp. 472 ff. (C); A. P. Stanley, History
(1863), iii. (1877), pp. 192 7.; J. Oppert, Commentaire historique et
philologique du livre @’ Esther d’apres la lecture des inscriptions Perses,=
Annales Phil. Chrét. (1864) (C); Articles on Esther, efc., in Smith’s
Dictionary of the Bible (1863 and 1893) (C); G. Weber and O. Holz-
mann, Geschichte, i. (1867), p. 418; T. Noldeke, A. T. Literatur (1868),
pp. 81 f.; A. D. Aeschimann, Etude sur le livre d’ Esther (1868); E. Reuss,
Art. “Esther” in Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexicon (1869); F. Hitzig, Geschichte
(1869), pp. 279 ff.; E. Schrader, Einleitung (1869), pp. 396 ff.; Bleek-
Kamphausen, Einleitung (1870), pp. 402 7.; L. 5. P. Meijboom, Raad-
selachtige verhalen uit het O.en het N. Verbond (1870), pp. 90 ff.; Articles
on “Esther,” efc., in Hamburger, Realencyklopddie (1870-97); F. H.
Reusch (Catholic), Einleitung (1870), pp. 132 ἢ. (C)s H. Zschokke
(Catholic), Historia (1872), pp. 308 7. (C); Bertholdt and Zunz,
ZDMG. 1873, p. 684; C. F. Keil, Einleitung (1873), pp. 487 7.» 730 ἤ.
(C); H. Gratz, Geschichte der Juden, ii. (1875), pp. 332, 339 ff; A.
Kohler, Geschichte, iii. (1893), p- 593 (C); L. Herzfeld, Geschichte
(1870), pp. 108 ff.; A. Geiger (Jew), Einleitung, in Nachgelassene
Schriften, iv. (1877), p. 170; J. S. Bloch (Jew), Hellenistische Bestand-
theile im biblischen Schriftthum, eine kritische Untersuchung tiber
Abfassung, Character u. Tendenzen des B. Esther (1877, 1882)=Jiid.
Lit. Bl. 1877, Nos. 27-34; T. K. Cheyne, Articles on “Esther,” εἴς.
in EB. (1878 sq.); P. Kleinert, Abriss der Einleitung (1878), pp. 56 f,,
«
114
ISA ΒΗ ΕΠ δὲ
68, 79; Β. Hause (Jew), “Noch cinmal d. B. Esther,’ Jiid. Lit. Bi.
viii. (1879), No. 42 (C); E. Ledrain (Catholic), Histoire, ii. (1882),
pp- 103, 170 (6); C. M. Horowitz, “‘Ueber die Peripetie im B. Est.,”
MGW/V. xxxi. (1882), pp. 49 7.; R. P. Stebbins, A Common-sense View
of the Books of the O. T. (1885), pp. 120 f-; J. 5. Bloch, ‘‘ Der historische
Hintergrund und die Abfassungszeit d. B. Est.,” ΜΟΥ. 1886, pp.
425 f., 473 f-, 521 ἢ; ΝΥΝ. Vatke, Einleitung (1886), pp. 496 7.; W.
Schanz (Catholic), Einleitung (1887), pp. 480 ff. (C); F. W. Weber,
Einleitung (1887), pp. 66 ff.; Κα. Cornely (Catholic), Introductio (1897),
ii. 1, pp. 417 ff. (C); E. Riehm, Einleztung, ii. (1890), pp. 339 ff.; M.
Vernes, Précis d’ histoire Juive (1889), pp. 824 ff.; A. Scholz (Catholic),
“Die Namen im B. Est.,” Tiib. Theol. Quartalschrift, \xxii. (1890),
pp: 209 f.; P. H. Hunter, After the Exile (1890), pp. 237 7.; F. Kaulen
(Catholic), Einleitung* (1890), pp. 269 jf. (C); F. Robiou (Catholic),
“Sur le charactére historique du livre d’Esther,” Science Cath., Dec.,
1890; J. Mally (Catholic), Hist. Sacra A. T. (1890); E. Reuss, Gesch.
der heiligen Schriften A. T. (1890), pp. 610 ff.; Steinthal, Zu Bibel- uw.
Religions philosophie (1890), pp- 53 f-, “Haman, Bileam und der jiidische
Nabi”; W. Gladden, Who Wrote the Bible (1892), pp. 161 ff.; A. F.
Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of the O. T.2 (1892), pp. 155 ff-; J. Robert-
son, ‘‘Esther,” in Book by Book (1892); W. R. Smith, The OT. in the
Jewish Church? (1892), p. 458; Germ. trans., p. 447; J. J. de Villiers,
“Modern Criticism and the Megilla,” Jew. Chronicle, Feb., 1893;
T. K. Cheyne, Founders of OT. Criticism (1893), pp. 359f7-; E. Konig,
Einleitung (1893), pp- 289 f., 450 ff, 481 f.; Articles “‘Esther,” etc.,
in Riehm, Handwérterbuch des biblischen Alterthums* (1893-4); R.
Smend, A. T. Religionsgeschichte (1893), pp. 331, 400 f.; A. H. Sayce,
An Introduction to the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther® (1893) (C);
A. Schlatter (Catholic), Einleitung* (τοι), p. 138 f. (only the main
points of the story are historical); J. Oppert, Problemes Bibliques (1894)=
REJ. xxviii. (1894); Ellicott, Plain Introduction (1894) (C); A. H.
Sayce, ‘he Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments (1895),
pp- 469 ff.; H. Schultz, A. T. Theologie (1889), p. 417; H. L. Strack,
Einleitung® (1898), pp. 146 ff.; Articles in Vigouroux, Dictionaire de
la Bible (1895 sq., Catholic); K. Schlottmann, Kompendium d. bibl.
Theol. (1895), pp- 66 ff. (Est. is inspired, but not to the same degree as
other books); E. Kautzsch, Abriss d. alttest. Schrifttums, pp. 116 ff.,
in Kautzsch’s Heilige Schrift (1896); C. v. Orelli, Art. “Esther” in
PRE. (1896); K. A. Beck (Catholic), Geschichte? (1901), pp. 449 ff.
(C); A. K. Fiske, Jewish Scriptures (1896), pp. 342 f7-; F. Hommel,
Ancient Heb. Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments (1896), pp.
161 ff.; J. Marquart, Fundamente (1896), pp. 68-73; J. M. Whiton,
“Esther,” in Moulton and others, The Bible as Literature (1896),
pp. 61 ff.; G. Wildeboer, De letterkunde des Ouden Verbonds (1893);
MODERN CRITICAL PERIOD It5
Germ. trans. (1895), pp. 444 ἥ.; F. de Moor, ‘Le livre d’Esther,”
Science Cath., Oct., 1897; W. Gladden, Seven Puzzling Bible Books
(1897), pp. 68 7.; E. Schiirer, Geschichte d. jiidischen Volkes* (1898-01),
i. pp. 142, 156, 752; iii. pp. 330 f.; E. Rupprecht, Einleitung (18098),
pp- 439 7.; C. H. H. Wright, Introduction’ (1890), pp. 140 ff. (C); J. A.
M’Clymont, “Esther” in HDB. (1899); D. Leimdérfer, Zur Kritik d.
Β. Esther (1899) (C); C. P. Tiele and W. P. Kosters, Art. ‘‘Ahasuerus”
in EBi. (1899).
To the twentieth century belong the following introductory works:
H. Willrich, Judaica (1900), chap. 1, ‘Esther und Judith’; I. Schef-
. telowitz, Arisches im A. T. (1901); T. Noldeke, Art. “Esther” in EBz.
(1901); 5. R. Driver, Introduction’ (1901), pp. 478 ff.; ΝΥ. W. Baudissin,
Einleitung (1901), pp. 305 f.; H. P. Smith, OT. History (1903), pp.
485 ff.; G. W. Wade, OT. History (1904), pp. 473 f.; W. S. Watson,
“The Authenticity and Genuineness of the Book of Esther,”’ Princeton
Theol. Rev. i. (1903), pp. 64 7.; J. D. Prince and E. G. Hirsch, “Esther”
in JE. (1903); I. Scheftelowitz, “Zur Kritik des griechischen u. des
massoretischen Buches Esther,’”? MGW/J. xlvii. (1903), pp. 24 ff, 110 ff;
J. Halévy, “Vashti,” JA., X. Sér., i. (1903), p. 377 f-; H. Chavannes,
“Le livre d’Esther,”’ Rev. de Théol. et de Quest. Rel. (1903); 2, pp. 177-
192; 3, pp. 114-119; H. Willrich, Jaden wnd Griechen vor der macca-
bdischen Erhebung (1905); H. Pope, ‘‘Why does the Protestant Church
read the Book of Esther ?’’ Dublin Rev. (1905), pp- 77 7-.; J. H. Raven,
Introduction (1906), pp. 312 ff; (C); 5. Jampel, Das Buch Esther auf
seine Geschichtlichkeit untersucht (1907), reprinted from articles in
MGW/J. 1905-6; L. B. Paton, “ἃ Text-critical Apparatus to the Book
of Esther,” Harper Memorial, ii. (1908), pp. 1-52; P. Haupt, ‘Critical
Notes on Esther,” Harper Memorial, ii. (1908), pp. 113-204=AJSL.
xxiv. (1908), pp. 97-186. For special treatises on the origin of Purim,
see ὃ 28.
The Protestant Commentaries on the Book of Esther that have
been written since 1750, have all been compelled to notice the
critical investigations mentioned in the previous paragraph, but
in the main they have occupied a more conservative position than
the introductory works. All the English commentaries until
recently have been of the practical homiletical type, and have
treated the critical problems that the book raises in a superficial
manner. ‘They have derived their material largely from the comm.
of the Reformation and post-Reformation periods, and in scholar-
ship they fall below the level of the leading English comm. of the
seventeenth century. In Germany they have been more influ-
110 ESTHER
enced by modern criticism, still many of them show no advance
beyond the dogmatic standpoint of the seventeenth century. In
the following list I have omitted titles where Est. forms part of a
commentary on the whole OT.
J. G. Rinck (1755), com. on Est. 1; C. Simeon (1759); A. Clarke
(1760); F. E. Boysen (1760); J. B. Koehler (1763), on Est. 1; A. Purver
(1764); J. Wesley (1764); T. Haweis (1765); B. Boothroyd (1768);
W. Dodd (1770); J. F.-Ostervald (1772); J. A. Dathe (1773); C. B.
Schmidt (1773); V. Zinck (1780); J. C. F. Schulze (1783); J. D. Mi-
chaelis (1785), one of the more important of the older commentaries;
J. Yonge (1787); R. Gray (1792); J. C. W. Augusti (1797); D. Macrae
(1799); J. Hewlett (1812), one of the more important early English
comm.; C. Buckley (1802); J. Priestly (1803); G. Lawson, Discourses
on Est. (1804); J. Hall (1808); S. Burder (1809); J. Gill (1809); J. Ben-
son (1818); D’Oyley and Mant (1814); D. H. A. Schott (1816); A. G. F.
Schirmer, Observationes exeg. crit. in lib. Est. (1817); J. Bellamy (1818);
T. Scott (1822); J. Sutcliffe (1834); T. M’Crie, Lectures on Esther
(1838); F. J. V. D. Maurer (1835), valuable gram. and text-critical
remarks; J. Hughes, Esther and her People, Ten Sermons (1842); R. A. F.
Barrett, Synopsis of Criticisms, iii. (1847), a learned and useful work;
R. C. Morgan, The Book of Esther typical of the Kingdom (1855);
E. P. L. Calmberg, Liber Esther illustratus (1857); J. Cordthwaite,
Lectures on Esther (1858); A. D. Davidson, Lectures on Esther (1859);
E. Bertheau (1862), a very important book; C. Wordsworth (1866);
A. Kamphausen, Esther, in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk (1868), brief and popular
but scientific; C. F. Keil, in Keil and Delitzsch’s Com. (1870), ultra-
conservative, but one of the most scholarly and thorough of the mod-
ern commentaries; G. Rawlinson, in the Speaker’s Com. (1873), brief
and critically inadequate, but containing useful illustrations from
Oriental sources; M. S. Terry, in Wheedon’s Com. (1873); R. Jamieson
(1876); F. W. Schultz, in Lange’s Com. (1876), an elaborate and valu-
able work, Eng. trans. by J. Strong (1877); J. H. Blunt (1878); P. Cassel,
Das Buch Esther, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Morgenlandes (1878),
valuable exegetical remarks, and full of illustrative material derived
from the targumic and midrashic literature, Eng. trans. by A. Bern-
stein; W. T. Mason, Questions on Ezr., Neh.,. and Est. (1880); A.
Raleigh, The Book of Esther, its Practical Lessons and Dramatic Scenes
(1880); G. Rawlinson, in Spence and Exall’s Pulpit Com. (1880);
J. W. Haley, The Book of Esther, a new Translation with Critical
Notes, etc. (1885), very conservative, but useful; V. Ryssel, Second ed.
of Bertheau’s Com. in the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum
A. T. (1887), the most complete scientific commentary of modern times;
MODERN CRITICAL PERIOD 117
S. Oettli in Strack and Zéckler’s Kurzgefasster Kommentar (1880),
brief but valuable, represents a moderately conservative view; E. Reuss,
Das A. T. tibersetzt, eingeleitet u. erldutert (1892-4); ΝΥ. F. Adeney,
in the Expositor’s Bible (1893), popular but scientific; V. Ryssel, in
Kautzsch’s Heilige Schrift des A. T. (1896); G. Wildeboer, in Marti’s
Kurzer Handcommentar (1898), much condensed, but thoroughly
scientific and very important; C. Siegfried, in Nowack’s Handcommentar
(1901), also much condensed, but extremely useful; W. Harper, in the
Temple Bible (1902); J. E. Cumming, The Book of Esther, its Spiritual
Teaching (1906), a curious survival of medizvalism; A. W. Streane,
in the Cambridge Bible (1907), a brief but scholarly little commentary.
The Catholic Church, during the modern period, has contented
itself for the most part with reprints and compendia of the older
commentators. The few new commentaries that have been written,
have been relatively unimportant. They are as follows:—
J. N. Alber (1801-4), a very elaborate work; B. Neteler (1877);
A. Arnaud (1881); L. de Sacy, L’histoire @ Esther traduit (1882); E.
Ledrain, La Bible, traduction nouvelle (1891); L. C. Fillion (1891);
A. Scholz, Commentar tiber das Buch Esther mit seinen Zusdtzen (1892),
a work of great learning, but disfigured by the constant use of allegorical
exegesis; Cornely, Knabenbauer, Hummelauer, and others, Commen-
taria in V. T. (1907); M. Seisenberger, in Kurzgefasster wissenschaftlicher
Kommentar (1901).
The new thought that roused Christendom in the middle of the
eighteenth century also affected a small section of the Jews.
Moses Mendelssohn, the philosopher, the father of modern liberal
Judaism, projected a complete commentary on the Heb. Bible
from a critical point of view. This is known as MND ADD
mown, and was completed by a school of exegetes in sympathy
with Mendelssohn and known as the ‘‘Biurists.” The com. on
Est. (1788) contains a German translation by A. Wolfsohn and
a Heb. commentary by J. Lowe.
Similar in character, and aiming to convey to the Jews the best results
of modern Biblical study, is L. Philippsohn, Die Israelitische Bibel
(1858). I. Reggio’s 1noN γί Sy nnpn, “Key to the Roll of Esther,”
is a modern critical introduction to the book of much merit. Other
Jewish comm. of a modern type are S. Herxheimer, Die vier und zwanzig
Biicher der Bibel, u. 5. w. iv. (1848), pp. 449 ἢ. (many later separate
118 ESTHER
editions of Est., last ed. 1902). S. Cahen, La Bible, traduction nouvelle
(1848); J. First, [//ustrirte Pracht-Bibel fiir Israeliten (1874); U. M. P.
Hillesum, Het Boek Esther vertaald en verklaard (1902), Heb. text with
very brief but judicious notes.
Most of the Jewish commentaries of this period have remained
on the traditional ground and have been content to make new
collections of excerpts from the ancient midrashim and the great
commentators of the Middle Ages. They are as follows:—
Moses Isserles 1.) Ὑπὸ (Offenbach, 1779), characterized by extreme
use of the allegorical method; Aaron Bar Pereles n3737 75a ὙΠ (Prague,
1784), and pxx ‘nna (Prague, 1790); Jonathan Eybeschiitz, “pw
m>y12 (Warsaw, 1864); A. Hiibsch, niin won (Prague, 1866); Elijah
hag-Gaon, of Wilna, ‘x ἢ 18D (Jerusalem, 1872); Jacob Ehrenpreis,
‘x nban (Lemberg, 1874); Joseph Zechariah, 770 win x2 (Wilna,
1875); Meir Malbin, ‘x nban (Warsaw, 1878), with ΒΆΘΕΙ, @, etc.;
Moses Isaac Ashkenazi (Tedeschi), awn 5x17 (Livorno, 1880); H. Ὁ.
Bawli, 1708 nba $x wan nnpn (1880); Ὁ. Kohn, 8139 ΝΥΠῚ ἼΓΌΝ 737 75D
‘xs ‘oS (Warsaw, 1881); Nathaniel Hayyim Pape, ‘x ‘p 15D (Jerusalem,
1892).
A» COMMENTARY “ON” THE
BOOK (OF) Es DHER:
THE TITLE.
In Heb. manuscripts and printed editions the book bears the
title Esther. In accordance with the analogy of other OT.
books this title may mean either that Esther is the author or
the heroine. The internal evidence shows the latter to be the
correct interpretation.
ands in Gr. ᾿Εσθήρ (B A & L), or ᾿Αισθήρ (93a). Cod. 44 adds, the
twenty-second book. A later hand in 108b adds, that is Purim. ‘The
Mishna (Baba Bathra 14b) calls the book 1D N23», “Roll of Esther.”
This is a late designation due to the fact that Est., like the Law, was
written on a scroll, rather than a codex, for use in the service of the
Synagogue. In still later times the book was called simply Meghilla,
“the Roll,” par excellence.
ADDITION A.
MORDECAI’S DREAM.
Between the title and τ', 6@L add the following section, A'-”
(=Vulg. and Eng. Ad. Est. 11 125). The Gr. text and critical
apparatus to it may be seen in HM. ii. pp. 6-7. In various dis-
torted forms the passage appears in late Heb. and Aram. midrashes
(see Introduction, ὃ 34). For a discussion of the origin and
character of the passage, see the Introduction, ὃ 20. The addi-
tion is as follows:
‘In the second year of the reign of Artaxerxes the Great, on the first
day of the month of Nisan, Mordecai, son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of
Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, had a dream. *He was a Jew dwell-
110
120 ESTHER
ing in the city of Susa, a great man, serving in the King’s court. *He
was of the captivity, which Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon carried
from Jerusalem with Jeconiah King of Judah; ‘and this was his dream:
Behold, noise and tumult, thunderings and earthquake, uproar upon
the earth: and, behold, two great dragons came forth, both of them
ready to fight, δ ἀπά their cry was great. And at their cry all nations
were prepared for battle, that they might fight against the righteous
nation. 7And lo, aday of darkness and gloom, tribulation and anguish,
affliction and great uproar upon the earth. ὃ And the whole righteous
nation was troubled, fearing the evils that should befall them, and were
ready to perish. °%Then they cried unto God; and upon their cry, as
it were from a little fountain, there came a great river, even much water.
10The light and the sun rose up, and the lowly were exalted, and de-
voured the glorious. 1! Now when Mordecai, who had seen this dream,
and what God had determined to do, awoke, he bore it in mind, and
until night by all means was desirous to understand it. 'And Mor-
decai slept in the court with Gabatha and Tharra, the two eunuchs of
the King, the keepers of the court. 'And he heard their communings,
and searched out their purposes, and learned that they were about to
lay hands upon King Artaxerxes; and he informed the King about them.
44’Then the King examined the two eunuchs, and after they had con-
fessed, they were led to execution. ‘And the King wrote these things
for a memorial; Mordecai also wrote concerning these things. 1 50
the King commanded Mordecai to serve in the court, and for this he
gave him gifts. 17 But Haman, son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, who
was in great honour with the King, sought to injure Mordecai and his
people because of the two eunuchs of the King.
THE) REJECTION OF QUEEN ΜΆΘΗΙ (@):
XERXES MAKES A FEAST FOR HIS OFFICIALS (1!-‘).
1. And afterward]. This expression, by AV. and RV. rendered,
now it came to pass, is used in continuation of a historical narrative,
and implies a preceding verb in the perfect. Many of the books
of the OT. are meant to be read in connection with those that pre-
cede them; but here, as in Jon. 1, no such connection is possible.
The phrase cannot be due, as perhaps Jon. 1, to the fact that Est.
is an extract from a larger history (Scho.); nor that in late Heb.
and afterward had lost its original meaning (Keil, Wild., and the
older comm. in general); nor that knowledge of the earlier history
of Xerxes is presupposed in the reader (Bert., Oet.); but it is an
XERXES’ FEAST ΤΠ’
imitation of the beginnings of the older histories, designed to suggest
that Est. belongs to this class of literature—[@ L + After these
events]. This addition is made with reference to the section A-17
that has just been inserted by 6 L.—In the days of], the usual ex-
pression for the period of a king’s reign, cf. Gn.14!1 5. 17.13.2 8. 21!
τ K. 10% 2129 and often.—Xerxes] Heb. ’A hashwérésh (Ahasuerus).
On the identity of this monarch with Xerxes I, see Introduction,
§ 22. Xerxes was the son of Darius by Atossa, the daughter of
Cyrus. He was not the oldest son; but, as the first born after his
father became king, and as the grandson of the great Cyrus, he
succeeded in making good his claim to the throne upon the death
of Darius in 486 B.c. He had the reputation of being the tallest
and the handsomest man among the Persians (Her. vii. 187). In
spite of many noble characteristics, he showed on the whole a weak
and passionate disposition that unfitted him for his high office, and
made his rule inglorious. The most important event of his reign
was the unsuccessful war with Greece in 480-470 B.c., rendered
forever memorable by the narrative of Herodotus in books vii.—ix.
of his history.* The architectural undertakings of Xerxes were
numerous, and in Persepolis the ruins of several of his buildings
are still to be seen.t In these buildings a number of trilingual in-
scriptions of this King have been discovered.{ He was assassi-
nated in 465 B.C. by the officers of his palace. After the name of
Xerxes, © gives a long addition in regard to the ten kings who
have ruled, or shall rule, the earth; the accession of Evil-Merodach,
his relations to Daniel and Jehoiachin, and the accession of Darius.
As this has nothing to do with the story of Esther, it is not inserted
here.—He is the Xerxes]. ‘This and what follows to the end of
v. 1 is a parenthesis breaking the connection between 15 and *.
The writer knows other historical personages by the name of
’ Ahashwérésh, and, therefore, finds it necessary to define which one
he means. It is not likely that he knew Xerxes II, who reigned
*See Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, iii. pp. 337-417; Justi, in Geiger-Kuhn, Grundriss
der Iranischen Philologie, ii. pp. 457-400.
+See Niebuhr, Retsebeschreibung, vol. ii.; Flandin et Coste, Perse ancienne; Voyage en
Perse (1851-52); Stolze, Persepolis (1882); Perrot et Chipiez, Hist. de ἐστι, v. (1890),
p. 403 ff.
tSee Spiegel, Alipers. Keilinschr., pp. 50-67.
122 ESTHER
for onlya few months in 424 B.c.; but he must have known ’Ahash-
wérdsh, the father of Darius the Mede (Dn. 91), and ’Ahashwé-
rosh, King of Persia, who stopped the building of the Temple,
whom Ezr. 4° places between Cyrus and Darius. From one or
both of these he distinguishes this "Ahashwérdsh by the fact that
‘“‘he reigned from India to Ethiopia.” The father of Darius the
Mede is not said to have been a king, and the ’Ahashwérésh of
Ezr. 4° is perhaps regarded as living before the great expansion of
the Persian empire. Here, accordingly, Xerxes the Great must be
meant. At this point the Targums insert the following passages:
[Φ: + In whose days the work upon the house of our great God ceased
and was interrupted until the second year of Darius, on account of the
advice of the wicked Vashti, the daughter of Evil-Merodach, the son of
Nebuchadnezzar. And because she did not permit the building of the
house of the sanctuary, it was decreed concerning her that she should be
put to death naked; and he also, because he gave heed to her advice,
had his days cut short and his kingdom divided; so that, whereas before
all peoples, races, languages, and eparchies were subject to his authority,
they now served him no longer because of this. But after it was revealed
before the Lord that Vashti was to be slain, and that he was to accept
Esther, who was of the daughters of Sarah, who lived 127 years, a res-
pite was granted to her.]
[G2 + The son of Cyrus, King of Persia, son of Darius, King of Media.
He was the Xerxes who commanded to bring wine from 127 provinces
for 127 kings who were reclining before him, that every man might drink
of the wine of his own province and not be hurt. He was the Xerxes
whose counsel was foolish, and whose decree was not established. He
was the Xerxes, the corrupt king. He was the Xerxes who commanded
to bring Vashti, the queen, naked before him, but she would not come.
He was the Xerxes, the wicked king, the fool, who said: Let my kingdom
perish, but let not my decree fail. He was the Xerxes in whose days the
children of Israel were sold for no money, as it is written, ‘Behold ye
shall be sold for naught.” He was the Xerxes who commanded to
bring cedars from Lebanon and gold from Ophir, but they were not
brought. He was the Xerxes in whose days the faces of the house of
Israel were black, like the outside of a pot. He was the Xerxes in whose
days that was accomplished upon the house of Israel which is written
in the Book of the Law of Moses, “In the morning thou shalt say:
Would that it were evening,’’. . . and because of what he said, and
because of what he did, his days were shortened. . . . He was the Xerxes
who killed his wife for the sake of his friend. He was the Xerxes who
killed his friend for the sake of his wife. He was the Xerxes.]
XERXES’ FEAST 123
1°. Who used to reign from India]. Héddf, ‘India,’ is Old
Pers. Hinid’u, Skr. Sindhu, ‘river,’ i.e., the Indus, and refers only
to the northwest portion of the peninsula, that drained by the river
Indus. This is also the meaning of India in classical geography.
The modern application of the name to the whole peninsula has
arisen by a process of extension similar to that by which Palestine
(Philistia) has come to be the name of the whole of Canaan.*
According to Arrian (/nd. i. 1), Cyrus extended his conquests to
the border of India (Duncker, Geschichte des Alterthums,‘ iv.
p. 370). The conquest of India by Darius, the father of Xerxes,
is recorded in Her. iii. 94-106; iv. 44. Indian troops fought in
the armies of Darius and of Xerxes (vii. 65, 70).—Even unto
Kush]. Neither the Babylonian nor the Arabian Kush is meant,
but the African, 1.6., Ethiopia, the modern Nubia. Ethiopia was
subdued by Cambyses (Her. iii. 97), and was part of the empire of
Darius and of Xerxes (Her. vii. 9, 65, 69/.). In iii. 97 and vil. 70,
Her. combines India and Ethiopia in a manner similar to this
passage. They are also given as the confines of the Babylonian
empire in @ Dn. 3! and τ Esd. 3°. In Xerxes’ own inscriptions
he speaks of himself as “‘the great King, the King of Kings, the
King of the lands occupied by many races, the King of this
great world” (Spiegel, Altpers. Keilinschr., p. 59)—1@' +
Which is east of great India, and unto the west of Kush:] [σ:
+ From India which is in the west unto Kush which is ἴῃ. the
east.]| These insertions are due to the idea that Kush lay in the
neighbourhood of India.—Seven and twenty and a hundred prov-
inces]. This clause is not the object of used to rule, since this
verb is regularly construed with the preposition over. It must be
taken as an appositive, explaining the meaning of the foregoing
clause from India even unto Kush. ‘The 127 provinces are men-
tioned again in 89 and in (ὁ in Β' Εἰ τ Esd. 3% In Dn. 63 ὦ
Darius the Mede appoints satraps over 120 provinces. By the
addition of 7 provinces the author perhaps intends to convey the
idea that the empire of Xerxes was even greater than that of
Darius. Her. iii. 89 says that Darius divided the empire into
*See von Bohlen, Das alte Indien, pp. 0, 17; Wahl, Vorder- und Mittelasien, i. p. 350 ἢ:
Lassen, Indische Allerthumskunde, i. p. 2; Spiegel, Altpers. Keilinschrijten, p. 246.
124 ESTHER
20 satrapies. Jos. Ant. x. 249 gives Darius the Mede 360 provinces,
but in the story of Esther he has the same number as &. In
his own inscriptions, Darius enumerates in the earliest period
21 provinces, later 23, and finally 29 (Spieg., pp. 3-59), confirm-
ing thus the statement of Herodotus. To explain the discrepancy
between Est. and Her., comm. generally assume that the provinces
of Est. are smaller racial groups into which the satrapies of Her.
were divided. This view derives some support from 32:12, ‘“‘unto the
satraps of the King and the governors of the provinces” (cf. 89 9),
which suggests that the provinces were smaller than the satrapies.
In Ezr. 2: Ne. 76 113 “the province” means no more than Judza,
but this was only a part of the great satrapy of Trans-Euphrates,
which included Syria, Phcenicia, and Cyprus. Other comm.
regard the 127 provinces as an exaggeration similar to those found
elsewhere in this book (see § 27). Scho. regards the number as
symbolic; 12, the number of the tribes; 10, the number of com-
pleteness; + 7, the number of perfection, means that all nations
were subject to Xerxes. This view finds some support in the fact
that Meg. 11a interprets the 127 provinces as meaning that Xerxes
reigned over the whole earth.*
2. In those days], a resumption of the thought of 's, which has
been interrupted by the parenthesis in '»\—When King Xerxes took
his seat]. The language suggests the beginning of his reign, but
15 says that it was in the third year. Meg. 110 solves the difficulty
by taking the phrase in the sense of ‘“‘when he was established,”
and this view has been extensively followed by later Jewish comm.
So also Lyra, Mar., Vat., Cler., Ramb., Hew., Clark. Those who
regard ’Ahashwérésh as identical with Artaxerxes Longimanus,
see in this an allusion to the political disturbances that followed
the assassination of Xerxes II, and take it to mean “‘when King
Artaxerxes enjoyed peace.” This, however, is an impossible
translation. The phrase, accordingly, must be regarded as re-
ferring, not to the absolute beginning of the King’s reign, but to
the beginning of his reign in Susa. The Medo-Persian empire
* On the organization of the Persian empire, see Brisson, De reg. Pers. principatu. i. 160
(for references in classical writers); Meyer, Gesch. d. Altertums, chap. i.; Justi, in Geiger-
Kuhn, /ran. Phil., pp. 432-438; Buchholz, Questiones de Persarum Satrapis satrapiisque
(1895).
XERXES’ FEAST 125
had three capitals, Susa, Ecbatana, and Babylon, besides the royal
residence at Persepolis. These events occurred at the time when
Xerxes took up his residence in Susa (so Drus., Cas., Sanc., Rys.).
Will. (pp. 16, 21) understands the phrase of the official coronation.
The Pers. monuments represent kings seated upon a lofty chair,
and Gr. writers record that they travelled, and even went into
battle, seated upon a throne (see Baum., p. ὃς ff.). This was
not a distinctively Pers. custom. Among the Hebrews, and
throughout the Orient, sitting was the official posture for kings
and judges.—U pon his royal throne]. Instead of (malkhithé),
his royal (lit. of his kingdom), some codd. read mlakhté, ‘his
work.’ On this slight foundation @:, ©:, and Mid. construct the
story that Xerxes could not sit upon the throne of Solomon, and
therefore had to sit upon “‘the throne of his own workmanship.”
The insertion in ©: is as follows:—
[σ᾽ + King Xerxes wished to sit upon the royal throne of Solomon,
which had been carried away from Jerusalem by Shishak, King of
Egypt; and had been brought away from Egypt by Sennacherib; and
had been captured out ofthe hands of Sennacherib by Hezekiah, and
had been brought to Jerusalem; but had again been carried away from
Jerusalem by Pharaoh the Lame, King of Egypt; and from Egypt had
been carried away by Nebuchadnezzar, and had been brought to Baby-
lon. When Cyrus devastated the province of Babylon, he transported
it to Elam; and afterward, when Xerxes reigned, he tried to sit upon it,
but was not able. Accordingly, he sent and brought artisans from
Alexandria in order that they might make one like it, but they were not
able. So they made another inferior to it; and after two years had been
spent in its production, at length he sat upon his royal throne which the
artisans had made for him.]
@: has a similar but much more elaborate addition describing
the wisdom of Solomon, the construction of his throne, the visit
of the Queen of Sheba, and Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of Jeru-
salem. The legends here gathered are largely of Babylonian
origin (cf. Wiinsche, ‘‘Salomo’s Thron u. Hippodrom, Abbilder
des babylonischen Himmelsbildes,” Ex Oriente Lux, ii. (1906).—
Which was in Susa], added to distinguish this throne from the
others which were in Ecbatana, Persepolis, or Babylon. Susa
(Heb. and As. Shushan, (6 ΣΣούσοι͵ Old Pers. Shushin or Shushim)
120 ESTHER
is the modern mound of Shush, 15 mi. S.W. of Dizful in Persia.
Its history is known from references in Bab. and As. inscriptions,
from classical historians, and from the inscriptions and other re-
mains discovered in the excavations recently undertaken on its
site by the French government under the direction of Dieulafoy
and De Morgan.—The fortress], so also Dn. 8? Ne. 1! Est. 15 23-5. 8
315 84 gs 1. 15 This distinguishes the acropolis, in which the
palace lay, from the less strongly fortified surrounding ‘city of
Susa”’ (3155 611), which lay on the other side of the river Choaspes,
the As. Ukni. The excavations show that the main city had a
circumference of 6 or 7 mi. Αἴ ἃ height of 72 ft. above the general
level lay the fortress, or citadel, a rectangular platform inclosed
witha massive wall 2% mi.in length. This was the palace-quarter,
in whose midst, at an elevation of 120 ft., stood the royal castle,
or “house of the king” (15 25 4% 78). The strength of this inner
city is repeatedly affirmed by Gr. writers (cf. Strabo, xv. 32; Poly-
bius, v. 48).
3. In the third year of his reign]. According to the Ptolemaic
Canon (see Wachsmuth, Alte Geschichte, p. 305) Xerxes’ first full
regnal year began Dec. 23, 486 B.c. It thus coincides practically
with 485 B.c. His third year must then have been 483 B.c. At
the time of his accession Egypt was in revolt (Her. vii. 4); not
under the leadership of Habisha, as has commonly been supposed
(Birch, TSBA. i. p. 24; Petrie, History of Egypt, iii. p. 369;
Erman, Zeitsch. f. Aegypt., xxxi. p. 91); for, as Spiegelberg has
lately shown (Papyrus Libbey, 1907), Habisha belonged to a time
about 324 B.c. (see Or. Lit. Zeitung, 1907, cols. 422, 439). Egypt
was reduced to submission in Xerxes’ second year (484 B.c.), and
was placed under the rule of his brother Achzmenes (Her. vii. 7).
In the following year the action of the Book of Est. begins. Ac-
cording to ©:, ©: and Mid., Xerxes was obliged to wait until the
third year because his throne was not yet ready. Mid. notes that
this was the third year after the interruption of the building of the
Temple (Ezr. 4°)—He [τ + Xerxes] made a [Gr. codd. + great]
banquet]. The word means primarily a drinking-bout. It occurs
20 times in Est. and only 24 times in all the rest of the OT.—To
all his officials], not ‘princes’ (1.6., members of the royal family),
XERMES? ΓΕ ΑΘΤ' Σ 127
as AV. and RV. translate, but ‘officers’ appointed by the King;
so L correctly Tots ἄρχουσι (cf. Buhl, Die socialen Verhiiltnisse der
Israeliten, p. 83 ff.).—And courtiers]. The word means primarily
‘slaves.’ The ‘slaves of the King’ in OT. usage are not ‘sub-
jects’ in general, as G translates here; nor are they those who do
the menial work of the palace, but they are the members of the
royal household, the courtiers, as we should say (cf. 32% 4" 5"
t K. κι 20% 223 2 K. τοῦ Je. 36%)—{ With the officers of] the army
of Persia and Media]. *» is a circumstantial clause describing the
nature of the feast, and specifying the classes of dignitaries included
under the officials and courtiers of 5. The army is unrelated
grammatically to the preceding clause. At least and is needed
before it. Even with this insertion it does not make good sense,
for it is inconceivable that Xerxes should invite the whole army
of Persia and Media along with the dignitaries of the realm.
Bert., Kamp., Schu., Rys., Or., seek to explain the difficulty by
taking army to mean the picked body-guard of 2,000 cavalry,
2,000 lancers, and 10,000 infantry described in Her. vii. 40 Δ);
but, as Keil points out, the phrase force of Media and Persia can-
not naturally be limited in this way. If this were the meaning, we
should expect ‘‘force of the King.”’ Keil holds that the army was
present in its élite representatives, but in that case we should ex-
pect ‘‘the mighty men of valour.” It is necessary, therefore, with
Jun. and Trem., Pisc., Rys., Buhl, Haupt, to supply and the
officers of before army (cf. 2 3. 24. τ K. 152° 2 K. 2528 Je. 4o7- 15, al.).
The Medes and Persians were the principal subdivisions of the
Iranian branch of the Indo-European race, and were closely akin
in language, customs and religion to the Aryans of northern India.
In the eighth century B.c., according to the As. records, they first
began to push into the regions east of Assyria and Babylonia. By
the sixth century their conquest of ancient Elam and the territory
northward to the Caspian was complete, and a Medo-Persian
empire was founded by Phraortes the Mede (647-625 3.c.).
Under his successor Cyaxares (624-585 B.c.), Media was strong
enough to destroy Nineveh and to divide the Assyrian empire with
Nabopolassar of Babylon. Under Astyages (584-550 B.c.) Media
declined, and Cyrus the Persian (549-530 B.C.) was able to seize
128 ESTHER
the throne. Henceforth we have a Perso-Median instead of a
Medo-Persian empire. Cyrus conquered Babylon (539 B.c.), and
soon made himself master of the whole of western Asia. His son
Cambyses (529-523 B.c.) added Egypt to the empire. Darius I
(522-466 B.c.) did not enlarge his domain, but brought it into a
splendid state of organization. His son and successor was Xerxes,
the ’Ahashwéroésh of Est. In this passage the Persians are named
before the Medes, corresponding to the fact that at this time
Persia held the hegemony in the double kingdom (so also 114: 15: 19
and in the Achemenian inscriptions Parsa uta Mada). In Dn.
528 69(8)- 1942). 16 a5) 820 the order is reversed, because Daniel lived
at the time of the Median hegemony. In Est. τοῦ the order Media
and Persia is due, either to the use of a different source (see /ntro-
duction, § 24) or to the fact that chronicles are mentioned which
naturally treated of the two kingdomsin chronological order. From
these two orders in Est., Meg. 12a infers that there was a bargain
between the two peoples, so that, when the kings were Medes, the
satraps were Persians, and vice versa.—The nobles and the officials
of the provinces before him] [Jos. 155 + as becamea king]. The prov-
inces are the conquered portions of the empire in contrast to the
home-lands of Persia and Media that have just been mentioned.
The comm. make many guesses as to the reason for this banquet.
According to Meg. 11h, Xerxes perceived that Belshazzar had mis-
calculated the 70 years of Je. 29:9, and had brought ruin upon him-
self by using the Temple vessels at his feast. Xerxes calculated
more correctly, and found that the 70 years were up in his second
year; therefore, in his third year he ventured to make a feast and
to use the Temple vessels. @: holds that it was to celebrate the
quelling of a rebellion, or was an anniversary; so also L, ἄγων Ta
σωτήρια αὐτοῦ. & and JE. think that it was because of his
marriage to Vashti; Cler., that it was to conciliate the empire at
the beginning of his reign; Sanc., to initiate his residence at Susa;
Mal., Scho., to celebrate his victory over the Egyptians; Lap., to
observe his birthday (cf. Her. i. 133); Ser., to display his wealth
(cf. 14). Jun., Mal., Keil, Hav., Baum., αἰ. identify this banquet
with the council which Xerxes convened when he was planning to
invade Greece (Her. vii. 8), and quote the remark of Her. i. 133
XERXES’ FEAST 120
that the Persians discuss the most important affairs of state over
their cups (cf. Strabo, xv. 32°; Curt. vii. 4; Xen. Cyrop. viii. 8").
There is, however, no hint in Est. of deliberating over an impend-
ing war. ‘These speculations in regard to the reason for the feast
are of interest only if one is convinced of the strictly historical
character of the book.
[@:, 5 - Why did he make a feast? Some say that his governors
had revolted against him, and that he went and conquered them;
and after he had conquered them he returned and made a feast.
Another says, This was a feast-day for him, so he sent letters into all
the provinces to come and celebrate it in his presence with joy. He
sent and invited all governors of the provinces that they should come
and rejoice with him. There assembled in his presence 127 princes
from 127 provinces, all adorned with crowns on their heads, and they
reclined on woollen couch-covers, and feasted, and rejoiced before the
King. And while the princes and the governors of the provinces were
before him, certain also of the rulers of Israel came thither, who wept
and mourned because they saw the vessels of the house of the sanctuary.
And they ate and drank and enjoyed themselves.]
4. While he showed [them] his glorious royal wealth], lit. the
wealth of the glory of his kingdom. The wealth of the Persian
court is celebrated by the classical writers. Her. iii. 95 f. speaks
of 14,560 Eubceic talents (£3,549,000, or $17,248,140) as the
annual tribute collected by Darius, and states that he was accus-
tomed to melt the gold and pour it into earthen jars, then to break
off the clay and store away the ingots. Her. vii. 27 speaks of a
golden plane-tree and a golden vine that Darius received as a
present from Pythius of Celene. In the spoil of Xerxes’ camp
the Spartans found tents covered with gold and silver, golden
couches, bowls and cups, and even gold and silver kettles (Her.
ix. 80 f.). AEschylus (Perse, 161) speaks of the gold-covered
chambers of the palace (cf. Curt. iii. 13; v. 6; Athenzeus, xi. 14;
other references in Baum., p. 16). The Targums and Midrash
make the following additions:—
[@? + It is not written that he showed his wealth, but, ‘‘ While he showed
his glorious royal wealth,” that is, the wealth that had come from the
sanctuary, for flesh and blood cannot possess wealth, but all wealth be-
longs to the Holy One, blessed be He! as it is written, ‘‘ Mine is the silver
9
130 ESTHER
and mine the gold, saith the Lord of hosts.”? Every day he: showed
them six treasure-chambers, as it is written, “wealth, glory, kingdom,
costliness, ornament, greatness,” that is, six things. But when the
Israelites saw there the vessels of the house of the sanctuary, they were
not willing to remain before him; and they told the King, the Jews are
not willing to remain because they see the vessels of the house of the
sanctuary. ‘Then the King commanded his servants to bring them other
vessels. ]
[Mid. + He showed them his great household. . . . He showed them
his various revenues from the land of Israel. . . . He showed off with
what belonged to him and with what did not belong to him, like the
crow that struts on its own and on somebody else’s ground. How did
the wretch get so much wealth? R. Tanhuma said, the cursed Ne-
buchadnezzar had brought all the wealth of the world together for him-
self, and his eye feared for his wealth. When he saw that he was near
death, he said: Shall I leave all this wealth to this fool Evil-Merodach?
He loaded it upon great copper ships and sunk them in the Euphrates.
They were then disclosed by God to Cyrus when he gave command to
rebuild the Temple, as it is written: ‘‘So saith the Lord to his anointed,
to Cyrus, ‘I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches
of secret places’” (Is. 45%)].
[G' + This was left in the hand of Xerxes by Cyrus the Mede, who had
found this treasure. When he captured Babylon, he dug into the bank
of the Euphrates, and found there 680 chests full of pure gold, diamonds,
beryls, and emeralds. With these treasures then he displayed his
wealth.]
And the costliness of his kingly apparel], lit. the costliness of the
ornament of his greatness. The language of this and of the pre-
ceding clause is as redundant as the statements are exaggerated.
—Many days (©: +and the feast for his officials lasted] 180 days].
Many days is an acc. of time that joins on to made a banquet 3";
180 days is an appositive, defining more precisely what is meant by
many days. The extraordinary length of this banquet, 180 days,
or half a year, has aroused the wonder and the incredulity of comm.
inallages. Mid. absurdly suggests that many may be 3, and days
may be 2, so that really there were only 5 days; and that they are
called 180 because they seemed that long to the oppressed Jews.
Scho. takes 180 as symbolic of the duration of the Messiah’s king-
dom. Bon., Sal., Cler., West., Eich., Baum., Scott, Raw., Stre., al.,
think that the governors could not have left their provinces for
180 days, and, therefore, were entertained by Xerxes in relays;
XERXES’ FEAST 131
but there is not the least foundation for this view in the text.
Lyra, Keil and Winck. (AOF. iii. 1, p. 31 n.) take v. ‘as a paren-
thesis describing the events which preceded the feast, rather than
those which occurred during its progress, and regard the 7-day
feast of v. * as the same as the one whose description is begun in
v. **. This is not a natural interpretation, since while he showed
them (v. 4) does not properly mean ‘at the end of a 180 days’
display.’ Besides, if the nobles were present for 180 days look-
ing at the treasures, no reason appears why the feast might not
have lasted during that period. Moreover, all the people that were
found in Susa (v. 5) is not the same as /is officials and his courtiers
(v.*), which shows that the banquet of v.* is different from that of
v.*. In support of their identity, Keil urges that the officials and
the courtiers of v.* are present at the feast of v.*(cf.v."); but this
is easily explained by the supposition that, although the multitude
was invited, the nobles also remained to the second banquet. In
fact, the peoples and the officials are named together inv.". Keil’s
view also demands the arbitrary assumption of an anacoluthon
at the beginning of v.* to resume the thought of v. 5. We must
hold, therefore, with the majority of comm., that the author means
to say that there was a feast of 180 days, followed by another feast
of 7 days. As to the probability of such a celebration, opinions
differ. Ser. cites a go-day debauch of Dionysius of Syracuse, and
Fryar, Travels, p. 348, reports that he found feasts of six months’
duration among the modern Persians; nevertheless 180 days re-
mains an incredibly long time for the King and all the officials of
the empire to spend in drinking.
1. ὙΠ} καὶ ἐξήτησε 108a: om. 44 J: many of the historical books of
the OT. begin with 1: thus Ex., 1 K., Ezr., with a simple ) conjunctive;
Ly., Nu., 2 K., 2 Ch., with ) consecutive and the impf.; Jos., Ju., 1 5S.,
2 ὃ., Ne., with »9. In all these cases, the book is meant to be read
in connection with the one that precedes it (so also possibly Ru. 1! and
Ez. 11); here, however, such a connection is impossible. Meg. τοῦ,
@', Mid. τα, Valqut Est. ὃ 1044, claim that everywhere in Scripture
7.) introduces a narrative of disaster. This conceit has its origin in
the similar sound of Gr. oval, Latin v@, ‘woe.’— D3] καὶ ἐκράτησεν
ro8a: om. 44.--ΦΥ ΠΝ 17 Assueri J: Artaxerxis L: mjpactnas] Ὁ:
᾿Ασσυήρου 1,: ᾿Αρταξέρξου & (so I S L G elsewhere): om. 44, 108a.—7]
132
ESTHER
om. K 151,R 899, 3: apo om 85: οὗτος δὲ 44: τοῦ βασιλέως L.—wrwnr 3
om. K 151, R 899, J: τοῦ μεγάλου L: +6 βασιλεύων 93b under *: Haupt
deletes as a gloss.— 7907] om. 106: here pointed as a ptc., as in Je. 2211,
but it might equally well be pointed as a noun, 92p5 ‘the king.’ The
ptc., if correct, expresses the continuance of Xerxes’ rule. From this
unusual vocalization Meg. τοῦ, Mid., Yalq. § 1045, RaShl, infer that
Xerxes was an upstart who had usurped the throne. This opinion is
justified neither by the Heb. expression nor by the facts of history.—177]
τῆς ᾿Ινδικῆς (Ὁ: India 1Π:- χῶρας 108a: is derived by assimilation of 3
from 7937, which corresponds to Ar. and N. Pers. Hind, Syr. Hendu,
Aram. Hindya, O. Pers. Hind’u, Skr. Sindhu. The Massoretic vocal-
ization is peculiar. From the analogy of the cognates we should ex-
pect rather Hiddi#, or Heddi#, with the accent on the ultima. Bert.
and Scho. conjecture that it has been pointed in this way to make it
resemble 17, and thus to suggest that the heathen world is doomed to
destruction. The word occurs only here and in 8%. See Ges. Thes. s. v.;
Rodiger, Thes. Add. s. v.; Scheftelowitz, Arisches im A. T., p. 43.
—wvy wi] so L HN cme, 935 under *: om. (θ.--- 15]. Three Kush’s
are known in the OT-.: (1) a Babylonian people from which sprang
Nimrod, the founder of Babylon, Erech, Accad, Calneh in the land of
Shinar, Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah and Resen, all cities or regions of
Babylonia and Assyria (Gn. 108-12 J). This doubtless is the same as
the Kasse, a people often mentioned in the Babylonian or Assyrian in-
scriptions, whose original seat was in the mountains east of Babylonia;
from which they emerged about 1700 B.c., conquered Babylonia, and
established the third dynasty of Babylon, which reigned from about
1700 to 1100 B.c. Perhaps the same people is meant in Gn. “218. This
Kush was well known to the Jews in Babylonia; and in Meg. 11a R.
Samuel identifies the Kush of Est. 1! with it, and comments on the fact
that it lay near to India. He explains the difficulty by saying that the
passage means, that, just as Xerxes ruled over India and Kush, so he
also ruled over 127 provinces, and compares 1 K. 5! (Eng. 43). This
view is also followed by @', ©2, and Mzd., but it is not the natural mean-
ing of the language. India and Kush are evidently meant to be the
opposite extremes of the empire. Moreover, and must be inserted
before over 127 provinces on this interpretation. Rab is therefore cor-
rect, in opposition to Samuel, in saying that Hddd# lay at.one end of the
world and Kush at the other end. (2) There is a Kush in South
Arabia (Gn. 108f- P; Nu. 12! E; of. Ex. 215. 2 J; Hb. 37 2 Ch. 5115: ph.
also Gn. 21:3 Am. 97 Is. 203 2 Ch. 149" This appears as KfiSu in four
inscriptions of Esarhaddon (Winckler, Altortentalische Forschungen,
ii. 8, 18; Knudtson, Gebete an den Sonnengott, No. 108; KAT.3, p. 89).
On the Arabian Kush see Winckler, Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen,
p. 165 f.; “‘Musri, Meluhha, Ma‘in,” MVG. 1898, τ, p. 47; 4, pp.
XERXES’ FEAST 133
1-10; KAT. p. 144; Cheyne, Art. “Cush” in EBz.). With this South
Arabian Kush, the Kush of Est. τὶ is identified by Mar. and Cler.,
chiefly because they regard ’Ahashwérésh as the same as Artaxerxes
Longimanus, and in his day Persian rule extended no further than
Arabia. (3) Kush denotes Ethiopia, the modern Nubia (Is. 18! 379=
2 K. 199 Zp. 3!° Ez. 2910). In Egypt. it appears as K35, in As. as
Κῆξι. This is probably the Kush meant by our author (so Ser., San.,
Mal., and all recent commentators). (Cas. thinks that Kush is a gen-
eral name for nomadic peoples, and understands it of the Scythians on
the northwest border of the Persian empire.) —y1~’] pr. super 9: om. $.—
Ὁ} Φ»} pr. ἊΣ 9. -π25»10] χῶραι G L: p2be Tt: an Aram. loan-word
that occurs ten times in Aram. sections of the OT. (cf. Syr. medinta,
Ar. medineh, ‘city’). It does not appear in Heb., except in the later
books of the OT. (of. 1 K. 2014-15. 17. 19 zr. 2! Ne. 13 Ec. 28 57 Lam. 1!
Ez. 198 Dn. 8? 11% and 29 times in Est.).
2. ona Da] om. JL L: Haupt rejects as a gloss.—n3w>] here only
in OT. nav3 seems more natural, but ΓΦ 3 is supported by ὅτε
ἐθρονίσθη and 1, ἐν τῷ καθῆσθαι. The phrase expresses the beginning
rather than the continuance of the action (cf. Miller, Syntax, καὶ 111).
On the use of 5, cf. 1 S.5!° See Winckler, MVG. xi. p. 21, and Jacob,
ZATW. x. p. 281.—2wne ἼΠΠ] om. αὶ * IN 55, ro8a: Haupt de-
letes vrwns.—oor] om. L.—inrs5n—y] om. G (93b has under *):
this phrase is used only in later books of the OT. (¢.g., 1 Ch. 221° 288
2 Ch. 7!8% In earlier books we find πϑῦθ xd> by (1 K. 95).—rws]
om. J 6 G L—awsanywwal om. 1, &: Susan civitas regni ejus ex-
ordium fuit, 3,.----Ἰ Ὁ} Susa was the capital of ancient Elam as early
as the third millennium B.c., and was the sanctuary of the great goddess
Shushinak. At first it was subject to Babylonia, and was ruled by a
patesi or vice-king; but in 2280 B.c. it declared its independence, and
from this time forward became a formidable antagonist of Babylon.
About 2800 B.c., according to the annals of Ashurbanipal (Rassam
Cylinder, vi. 107; KB. ii. p. 208 f.), Kutirnahunte, King of Elam, car-
ried thither the image of the goddess Nana of Erech. It was doubtless
also the residence of Kutir Lahgamar, the Chedorla‘omer of Gn. 14.
About 1350 8.6. it was conquered by Kurigalzu II, King of Babylon,
and some of the spoil taken in 2280 B.C. was recovered (cf. Hilprecht,
Old Bab. Inscr. 1, part i. p. 31). In the twelfth century the tables were
again turned, Shutruk-Nahunte, King of Elam, and his son Kutir-
Nahunte conquered Babylonia and carried its spoil to Susa. Among
the objects plundered was the stele containing the famous code of
Hammurabi, discovered in Susa by the French expedition in 1897-9
along with other important Bab. monuments. After the rise of Assyria,
Susa became the ally of Babylon against Nineveh. This led to prolonged
and bloody wars, which ended with the capture of Susa by Ashurbanipal
134
ESTHER
about 625 B.c. The image of Nana, which had been carried off 1635
years before, was brought back, and an enormous booty was captured
(Rassam Cylinder, vi.). Susa, however, soon revived from the disaster,
and with the decline of Assyria became again the capital of Elam.
About 596 B.c. it fell a prey to the Medo-Persian migration (cf. Je.
49*-39), and the old Elamitic population gave way to a new Indo-Euro-
pean race. During the Median supremacy, Susa was less important
than Ecbatana (Heb. Achmetha, Ezr. 6%, the modern Hamadan) in
Media; but when the hegemony passed to Persia under Cyrus and his
successors, Susa again became the chief capital of the empire (cf. Dn. 8?
Ne. 1!). Xenophon (Cyrop. viil. 633) says that it was the winter residence
of the kings, while Ecbatana and Babylon were the summer residences
(of. Ezr. 6'£-). The classical writers contain many allusions to its wealth
and to the splendour of the buildings erected by the kings of Persia (cf.
Baum., p. 18 ff.). The city continued to exist under Sassanian rule
and was not abandoned until some time in the Middle Ages. The vast
size of the mounds that now mark its site is a witness to its antiquity
and former glory (see Loftus, Chaldea and Susiana (1857), Ρ. 343 ff-3
Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud (1868), p. 381; Delitzsch, Wo lag
das Paradies, p. 320; Mme. Jane Dieulafoy, A Suse, Journal des Fou-
alles (1887); La Perse et la Susiane (1887), chap. xxxix; M. Dieulafoy,
L’Acropole de la Suse (1890), translated in part in Jampel, Das Buch
Esther; Winckler in Helmolt, Weltgeschichte, 111. (1901), pp. 91-109;
Billerbeck, Susa, eine Studie zur alten Geschichte Westasiens (1893);
De Morgan, Délégation en Perse (gives an account of the French exca-
vations; vol. ii., by Scheil, contains the Textes Elamitiques et Sémi-
tiques); Curzon, Persia, ii. p. 309.— 1773] 873992 TG: birta S: is a loan-
word from the Aram. that appears only in late Heb. (apart from Est. in
Ne. 1! 28 72 1 Ch. 29!-19 Dn. 83). In As. it appears in the f. form birtw
as early as the inscriptions of Shalmaneser II (Delitzsch, As. HWB.
Ρ- 185). In Pers. it appears as baru, and in Skr. as bura, bari (cf.
BDB. s.v.). In Ne. 28 the name is applied to a stronghold near the
Temple, probably the same as the later Akra of the Syrians in 1 Mac.
and Jos. After the destruction of this fortress by Simon in 142 B.c.,
another citadel was built north of the Temple, which was also known
as 712 (ὦ Bdpis). This was subsequently rebuilt by Herod under the
name of Antonia. (ὃ and J here, and L in 15, have πόλις and civitas,
which leads Jahn to conjecture that the original reading in # was 1yn,
but & in 15 2%- 5 has Thebari, which represents τῇ βάρει in the Gr. from
which it was translated.
3. om. L—wvdw mwa] om. L.—rdnb] καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς L.—nnvr]
+ grande J B 44, 74, 76, 120, 236.—535] so 936: om. G L.—ww] τοῖς
φίλοις G: τοῖς δούλοις 236: τοῖς ἄρχουσι L: τοῖς φίλοις αὐτοῦ 44, 71, 74, 76,
120.—)1ay)]_ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν G: om. 1,.---ὐ Ὑῦ -- 5] om, SU
THE SECOND FEAST 135
(SALM have).—n] καὶ τοῖς ἐνδόξοις G: τῆς αὐλῆς (527) L: before ὅπ
we must supply 1%). (6 καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς represents an original 1X),
which is a corruption of %7%.—D 2] 012 some codd. incorrectly.—
pon] Kal τοῖς ἄρχουσιν (6: καὶ of ἄρχοντες L. Ὁ ὭΓ ΒΓ is com-
monly regarded as the Pers. word fratama, which is the equivalent of
Skr. prathama and Gr. πρῶτος ‘first.’ It occurs elsewhere in the OT.
only in 69 and Dn. 1° (cf. the glossary in Spiegel, Die altpers. Keilinschr.,
p- 232; Lagarde, Armenische Studien, ὃ 2289; Ges. Abhandlungen, p.
282 f.). Haupt, Am. Journ. Phil., xvii. p. 490, proposes to connect it
with As. parsimiiti, ‘elders’ (Delitzsch, As. HWB. p. 546). Mid.
and other comm. incorrectly regard ὉΠ ΡΠ as the royal body-guard.
RaShI and Kimhi know that it is Pers. and interpret it correctly.—
Ww] τῶν σατραπῶν G: om. L.—n 707] bats) $: om. G—v>]
καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα G (93b under -:}): + |Daugsor 1.9 ϑοϑο &.
4. om. 3ῆ.--ἸΓΝ 2] μετὰ τὸ δεῖξαι αὐτοῖς G: els τὸ ἐπιδειχθῆναι L:
ἔδειξεν αὐτοῖς 44, 71, 76, τού, 120, 236: the inf. with 3 denotes continu-
ation of the action, 7.e., the display went on all the time that the feast
lasted. Instead of 1n8773, ‘in his showing,’ we should naturally expect
pnx773, ‘in showing them’ (cf. Jos. 55). This is supported by αὐτοῖς
in (6, and is adopted by Buhl. Haupt regards this as gratuitous.
ee |,-oulo 9: om. G (93b has under *).—1m3>2] τοῦ βασιλέως
Ι,.--- Ὁ] so Mas. (Baer): 72) var. G C (see Norzi, ad loc.): aft. indy F.
sp’ is commonly used in Est. in the secondary sense of ‘honour’
(cf. 12° 65. © 816), but here the parallelism with wy in the preceding
clause demands that it should be given its primary meaning of ‘precious-
ness.’—NNbN], primarily ‘beauty,’ ‘ornament,’ is used of women’s
finery Is. 318, of garments Is. 52!, of jewels Ez. 1617- 99 2376, and of the
apparel of the high priest Ex. 28? 4°. Here it seems to refer to the regalia
of the Persian monarch. On the basis of Ex. 28%, Meg. 12a and Mid.
infer that Xerxes put on the robes of the high priest that had been
carried off by Nebuchadnezzar—inby—7p) ΓΝῚ] om. 44, 106.—
ino] so many edd.: inyr3 BING) ΒΑ ΟΝ πὶ: ἢ) 50. 64, 2413, 245
C, ΑΙΑ.-ττ- 8.3 Ὁ. om. (6 L: Haupt regards as a gloss, or alternate
reading, to the following.—»212v] pr. ἐν B, pr. ἐπὲ s LN, 44, 71, 74,
76, 106, 120, 248, Ald., 55, τοϑα.--- ΓΝ] om. 70.
XERXES ALSO MAKES ANOTHER BANQUET FOR THE MEN OF THE
FORTRESS OF SUSA, AND VASHTI FOR THE WOMEN (1°-?).
δ. And when these days were completed]. R. Samuel holds
(Mid. ad. loc.) that the feast of 7 days whose description begins
here, is included in the 180 days of the previous feast, 1.6., after
173 days the common people were admitted to dine with the nobles;
136 ESTHER
so also Jun., Drus., Pisc., Mal. In defence of this view it is said
that there is no description of the feast of 180 days unless v.* be
included in it, that the nobles were present (ν. 11), and that all that
were found in Susa were invited (v. 5), 1.6., the nobles as well as the
common people. On the other hand, Rab (Mid. ad loc.) and most
comm. hold that the seven days followed the 180 days.—[@? + The
King said, Now I will make a banquet for the inhabitants of my
city and] the King made a banquet during seven days]. Net. thinks
that this was the wedding feast of Vashti, and compares it with the
wedding feast of Esther (2'*). Cas. compares the seven-day feasts
in the Shahnameh of Firdusi.—For all the people], i.e., for all the
men. The women were invited to another banquet given by
Vashti (v.*).—[@' + of the house of Israel]. The addition is due to
an ancient inference from the words all the people, that Jews must
have been present at the banquet (cf. Meg. 12a) —That were found
[G: + sinners] in Susa the fortress [E+ who were counted among
the uncircumcised inhabitants of the land]. Were found is not the
same as /ived, but denotes those who at the time happened to be in
the place, whether residents or visitors (cf. 1 Ch. 29!7 2 Ch. 34”
Ez. 85); that is, this second feast included not only those who had
come up out of the provinces to the first feast, but also the rest of
the men that were present in the palace-quarter known as “‘Susa
the fortress” (see v. *)—F rom the great to the small], 1.e., not from
the oldest unto the youngest, but from the highest unto the lowest;
both the nobles, who had been present at the previous banquet,
and all the members of the royal household, who had not hitherto
been included, were now invited. Ctesias (a poor authority)
states that 15,000 guests were entertained by Artaxerxes Mnemon
at a cost of 4oo talents (Frag. xxxvii., ed. Lion).—Jn the enclosed
garden of the King’s palace]. Persian palaces stood usually in the
midst of a παράδεισος, or ‘park,’ which was surrounded with a
fortified wall (cf. Xen. Cyrop. i. 3, 11; EBi., Art. ““Garden”’).
The phrase court of the garden indicates a court belonging to the
garden, rather than a court that is used as a garden, because in
v.* it is paved with mosaic. Dieulafoy thinks of the mosaic-paved
court in front of the palace at Susa.
Under the name of the Memnonium the palace at Susa is fre-
THE SECOND FEAST 137
quently mentioned by classical writers (cf. Her. v. 53 f.; vil. 151;
Strabo, xv. 3?; Polyb. v. 48). The early explorers observed ex-
tensive ruins of this edifice on the top of the mound of Susa, and
copied there the trilingual inscription of Artaxerxes Mnemon,
which reads: ‘‘Darius, my ancestor, built this palace (apadana)
in ancient times. In the reign of Artaxerxes, my grandfather, it
was destroyed by fire. Through the favour of Ahura-Mazda,
Anahita, and Mithra, I have restored this palace. May Ahura-
Mazda, Anahita, and Mithra protect me” (Journ. of the Roy.
Asiat. Soc., xv. p. 159; Spiegel, Altpers. Keilinschr., p. 68 f.; Bezold,
Achémenideninschr., p. 44 f.; Oppert, Médes, 229-230; Records of
the Past, vii. p. 79). In 1884-6 Dieulafoy excavated the ruins of
this palace of Artaxerxes. The acropolis as a whole occupied a
roughly rectangular space about 300 acres in area. This was
divided into four quarters. In the S. W. corner was a fortified
gate that was the main entrance (the ‘‘gate of the King” in Est.),
and a large open space (the ‘‘outer court” of Est.). In the 5. E.
corner stood the royal residence (the ‘‘house of the King” in Est.).
The N. E. corner was occupied by the harem (the “‘house of the
women” in Est.); and the N. W. corner, by the apaddna, or throne-
room, surrounded with an open space that may have been used as a
garden. Dieulafoy thinks that the bithan, or ‘palace,’ of this verse
and 77f- is a Heb. adaptation of the Pers. word apadéna and refers
to this throne-room. This is extremely doubtful (see critical
note). The apadéna occupied a square space 250 feet on each
side. Its roof of cedar-wood was supported by slender, fluted
limestone columns with carved capitals, arranged in six rows of
six columns each. The front was open. The rear and side walls
were of brick, encrusted with mosaic of white and reddish gray
cement, or with enamelled tiles. Each side was pierced with four
doors. Flanking the main entrance were pylons, ornamented on
one side with a line of lions on enamelled tiles, similar to those
found at Khorsabad and at Babylon; and on the other side with a
line of soldiers of the royal body-guard.*
* See the works cited on p. 134, and Dieulafoy, “ Le livre d’Esther et le Palais d’Assuérus,””
Rev. des Etudes Juives, xvi. (1888), Actes et Conferences, pp. cclxv. ff.; translated by F. Os-
good, Bibl. Sacra, \xvi. (1889), pp. 626-653; Mme. Jane Dieulafoy, Harper's Monthly, June,
1887; Jastrow, ‘The Palace of Artaxerxes Mnemon and the Book of Esther,” Sunday-
school Times, Nov. 17, 1888.
138 ESTHER
[ὦ + planted by the royal care and hand.] [@1+ Which was planted
with trees bearing fruits and spices, overlaid for half their height
with pure gold and set with inlays of precious stones, that yielded them
shade. But the righteous Mordecai and his companions were not
there.| [@*-+ He made arbours, and cut down spice-trees to make
seats, and strewed precious stones and pearls before them, and set out
shady trees.] [L+ While he celebrated his deliverance.] [Jos. 57
-+ And the banquet was made for them in this manner.]
6. The description of the feast in v.* is unconnected gram-
matically with the foregoing. It begins abruptly with whzte stuff,
without a predicate. The comm. generally regard the sentence as
a series of exclamations, white stuff! cotton! purple! but this is
very un-Hebraic. The subsequent descriptive clauses in vy.7- 5
are introduced in the ordinary way with and, followed by a pred-
icate. The Vrss. all insert at the beginning of the ν. such words as
“and awnings were stretched”; AV. and RV. supply ‘‘and there
were hangings of”; Rys. and Sieg., ‘“‘and there were.” A com-
parison of the Vrss. suggests that the original beginning of the v.
may have been, ‘“‘and the curtains were” (see critical note).—
White cotton cloth]. The first word is written in Ml with a large
initial letter, which is probably intended to call attention to a sus-
pected omission before it (cf. De Wette-Schrader, Finl.* p. 210;
Ginsburg, Jntr. pp. 334 ff-). Similar extraordinary letters occur
in 9". 2°.—[@! + With sapphire and green] and violet], i.e., blue
purple, a colour extracted from a mollusk of*the Mediterranean,
probably the Helix Ianthina (cof. HDB. i. 457; EBi. i. 875).
Violet and white were the royal colours (cf. 815; Curt. vi. 6‘).—
[L + And scarlet intertwined with flowers, and the tent was] caught
up with cords of linen and red purple]. The idea is, that the cur-
tains which served as awnings were suspended by means of these
cords upon the framework set up to support them. So the Vrss.,
Keil, Wild., Schu., Sieg. On the other hand, Bert., Rys., Haupt,
translate ‘bound,’ ‘bordered,’ instead of ‘caught up.’—U pon rods
of [Ὁ Jos. + gold and] silver]. These rods formed a trellis to which
the white and violet awnings were tied by the cords. The author
has in mind the structure of the Tabernacle in Ex. 26-27, but there
is no hint that he means this to be an allegory of the Messianic feast
that God will make for his people (Scho.).—And [@: + round
THE SECOND FEAST 139
beams of silver placed upon] pillars of marble [6 + and _ stone]
[L + gilded] [©'+red, green, flame-colour, yellow, and white]
[J + were gleaming]. The first addition of @ is an alternate
translation of the preceding clause. The word pillars is the same
that is used in Ex. 26%. 97 2719.11. 17 36:6. <3 a]. for the supports of the
Tabernacle; in 1 K. 72: *- δ, for the columns in Solomon’s palace;
and τ K. 715, for the two bronze columns that stood before the
Temple. The word for marble is the same that is used in the
description of Solomon’s Temple (1 Ch. 293). From this Mzd.
infers that these pillars were part of the spoil of the Temple carried
off by Nebuchadnezzar. The columns in the ruins of the apaddna
at Susa are of a dark-blue limestone that might easily be described
as marble. In Mid. it is said that Xerxes’ columns were of a
bluish-black colour, and R. Mathna makes the curious remark
that he had slept on the top of one of them, and that it was broad
enough for him to lie at full length. This seems to indicate that
the ruins of Susa were known to the Babylonian rabbis. Benja-
min of Tudela, a Spanish Jew, visited Susa in the twelfth century
and speaks of the ruins of Xerxes’ palace (ed. Asher, 1840, i. p.
117).
(©: + He made them lie upon] beds of [G: + fine woollen stuffs,
which were spread upon bedsteads whose heads were of] gold and
[G: + their feet of] silver [Jos.187 + so that many tens of thou-
sands could recline]. The clause is without conjunction or predi-
cate in the same manner as 6", and the Vrss. all find it necessary to
supply something. Probably we should read, and the beds were
gold and silver, after the analogy of the descriptive clauses that
follow in vv.7- 8. Haupt supplies the prep. on. The word bed is
ambiguous in Heb., as in Eng. It may mean either the mattress,
or the frame which supports it. Ordinarily it means only the rug,
or mat, which the peasant spreads upon the ground; but in Am. 64
‘beds of ivory’ must mean ‘bedsteads.’ In this case Keil, Rys.,
Sieg., think of cushions covered with cloth of gold and cloth of
silver. It seems more natural, however, with Meg. 12a, ©, and
Mid., to think of frames of gold and silver on which the cushions
were laid. Her. ix. 82 speaks of couches and tables of gold and
silver that the Greeks captured from the Persians (cf. Plutarch,
140 ESTHER
Vit. Alex. 37). Reclining at table was not the custom of the ancient
Hebrews, but in the time of Amos it began to come in from the
East (Am. 6‘). In later days it was the universal practice of the
Jews. Classical references show that Est. is correct in ascribing
this custom to the Persians — [J $ @: + placed] upon a mosaic
pavement of porphyry and marble, and mother-of-pearl, and dark
marble [{@ + and transparent coverings gayly decorated with roses
strewn in a circle]. On marble, cf. 55. The other names of
materials occur only here and are of very doubtful meaning. We
are to think of four kinds of stone of different colours that were
set in ornamental patterns. Such pavements were greatly admired
in the ancient Orient, and have been found in the excavations in
Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia. The versions presuppose a
different text (see note).
7. [© + And he commanded] and drink was brought [J + for
those who were present] in vessels of gold [6 @? + and silver]
[Jos.1s8 + adorned with precious stones for pleasure and for
display] [τ + from the House of the Sanctuary, which wicked
Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem;] [2 + and
he who drank out of a cup did not drink again out of the same
cup, but they took that one away from him and brought him
another ;] [6 + and a ruby beaker was displayed at a cost of 30,-
ooo talents]. Golden drinking-vessels are mentioned among the
spoil taken from the Persians by the Greeks (Her. ix. 80, 82).
Xen. Cyrop. viii. 8, 18, says that the Persians prided themselves
on the number of their drinking-vessels (cf. Athen. xi. 465; Strabo,
Xv. 3, 19). According to Mid., the vessels were of crystal as costly
as gold. It is curious that in this description no mention is
made of food as well as of drink. The additions of the versions
are all imaginary embellishments that have no text-critical value.
—And the vessels [§ + for food] were different from one another.
[5] + And the other vessels of King Xerxes himself which were there,
were changed in their appearance to the likeness of lead, and in the
presence of the vessels of the Sanctuary they were transformed;] [Meg.
12a + and a voice was heard from Heaven, saying, The former kings
perished on account of their use of the Temple-vessels, and you follow
their example.]
THE SECOND: FEAST 141
The idea of the Heb. is, that no two drinking-cups were alike,
an extraordinary evidence of the wealth of the King. @, @:,
and Mid. take the expression vessels differed from vessels in the
sense that the Temple-vessels differed from the other vessels, and
so develop the extraordinary idea that Xerxes’ cups were turned to
lead. Meg. takes the verb in the sense of ‘repeating’ instead of
‘differing,’ and so gains the notion that Xerxes was ‘repeating’ the
sin of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn. 52: *°).— [τ + And they drank] royal
wine [ἴδ + of surpassing aroma, and most pleasant taste,]
[ὦ δ' + and sweet,] [G: + not scanty, but] abundant, with royal
liberality [05 + and the wine was older than each one that drank
of it, for the cup-bearer asked each man, How old art thou? and
if he said I am 40 years old, he gave him wine that was 40 years
old, and so with every one]. By wine of kingdom the versions
and comm. generally understand such wine as the King himself
drank. The older comm. think of the Chalybonian wine that the
Persian kings are said to have drunk, and compare Ez. 27'8;
Plutarch, Alexander.—According to the hand of the King]. 6&1
understand this to mean such wine as came to the King’s hand;
Mont., according to the ability of the King; Tig., according to the
royal command; Pag., Vat., Pisc., Jun., and Trem., and most
modern comm., according to the generosity of the King, i.e., with
royal liberality (cf. 21} 1 K. 10' Ne. 28). J translates correctly,
ut magnificentia regia dignum erat.
8. And the drinking was according to the law. There was no
one to compel [Jos. + by bringing wine to them continually, as is
the custom of the Persians. ]
[G?+ At the feasts of the Persians they used to bring to each one a great
cup that held four of five hemine (that is what is called a pithqa), and
they made every man drink it down at one draught, and they did not
let him go until he had finished it in one draught. So the cup-bearer
who served the Persians became an exceedingly rich man; because,
when he brought the cup to a man and he was not able to drink it, he
winked to the cup-bearer to take the cup away from him, and paid him
a sum of money because he was not able to drink it. But now Xerxes
was not willing that they should drink out of such cups.]
The two clauses seem to be contradictory. One says that the
142 ESTHER
drinking was regulated by law; the other, that there was no con-
straint. Meg. 12a solves the difficulty by supposing that accord-
ing to the law means according to the Law of Moses, in which the
altar receives more food than drink. @: thinks that it means
according to the habit of each man; Mid., according to the custom
of each nation; Cler., according to judgment, i.e., moderately.
Most comm. interpret it as meaning according to the special rule
made for this feast. Ordinarily the guests drank together at a word
of command from a toast-master, but now they were allowed to
drink as they pleased. ‘This interpretation can hardly be regarded
as satisfactory. In the place of these two clauses 6 has, and the
drinking took place according to no prescribed law, which suggests
that Jaw should be pointed as a construct without the article; and
that we should translate, and the drinking was according to the
law of no compeller, i.e., was unrestrained.—For so the King [6 +
willed and] had enjoined upon every officer of his house [ 105. + to
permit them to enjoy themselves and] to do according to [6 + his
wish and according to] the wish of every man [© + that was an
Israelite, and according to the wish of the men of every kindred
and tongue.] [Meg. 12a + And every man received the wine of
his own province.] [05.159 + And sending messengers through
the provinces he commanded that they should have a release from
their labours, and should feast on account of his kingdom many
days.] The idea of the passage as a whole is, that there was neither
any compulsion to drink, nor any restraint from drinking: every
man was free to do as he pleased, and the servants were required
to execute his orders. This verse concludes the description of
Xerxes’ feast for all the people of Susa the fortress. Its splendour
was so great that one wonders what more could have been done for
the nobles at the previous banquet. Persian feasts were proverbial
in antiquity for their magnificence (cf. Her. 1. 126; Athen. xii.
512; Horace, Odes, 15. 28):
9. Also Vashti the [© + wicked] Queen, [Meg. τοῦ + the grand-
daughter of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar who had burnt the house
of God,] had made α [LL@S + great] feast [L $ + for all] the
women in [© + the place of the bedroom of] the royal house that
belonged to King Xerxes [Meg. 12a + for she wished to sin as well
THE SECOND FEAST 143
as Xerxes, as the proverb says, The man reads and his wife holds
the light. ]
[G2 + She gave them dark wine to drink, and seated them within the
palace, while she showed them the wealth of the King. And they asked
her, How does the King sleep, and she told them everything that the
women wished to know. She showed them the King’s bedroom, and how
he ate, and how he drank, and how he slept.] [Φ - But the righteous
Mordecai prayed before the Lord from the first day of the feast unto the
seventh day, which was the Sabbath.]
For the different theories in regard to the identity of Vashti, see
p. 88. A separate feast for the women was not demanded by
Persian custom (see v.'?). We must suppose, either that the
author has wrongly ascribed a Jewish custom to the Persians, or
that he thinks that the number of the guests necessitated dividing
them into two companies. The house of the kingdom, where the
women were feasted, is evidently different from the bithan, or
palace, where the men were assembled. Whether it is also to be
distinguished from the house of the King and from the house of the
women, as Dieulafoy thinks, is not clear (cf. 21" 5').
δ. mxvonay] mxdna1 ΟἹ om. 19 G. The spelling in MM is simply a
mistake that is corrected by Ὁ (cf. Baer, p. 71).—7)890 shows a transi-
tion from Ν Ὁ to 15 forms, that is common in late Heb. (cf. Stade,
Heb. Gram. ὃ 201b A; Siegfried, Neuheb. Gram. ὃ 98 ¢, 105). mixdna
does not mean ‘in the fulfilling,’ and so does not refer to a time within
the 180 days; but means ‘in the being full,’ 1.6., in the time when the
180 days were over (cf. Lv. 12°). It is thus practically synonymous
with nix5p> ‘at the fulfilment’ (2 K. 45 Je. 2512 Ez. 532). @ translates
correctly ὅτε δὲ ἀνεπληρώθησαν ai ἡμέραι. The 7-day feast follows the
180 days, at the same time the nobles are supposed to remain for this
feast also.—o nn] om. 19 17.-- ὍΝ Π] ἃς L: τοῦ γάμον ὦ (πότου A
Ne amg 93h under ~: + αὐτοῦ 93b): om. 37: convivit I.—ybn7] om.
LZI 44, 106.—525] om. F.—oyn] om. L&.—owxyp19] the word is
regularly so pointed as if from a7’ root, except in Ezr. 835, where it is
in pause. On the form cf. Maur. on Jos. 1o!7. ‘The pl. is used because
the preceding word is collective (cf. Kautzsch, $145 c, B).—wwa] els
G (ἐν 44, 93b, 106): avn] Thebari 1Π: om. J.—wp-dyvun> om. G:
to end of v., om. {.—nyaw] & G. Ann is pointed as an absolute;
pn) nyaw, accordingly, must be taken as an acc. of time, & correctly
ἐπὶ ἡμέρας. Haupt points as a cstr. (Ὁ & has probably arisen out of
144
ESTHER
regard for the Sabbath, since the Jews were included among all the
people that were invited.—n2a ἼΣΠ3] Winck. (AOF. iii. 2) deletes as a
gloss to the next two words.—n3,] om. (5 L: οὔ. 77! Ct. 61. Cstr. to
naa, of. Stade, ὃ 193 ¢.— 17.3] om. ZL: οἴκου (Ὁ: + συμφοίτου g3b under *:
et nemoris JI: om. GE: Weds 55: AN12 ‘interior,’ T: found only in
Est. It is commonly supposed to be a derivative from na, ‘house,’
by appending the ending }, (cf. Stade, Heb. Gram. § 294 ὃ). Zimmern,
ΚΑΤ. p. 649, regards it as a loan-word from As. bitdnu, ‘palace’
(ζ΄. Delitzsch, HWB. p. 172; Haupt, ad Joc.). 37.2 is not very similar
in sound to Pers. apadéna, and to regard it as derived from the latter
is unnatural, inasmuch as apadéna is already represented by Heb.
ex (Dn. 115). Cheyne (£Bi. 4500) proposes to read »302 instead
of }n3, and to translate ‘in the royal pistachio-nut orchard.’—5n7)]
quod regio cultu et manu consitum erat J: + ἄγων τὰ σωτήρια αὐτοῦ. ἣν
δὲ ἐξεστρωμένα L: + κεκοσμημένῃ G: + καὶ ἣν ἡ αὐλὴ κεκοσμημένη 44,
71, 74, 76, 120, 236: Kal ἣν κεκοσμημένη τοῦ: + erant autem strata stra-
gula regis derpina &: + et pendebant ex omne parte tentoria J: +
Ho «τοσο 5.
6. 7] n large, so Mas.: aerii coloris J: Sas) H: βυσσίνοις &.
Tne word occurs only here and in 815. @ translates ‘fine white linen’;
%, ‘wool’; J, ‘sky-blue.’ Rab connects it with hér, ‘hole,’ and re-
gards it as perforated work; but Samuel says that it means ‘something
white’ (Meg. 12a), similarly ©. The root means ‘to be white,’ and
occurs in Is. 292. This word is probably cstr. before the next, so that
we must translate ‘white cloth of cotton,’ not ‘white cloth, cotton.’
Haupt regards it as an explanatory gloss to D572 that has taken the
place of an original nnn.—pe72] Leas 55: om. 44, 106: καρπασίνοις
G: i.e., ‘cotton,’ is the Skr. word karpdsa. It is found in Pers., Ar.,
and Aram., and appears in Gr. as κάρπασος and in Lat. as carbasus
(cf. Lagarde, Armen. Studien, § 1148; BDB. p. 502). The Vrss. have
for the most part the same word. has the equivalent, and σι, ‘fine
linen.” Meg. 12a renders ‘covers of coloured stuffs.’ The word
should be pointed p2q2.—nbany] om. G: καὶ ὑακίνθινα + καὶ κόκκινα
ἐμπεπλεγμένα ἐν ἄνθεσιν καὶ σκηνὴ L: et hyacinctina + et super organa
BZ: ac hyacinthini J: \DSe22 $. Haupt transposes this word with
ya (cf. 8'5).—nnx] sg., but refers to both of the preceding nouns
(of. Miiller, Syntax, ὃ 138). (ὦ and § read the pl.—f13a—nnx] om.
44, 71, 106.—yr3—*9ana] pow ‘in rows’ G.—yra] id. H: βυσσίνοις
GL: carbaseis G&. According to some it is derived from the root }*3,
Ar. bdda, ‘to be white’; according to others, from Egypt. hbos, ‘clothe.’
It denotes properly ‘fine linen,’ such as was made in Egypt, but is often
confused with D532 ‘cotton cloth’ (cf. BDB. 5. v.). Haupt regards the
word as a gloss to 55, that originally stood immediately after ὉΡ2.
- ραν id. ST: καὶ πορφύροις GL: et purpureis subrotis L.
THE SECOND FEAST 145
This was a red purple obtained from the mollusk Murex Trunculus,
found on the Pheenician coast, and from the Murex Brandaris, found
in the western Mediterranean. ‘The etymology of the word is uncer-
tain, but it is presumably of Phoen. origin, inasmuch as the manufacture
of this colour was long a Phoen. monopoly. The word is found in As.,
Ar., Aram., Pers., and ph. in Skr. r@gaman, ‘red,’ bearing witness to
the extent of the Phcen. export trade (see Plin. Nat. Hist. ix. 124, 133-
135; HDB. i. p. 457; EBz. i. 875; Moore, Judges, p. 234; BDB. s. v.;
Haupt, Transact. Hamburg Congress Orientalists, p. 220; KAT.3 p.
649, n. 2).— a] ἐκ κιόνων, ‘pillars,’ Jos.: pops, 1.6., ὄγκινον,
‘hook,’ @': qui circulis inserti erant J. This word is derived from
553 ‘roll,’ and has ordinarily the meaning of ‘circuit’ or ‘district.’
Here it might mean ‘rings,’ as J and most modern versions; but
Ct. 5", where the hands (fingers) are compared to 277 5555), suggests
rather that it means ‘cylinders,’ or ‘rods.’ Gr. κύβοις arises from con-
fusion with 5: ‘stocks,’ ‘blocks.’—p2] eburneis 3: om. L.—
yoy] ἐπὶ στύλοις G: καὶ στύλοις L: |pasads so 55: columna GL: om.
71.—vw] ordinarily means ‘fine linen.’ Here and Ct. 515 it appears as
a material from which pillars were made, in * as material in a pave-
ment. In 1 Ch. 29? the alternate form wv’ is used of a stone em-
ployed in the Temple. The versions generally translate ‘marble’:
maptvos @ L: eparina (electa) LZ: marmoreis 31: pron ὦ]. 95. has
bSpa.e] ‘acacia,’ which is the word by which dvvw is regularly trans-
lated. This suggests that it read here oww yy. This reading is
adopted by Canney (EBi. 2936), but #1 is supported by the weight of
evidence. The word appears also as the name of a kind of stone in
Aram., Syr., and ph. in As. Sassu (see BDB. 1010). According to the
last-cited work it means ‘alabaster.—nwn] pr. καὶ L J $.— p>]
om. L:+ SS) $.— nas] nes Ben Asher: n237 Ben Naphtali (Buhl):
λιθόστρωτον GL: pavimentum stratum 84: lapides DB: wraa woo ‘a
trodden stoa,’? ©. The root, which appears in As. rasapu, Ar.
rasafa, means ‘to join together.’ ΠΟΥ is a pavement composed of
small pieces of stone. Itis used of the pavement in Solomon’s temple,
2 Ch. 73, and in Ezekiel’s temple, Ez. 40!7f.—073] om. & $: σμαραγδίτου
λίθον G, i.e., a stone like the emerald in colour, perhaps ‘malachite,’
‘serpentine,’ or ‘verd-antique’: σμαράγδου L: smaragdino J: 7.) ΟΡ
‘crystals,’ @'. In Ar. baht means ‘alabaster’ (Dozy, Suppl. i. p. 121).
In Egypt. behet means ph. ‘porphyry’ (Brugsch, Dict. v. 438; Wendel,
Altéig. Bau-u. Edelsteine, p. 77f.; BDB. p. οὐ). The word occurs
only here, and its meaning is quite doubtful.—we] om. L 71, 106:
tr. w. next (6: see above.—7] καὶ πιννίνου, ‘and of pearl,’ G: ΝΥ
ΝΩ ΝῸΝ DIDI, ‘and pearl of the cities of the great sea,’ T'. These
renderings presuppose the same text as . In Ar. durr means ‘pearls.’
In a pavement we must think rather of mother-of-pearl. Haupt thinks
τα
146
ESTHER
of shell-marble which may have been obtained from the neighbourhood
of Astrakhan. @ has varia, and J quod mira varietate, which seem
to presuppose "3, ‘and multitudes,’ instead of Ml 17. & omits.—
ΓΟ] apparently the same as As. sihru, a precious stone of an unknown
sort (Delitzsch, HWB. 495). The name is perhaps connected with
anv ‘to be dark.’ Instead of this J reads pictura decorebat, and &
pictura, which seems to indicate that they read rd, which they took
as the Aram. equivalent of rsa’ ‘imagery,’ ‘pictures.’ In Is. 215 J
renders this word quod visu pulchrum est. @ has καὶ στρῶμναι δια-
φανεῖς ποικίλως διηνθισμέναι, ‘and transparent coverings gayly deco-
rated.’ $ has fapw7o 1.6.5) ἰδῶ. 29 ‘and coverings of linen and
of silk.’ Both of these versions presuppose D> ‘covering’ instead of
nand in # and m0 in JL. The rest of the phrase in both cases
is free amplification designed to explain what is meant by ‘covering.’
σι, GT, read ain an pad pop prs paw ‘and coloured ropes en-
closed them on this side and on that.’ This presupposes #4 nono).
The word is regarded as derived from 7nd ‘go about, surround,’ and is
here freely interpreted as an enclosure of ropes that surrounded the
feasters. Instead of nand) 77) L reads καὶ κύκλῳ ῥόδα, ‘and roses in a
circle,’ which represents an original mand 49). This then has come
into G, κύκλῳ ῥόδα πεπασμένα, as a conflate reading alongside of the
other translation of the phrase. ‘There is no reason to regard the text
of either JZ or G $ as superior to Ml. What we expect here is not a
mention of pictures nor of couches, which have been described in a
previous clause, but of the materials of the pavement. Regarding G
as original, Jahn emends nnd) 77) to read thus: D979 DYNINA ΓΘ).
DIND O47) AMIDVAD OS. For nanvy a7 wey Canney (£Bz. 2936)
reads: nandd anpra wy wpm) 7) ‘and mother-of-pearl and screens of
fine linen in the form of shields.’
7. mipwny] Hiph. inf. cstr., literally ‘and the giving to drink.’ The
inf. is used because only the action is prominent, and it is cstr. be-
cause closely connected with the following words: bibebant autem
qui invitati erant 34: to ow om. L.—onv—o>] om. G: ἔξαλλα L:
et aliis atque aliis vasis cibi inferebantur J¥.—})] om.) G.—nv25n] om.
GL: precipuum J: the form without the article is peculiar. Jahn
emends to p1nn] after G 75vs.—3>] so Mas. on 2 Ch. 288 (cf. Dn. 11%):
of. Stade, § 193 ὃ, n. 2: om. L:+ καὶ ἡδύς G:-+ et suave .valde L.—v>]
ὃν αὐτὸς ἔπινεν GB: ὃν πίνει L.
8. mMnwny] et ad jucunditatem bibere 17: ponebantur J: this f. form of
the noun occurs here only, the m. in Ec. 10!7:-+ οὗτος @.—n753] the
word ΠῚ is Old Pers. ddta, ‘law’ (cf. Spiegel, Altpers. Keilinschr., p.
225). It is found in the OT. only in writings of the Persian period or
later. It occurs 19 times in Est. and also in Ezr. 888, in all cases with
reference to a royal decree. In the Aram. parts of Ezr. and Dn. it is
XERXES SUMMONS VASHTI 147
used both of the law of the King and the law of God. (See Lagarde,
Abhandlungen, 36 f.; Armen. Stud. αὶ 579; Marti, Aram. Gram., p. 59.)—
DIN PX NID] οὐ κατὰ προκείμενον νόμον ἐγένετο G. This shows that
@ pointed 73 without the article and regarded it as cstr. before τ Ν
Dx, or else that it read nDIN}N NID. This gives a better sense than
M. GB has secundem legem nemini vim fieri, which also implies that
ΤΙ 15 cstr.— D3] not ‘hinder’ (Schu., Haupt), but ‘constrain,’ z.e., either
to drink or not to drink.—y ἼΘ.] here only in the meaning ‘enjoin
upon,’ like Sy Ὁ)» 2: 27- 8. (cf. r Ch. 9%): ἠθέλησεν... καὶ ἐπέταξεν
G6.— 07] om. L.—4y] preponens mensis singulos J¥—\73 37 Ὁ3] τοῖς
οἰκονόμοις G: actoribus domui &: de principibus suis J: om. L.—yy372
+ αὐτοῦ καὶ &.
9. 02] om. $.— nw] ᾿Αστὶν G: ᾿Αστὶ C: αὕτη 55: Οὐασθεὶν 3b:
Οὐαστὶν L: Vasthi £ 3! (so subsequently in all these recensions).—7nwy]
pf., instead of impf. w. 1 consec., because antecedent in time (cf. 25-19 41).
—nva] pr. ἐν (61,10 S: 3 has accidentally fallen out of the text (cf. 12
5! g').— mana] βασιλείοις G: τοῦ βασιλέως L.— n> ἼΨΝ] om. 1, F:
ἕπου ὁ βασιλεὺς G: Haupt deletes—wiwns] om. L: Haupt deletes.
XERXES COMMANDS VASHTI TO SHOW HERSELF TO THE GUESTS,
BUT SHE REFUSES TO COME (1!°-!2),
10. [L + And it came to pass] on the seventh day, [© + which
was the Sabbath, his cry and the cry of the Sanhedrin came before
the Lord, and] when the King’s mood grew merry from wine,
[3 + and when, after too deep drinking, the wine-bibber became
heated,] [©' + the Lord sent unto him a disturbing angel to
trouble their feast.]
[G2 + When also the 127 kings wearing crowns who were with him
grew merry, and the conversation turned to improper subjects, a violent
dispute arose among them.] [Meg. 12b-+ Some said, The Median
women are the most beautiful; others said, The Persian women are the
fairest. Then said Xerxes to them, The wife that I enjoy is neither a
Mede nor a Persian, but is a Chaldean. If you wish, you may see her.
Yes, they said, but she must appear naked, for with what measure one
metes, it shall be measured to him again. ‘The shameless Vashti had
taken Israelitish maidens and stripped them naked, and had made them
work on the Sabbath (similarly @', 2, Mid.).]
The seventh day is, of course, the last day of the seven-day feast
(v.*) and not the Sabbath. With the phrase mood grew merry,
Gra i644 5. Ὁ δε. Kin8sy Pri ht Estirg*i—(iL)-+ The King]
148 ESTHER
commanded M¢hitman, Bizz'tha, Harbhéna, Bightha, and Abhagh-
tha, Zéthar, and Karkas, the seven eunuchs]. On the attempts to
explain these names from the Pers., see p. 67. The names differ
widely in the Vrss., and the correct text is very uncertain. Eu-
nuchs were employed as custodians of the women of the Persian
court, as in Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt, and other countries of the
ancient and the modern Orient (cf. Her. viii. τος; Petron. Satyr.
157; Terence, Eunuch., Act. 1, Sc. 11; Brisson, ii. p. 234). The
old controversy whether this word may not also mean ‘officers,’
does not come up here, inasmuch as these individuals who have
access to the women’s quarters must be eunuchs. The number
seven, which appears also in y.'* and 2%, was sacred among the
Persians, as among the Hebrews. Ahura-Mazda and the six
Amesha-Spentas constituted a heavenly council of seven; or, ac-
cording to another conception, there were seven Amesha-Spentas
(cf. Geiger-Kuhn, Iran. Philologie, p. 634). The royal court was
patterned on a similar model— Who served [© + during these
seven days] before King Xerxes], lit. who served the face of King
Xerxes (cf. Gn. τοῦ: 27 1 S. 218).
11. To bring Vashti the Queen before the King with the royal
turban [6 & J + placed upon her head] [© + in recompense for
the good deed of Nebuchadnezzar, her paternal grandfather, who
had clothed Daniel in purple] fo show [some codd. 6H + all]
the peoples and the officials her beauty, for she was very fair. [σ:
+ And the King said to them, Go, say to Queen Vashti, Rise from
thy royal throne, and strip thyself naked, and put a crown upon
thy head, and take a golden cup in thy right hand, and a golden
pitcher in thy left hand, and come before me and before the 127
crowned kings, that they may see that thou art the fairest of
women.] [JJid. + And she wished at least to wear a girdle like a
harlot, but her husband would not permit that.] From the fact
that only a turban is mentioned, Meg., ὧι, G2, and Jewish comm.
generally infer that this was all that Vashti was permitted to wear.
In reality the author means, in full regal attire, including the crown.
Having displayed all his other treasures to his guests, Xerxes is
now anxious to show his most precious possession, his beautiful
wife. The remark that he did this when he was heated with wine,
XERXES SUMMONS VASHTI 149
indicates the opinion of the author that he would not have acted so
if he had been in his right mind. To show her beauty is a reason
for the sending, not a reason why the Queen should come. On
the question who were present at this feast, see 1°. | According
to some of the Rabbi’s, Vashti was one of the four beautiful women
of the world, the other three being Sarah, Rahab, and Abigail
(Meg. 15a).
12. But Queen Vashti refused [J + and scorned] to come at the
command of the King which [JT + he sent unto her] by the
eunuchs, [7 05.191. + for she was mindful of the laws of the Persians,
which do not permit strangers to look upon wives,] [Meg. τοῦ +
because she had become leprous, or because Gabriel had come
and caused a tail to grow on her.]
(G2 + And Queen Vashti answered and said unto them, Go, say unto
your foolish master, whom you resemble in folly: Thou groom of my
father, I am Vashti, the Queen, the daughter of the kings of Babylon
from of old. My father drank wine enough for a thousand men, yet wine
never enticed him to speak such senseless words as thou speakest. So
they went and gave the King the answer which Queen Vashti sent unto
him; and when the King heard these words, he was very angry, and his
wrath was kindled within him. And he sent again unto her by the seven
royal eunuchs who sat before him in the kingdom, saying: Go now and
say to Queen Vashti, If thou dost not hearken unto my words and come
before me and before these kings, I will slay thee and take away thy
beauty from thee. But when the officers of the King told this to her,
she paid no attention to them, but answered and said unto them, Go, say
to this foolish king, whose counsels are vain and whose decrees are
worthless: Am not I Vashti, the Queen, the daughter of Evil-Merodach,
the granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon? From my
birth until now no man has seen my body, except thou, the King, alone.
If now I come before thee and before the 127 crowned kings, they will
kill thee and marry me. And one of the noble Persian ladies answered
and said unto Queen Vashti: Even if the King slay thee and take away
thy beauty from thee, thou canst not disgrace thy name and thy father’s
name by showing thy body to any person except the King alone.]
[Jos.1 4+ And though he sent the eunuchs often to her, she none the
less remained away and refused to come.]
No good reason appears for Vashti’s refusal to show herself to the
guests. It was not Persian custom to seclude the women as in the
modern Orient. According to Est. 5" and Ne. 2°, the Queen
150 ESTHER
could be present at banquets (cf. Her. v. 18), where the Persians
say, ‘“‘It is the custom with us Persians, when we give a great feast,
to bring our concubines and lawful wives to sit by our sides.”
In Her. ix. 110, Queen Amestris is present at the birthday-feast
of Xerxes; so also Stateira at the table of Artaxerxes (Plutarch,
Artax. v.). It is a mistake, accordingly, when later writers assert
that wives were not present at Persian feasts (e.g., Plutarch,
Sympos.i.1; Macrobius, Sat.i.1.). The assumption of Jos., Drus.,
and many others, that Vashti refused to come because it was con-
trary to Persian custom, is therefore untenable. There is no hint
of this in Est. Meg., ©, ©, and Mid. assume that she de-
clined to show herself because she was commanded to appear
naked, but of this also there is no suggestion in the text. Even
this explanation did not satisfy the Rabbis, for they could not see
why such a shameless creature as Vashti was painted by tradition
should be unwilling to come even in this condition. Hence the
notion that she had a disfigurement which she was unwilling to
reveal. Par. suggests that she refused because she thought her
feast as good as that of Xerxes, and was unwilling to depreciate
hers by gracing his. Keil and Bert. conjecture that the refusal
was due to the fact that the men were drunk, and that Vashti
feared to be insulted by them (cf. Her. v. 18 f.); but, according to
Lucian, the women were guarded by eunuchs when they at-
tended banquets (cf. Brisson, i. 103); and surely a Persian queen
must have been accustomed to the spectacle of drunkenness.
The author of Est. apparently regards the refusal as merely a
whim, for which he offers no explanation. The added words,
which he sent unto her by the eunuchs, show that the summons
was delivered in the proper, formal way, and, therefore, enhance
the disrespect of Vashti—[@:+ And when the officers of the
King told the King that Queen Vashti refused to come at the
command of the King sent by the eunuchs (similarly L),] then
the King was exceedingly angry, and his wrath was kindled within
him; [Jos.'*2 + and he broke up the banquet.] The anger of the
King was due to the public affront put upon him by the Queen’s
refusal to obey a formal command given in the presence of all the
dignitaries of the empire.
THE COUNCIL CONCERNING VASHTI ΣΤ
10. oa] pr. ἐγένετο δὲ L: pr. ἡΐαψι J: pr. 0 85.---3795] cstr. inf.
with 3, as N2w> (11) g. v., not the Qal pf., or the adj., as some comm.—
325] om. GLL—3] om. GL: et post nimiam potationem incalu-
isset mero J—od ΌΤΙ nyaw] om. L.—onwnA] om. 52, 64, 243, 248,
C, Ald.—»35 ΓΝ] om. GL: τοῖς πρώτοις 71.— 07] ejus J: αὐτοῦ L 44,
106.—winwnsx] om. JLN 44, 55, 74, 76, 106, 108a, 120, 236: Haupt
deletes.
11. ὙΓΨῚ nx] om. 6 1Π.---ΠΊ" 0} -- 50] πρὸς αὐτόν, βασιλεύειν αὐτὴν καὶ
περιθεῖναι αὐτῇ τὸ διάδημα GL: εἰς τὸ συνεστηκὸς συμπόσιον ἐν τῷ
διαδήματι τῆς βασιλείας αὐτῆς Τ,: coram rege posito super caput ejus
diademate J.— 72] διάδημα (951, 10 31: san HT: xvod. στ: from n>
‘surround,’ is a turban twisted up to a high point, Gr. xidapis (see
Marti, Aram. Gram. Glos., s.v. 87272). Lagarde, Armen. Stud. 1003;
Ges. Abhi. 207, regards it as a Pers. loan-word. It is found only in Est.,
here, and 217 of the Queen’s turban, 68 of the ornament on the head of
the King’s horse.—nx99] + πᾶσιν x AN 44, 55, 64, 71, 74, 76, 106,
1o8a, 120, 243, 248, 249, LHI: κατὰ πρόσωπον L.— ony] τῆς στρατιᾶς
αὐτοῦ L.—xn—a wm] om. L.
12, nan] om. J L.— nw] om. JL 44, 106: Haupt deletes.—x135]
ποιῆσαι L.—wx— 7272] om. 6L.—ws] om. L: + mandaverat J: +
Oba ὁ. Ξ.-- oon 3] μετὰ τῶν εὐνούχων G: cum eis GZ: om.
44, τοῦ: + ws δὲ ἤκουσεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ὅτι ἠκύρωσεν Οὐαστὶν τὴν βουλὴν
αὐτοῦ L.— >n7] om. 1,.--ἼΝ Ὁ] om. 6.
XERXES TAKES COUNSEL WITH HIS MINISTERS WHAT OUGHT TO
BE DONE TO VASHTI (113-15),
13. And [Jos. + standing up] the King said to [L + all] the wise
men [35 + the discerning] [€'+ the sons of Issachar (cf. τ Ch.
12%)] who knew the times [Meg. τοῦ, ©: + and the seasons in the
Book of the Law and in the calculation of the world]. This did
not take place at the feast, apparently, but on another occasion,
as the officers and the people are not mentioned in this connection.
There is no reason, therefore, to regard the following deliberation
and decree as the acts of drunken men. Only one class of coun-
sellors is mentioned here, for knowers of the times is in apposition
with wise men. By knowers of the times, Meg., O', G+, Mid.,
and most comm. understand astrologers (cf. Is. 4455 47'°-!5 Je. 5035
Dn. 2?7 51°); but the next clause equates them with knowers of
law and justice; they must, therefore, be those who are familiar
with historical precedents that have the value of law (so Vit.,
152 ESTHER
Pag., Drus., Pisc., Osi., Ramb., Patr.; cf. 2 Ch. 122). In a case
of this sort no reason appears why astrologers should be called in.
—For so was the King’s procedure [© + wont to be discussed]
before all [δι + the wise men and] those who knew law and
custom]. The addition of @ gives the true sense. The trans-
lation of AV. and RV. for so was the King’s manner toward all is
incorrect. On dath, ‘law,’ see ν.ἕ.
[Meg. 12b-+ Then they considered what they ought to say, saying,
If we say, Let her be put to death; to-morrow, when the King is sober,
he may become reconciled to her and put us to death: if we say, She is
innocent, that will be an insult to the King. So they said to him, Since
the Sanctuary has been destroyed and we have been exiled out of our
land, we are no longer allowed to pronounce sentences of life or death.
Go to Ammon and Moab, which have remained in their places like
wine upon its lees. [€'-+ And the sons of Issachar prayed before the
Lord and spoke thus: O Lord of the world, confound their feast, and be
mindful of the righteous who offered before thee in the House of thy
Sanctuary lambs of a year old, two young pigeons, and turtle-doves
upon an altar of earth, by the hand of the high priest, clad with the
breast-plate, in which was the chrysolite, while the crowds of priests
sprinkled and mingled the blood and arranged the shew-bread before
thee. So the King turned and sought again advice from his princes.]
This addition of @' is a series of plays upon the names of the
seven counsellors based upon Meg. 12b. Vv. 13»-14 form a paren-
thetical explanation inserted between 135 and 15.
14. And those who were [J + first and] near to him [2 + in
counsel, some from afar and some from near by] were [@: +
named] Karsh’na [635 + from Africa], Shéthar [055 + from
India], Adhmatha [G2 + from Edom], Tarshish [65 + from Egypt],
Meres [5 + from Meres], Mars’nd, M*mtkhan [@? + from
Jerusalem]. This clause is not to be connected with the fore-
going, so as to read, those who knew law and custom and were near
unto him (©), for in that case the adj. would be pl., since it
would follow the noun with which it agrees; nor is it to be trans-
lated the King said to the wise men and to those near to him (5),
for in that case the preposition fo would be repeated. This clause
must be taken as an independent sentence, And the near to him
were. ‘The predicate is singular because it precedes its subjects
THE COUNCIL CONCERNING VASHTI 153
(Miller, Syntax, § 133; see note). These near ones belong to
the class of the wise, because they answer the question just put
to them. This is a further evidence that the wise are not astrol-
ogers. The author’s idea is, that out of the class of the wise men
seven enjoyed a special proximity to the King. Near does not
refer to relationship or to rank, but, as the following words show,
to physical propinquity. On the names of these viziers, see p. 68.
In BT., ©, Mid., these names receive a host of allegorical ex-
planations.—The seven viziers of Persia and Media]. The state-
ment that there were seven is confirmed by Ezr. 7%; Her. ili. 31,
84, 118; Xen. Anab. i. 6‘; Jos. Ant. xi. 31. According to these
passages seven chief judges held offices for life and decided all
questions that affected the conduct of the King. On Persia and
Media, see v. .—Who continually beheld the face of the King], 1.e.,
who were intimately associated with him (cf. 2 5. 14*- ** Mt. 18°).
According to Her., these seven chief nobles had access to the King
at all times, except when he was in the company of one of his wives.
—Who sat next to the royal throne}, lit., who sat first in the kingdom.
Their thrones were probably set in the same relation to that of
Xerxes as those of the Amesha-Spentas to that of Ahura-Mazda,
namely, three on each side and one in front of the King. @
paraphrases correctly, ‘in the first row of the thrones of the
kingdom.’
15. [Jos.1%2-+ And he accused his wife, and told how he had
been insulted by her, and how, although she had been summoned
many times by him to the banquet, she had not once obeyed.
Then he commanded that some one should state] according to law,
what was to be done with Queen Vashti], a resumption of the
thought of 135 that has been interrupted by the parenthesis τόρ τας
The words according to law are placed first for emphasis. Haupt,
against the testimony of 6 £9, joins according to law to the end
of the preceding v. The art. is omitted because no particular
law is meant. On law, see 1%. Because she did not execute the
order of King Xerxes [€: $ + which he sent] by the eunuchs], a
recapitulation of the offence already described in vv.'°-'*. Noth-
ing could be more improbable than that a despot like Xerxes
should seek the advice of his wise men before dealing with a
154 ESTHER
refractory wife. Judging from Herodotus’ narratives, he would
have made quick work with her.
13. 3525] om. G—ornend] τοῖς φίλοις αὐτοῦ GL:+ wis $—
pnya yy] om. 6 15 I.— yw 2— Ὁ ΡΠ] om. L.—}> 53] κατὰ ταῦτα G: quiex
J.— 29] more J: ἐλάλησεν G.—bn7r2] ᾿Αστίν 6: + jon pool $.— 295]
semper ei aderant J: et dixit rex &: ποιήσατε οὖν &—+>] et illorum
faciebat cuncta consilio J: περὶ G: omnibus L.—y~] τούτου G: principibus
ἸΏ. Ὁ) ΓῚ] νόμον καὶ κρίσιν GL: leges ac jura majorum I: L490
bwake) §. m5 is an edict promulgated by the King, 11 is cus-
tomary law. On the etymology of the two words see Haupt, a. 1.
According to Sieg., 101) is an explanatory gloss upon the preceding Pers.
word n7.
14, 20 ΠῚ] pr. -so 9: καὶ προσῆλθεν (Gov) G L: Sieg. emends to
apn (of. 1 K. 57); Haupt, to 2977).— nyav] om. 95 6 LF L.— s7] tr.
with avn §: οἱ ἐγγὺς G: καὶ οἱ ὁρῶντες L: qui proximi 1.---οὐ2 7]
pr. καὶ Τ,.---ῖ Ἢ] [S55 $: om. LZ. The f. of the adj. is used as
an adv., usually with a prep., but also without prep., Gn. 3825 τ K. 1825
Je. 1618 Ly. 58 Nu. 2° Jos. 2119, in the sense of ‘first in time,’ here and
Gn. 33? in the sense of ‘first in place.’—nv35n3] post eum J: τῷ βασιλεῖ
(6: - καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν αὐτῷ G: om. GL.
15. ΓΙ] om. J L.—ybna-ar] tr. to v. 13 after pay L.—nv1] om. LE:
Haupt deletes—anvy xb] μὴ τεθεληκέναι αὐτὴν ποιῆσαι L.—2y enn]
om. 6 1,35: Haupt deletes: + om 409 $:-+ dicta erunt L.—o 907 3]
om. L.
THE ADVICE OF THE MINISTERS (1'5-2°)
16. Then spoke M’mttkhan before the King and the viziers [44,
106 + and the King’s officers].
[Meg. τοῦ, Φ' + He was Haman the descendant of the wicked Agag.]
[Φ3-Ὁ He was Daniel. And why was he called Memfikhan? Because,
when the tribe of the house of Judah was carried captive to Babylon,
there were carried captive with them Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah;
and Daniel also was among the exiles, and signs and wonders were
wrought by his hands. Also by means of Daniel it was decreed from
on high that Queen Vashti should be slain; therefore his name was
called Memtikhan (‘appointed’). This was the decree of the King in
the council, that the younger nobles should give their advice first; and
if the advice was good, they followed it; and if it was not good, they
followed the advice of the seniors. Now, since Memtikhan was the
youngest of all, he gave his advice first before the King. Memfkhan
had married a rich Persian wife, and she was not willing to speak with
THE ADVICE OF THE MINISTERS 15
σι
him except in her language, so Memtkhan said within himself, Now
the opportunity has come to compel the women to honour their hus-
bands. ]
From the fact that M®mikhan is named last in ν. 1’, Meg. τοῦ
and Mid. infer that he was the lowest in rank and thrust himself
forward on this occasion. @2, in the passage just cited, thinks
that he was the youngest. Others suppose that he appeared as
the spokesman of the council after deliberation with the rest.—
[L + Saying,] Not against the King only has Queen Vashti sinned,
but against all the officials and all the peoples in all the King’s
provinces]. The charge is twofold, that Vashti has wronged the
King, and that she has set a dangerous example. The second
charge is amplified in vv.!7-"*. The wily M*®mikhan insinuates
that in punishing Vashti the King will not be gratifying a private
grudge, but will be consulting public welfare. On officials, see 1°.
Peoples is in contrast to officials; the lower as well as the upper
classes are wronged (cf. ν. 1). The pl. is used on account of the
number of races in Xerxes’ empire. Provinces of the King is the
usual formula in Est. (2? 38 provinces of the kingdom). By these
are meant the 127 provinces of I'.
17. For the conduct of the Queen will become known to all the
women]. The nobles of the provinces from India to Ethiopia will
go home after the feast, and will tell how Vashti refused to obey
her husband, so that the scandal will soon become known to all
women of the empire. Conduct, lit. word, matter (cf. τι} 9?°).—
With the result of making them [$ + scorn and] despise their hus-
bands,| [Jos.*%* + and lead them a wretched life,] [3 + saying to
them, Art thou more honourable than King Xerxes?] Lit. the
phrase means, wnto causing to despise their husbands in their
eyes. Ba‘al, ‘owner,’ ‘lord,’ is here used for ‘husband’ as in
Gn. 20? Dt. 24! Ho. 21:5 and often.—While they say [€'+each to
the other, Verily] King Xerxes commanded to bring Queen Vashti
before him, but she did not come.| The idea, which the Targums
seek to make more clear, is that wives throughout the empire will
say, The Queen did not obey, therefore we need not obey.
18. And this very day]. Prompt action is necessary, since the
trouble is likely to begin at once among the women in Susa.—The
156 ESTHER
ladies of Persia and Media, who have heard of the conduct of [©
+ Vashti] the Queen [Jos.1% + toward thee who rulest over all].
Verse 17 spoke of women in general throughout the empire, this v.
speaks of women of the aristocracy. They were in Susa with
their husbands, and were present at Vashti’s feast (v.°), so that
they would be corrupted at once by her example. On Persia and
Media, see 1*.—Will say [© + that they may do thus to their hus-
bands, and will take counsel to do thus] éo all the King’s officials.}
Say has no object. Most comm. follow ἴθ: and @? in supplying
one from the preceding v., and translate, will say the like, AV. and
RV.; or will tell it (1.6., the conduct of the Queen), Keil, Oet.,
Kau., Sieg., Schu. and others go back to while they say (17°),
and regard the clause which there follows as the object of say in
this v. §, Bert., Rys., find the object in the next clause, and
translate, will speak—and that in abundance—scorn and indigna-
tion. All these constructions are unnatural, and one must suspect
corruption of the text. Instead of say G has will dare similarly
to dishonour; ἸΏ, will neglect and treat with contumely; J, will
make light of. With the omission of a single letter the v. reads,
will rebel against all the King’s officials (see note).—Then there
will be enough contempt and wrath [{ τ + and who will be able to
bear it]. If the text be sound, enough is ironical; M°mtkhan
means, far too much. Contempt, i.e.,,on the part of wives toward
their husbands; wrath, 7.e., on the part of husbands toward their
wives. Instead of enough, Haupt, by a slight textual emendation
reads whenever, and translates, whenever there is contempt then
there is wrath. This greatly improves the sense. This absurd
advice, that the example of Vashti is politically dangerous, can
hardly be taken as sober history.
[Jos. !%-++ And he exhorted him to punish her who had so insulted
him, with a great punishment.] [@?-++ But, when Memakhan had given
this opinion, he feared for his life, and said: Perhaps the King will not
carry out this advice; and when Vashti comes to hear of this advice
which I have given against her, she will judge me harshly, if I do not
secure that King Xerxes says that Vashti shall not come before him, and
cause him to swear an oath which the Persians are afraid to break.
Therefore Memakhan said,]}
THE ADVICE OF THE MINISTERS 157
19. Jf it seems good to the King [1,10 + and agreeable to his
mind,] [Mid. + my lord the King needs but to speak the word
and I will bring her head in a dish.] This is the regular formula
for making a proposition to the King (cf. 3° 5%: 5 75: 9 85 913 Ne. 2°).
After the exposition of the nature of Vashti’s offence in vv. 15-18,
M*mitkhan is now ready to say what ought to be done with her.—
Let a royal edict go forth from him, and let it be written [3 + and
the oath] among the laws of Persia and Media that it may not be
repealed]. (ΟἿ. τ᾽... As O*rightly perceives, the motive in making
Vashti’s deposal irrevocable is to escape the consequences that
will ensue if she returns to power. The idea that the laws of the
Medo-Persian empire could not be changed, appears again in 88
and Dn. 6°. 13, but is not attested by any early evidence. It is ex-
tremely improbable that such a custom existed.—That Vashti
({ + the Queen] (the omission of Queen after Vashti’s name in
@ is intentional) may not come [3] 5 (6 + again] before King
Xerxes [δ᾿ + and if she comes before the King, let the King
decree that her head be cut off.] This is the law that the King is
advised to enact. Thus, as ©? emphasizes, M°mtkhan secures
that Vashti may have no chance to reinstate herself in the King’s
favour and then to avenge herself on her enemies.—And her place
as Queen let the King give to another who is better than she.]
This is not part of the law, but a suggestion that makes its en-
actment easier. The King will readily find another woman to
take Vashti’s place. Place as Queen, lit. kingdom, or royalty, is
in an emphatic position. Another, lit. fellow, or companion, is not
necessarily one of the palace-women, for fellow, whether male or
female, is used in the widest way of any person who belongs in
the same category with another (cf. 1 S. 1525, “‘ Yahweh hath given
the kingdom to thy fellow,” 7.e., to another person; also Ex. 11?
1 5. 2817). Better may mean either more beautiful, or more virtuous.
From the context it must mean here more obedient.
20. And when the King’s decree which he makes shall be heard
in all his kingdom]. Waving suggested how Vashti may be pun-
ished for her offence against the King and the nation, M°mtkhan
now proceeds to show how the effect of her bad example may be
counteracted by making her punishment as widely known as her
158 ESTHER
disobedience. Jn all his kingdom is more naturally connected
with heard than with makes.—Though it be great], 1.6., the king-
dom, not the decree, as ©: takes it, for decree is m. and great is f.
(cf. Albrecht, ZATW. xvi. (1896), p. 115). This flattering par-
enthetical remark serves no other purpose than to expand the
idea already expressed in all.—Then all the women from great to
small will give [L © + reverence and] honour to their husbands.]
Xerxes’ empire is so great that it includes practically all the
women. From great to small means here, as in v.*, from high to
low, both the ladies and the common women (cf. 1'7£); so Vrss.,
Schu., Sieg., Haupt. Other comm. translate less correctly from
old to young. With this v. M*®mtkhan’s speech ends. The
comm. indulge in much speculation as to the reason for the se-
verity of his advice. @*, in the passage previously quoted, says
that he had had trouble with his own wife, and wished to discipline
her by this indirect method. 714. thinks that he had a personal
grudge against Vashti; either she had struck him in the face with
a shoe-lace, because it says, ‘‘Not against the King alone hath
Vashti sinned”’; or she had not invited his wife to her feast, be-
cause it says, “The conduct of the Queen will become known to
all the women’’; or he thought that he could get his own daughter
made Queen, because it says, ‘‘Let the King give her place as
Queen to another.” Others think that the viziers as a body were
jealous of Vashti’s influence ; so Cas., who gives numerous instances
of the way in which Turkish viziers have intrigued against favour-
ites. Most comm. suppose that M°mtkhan advised what he
knew Xerxes wished to hear, and compare the servility of Cambyses’
counsellors, Her. iii. 31. There is much discussion among the
older comm. as to whether Xerxes was justified in putting Vashti
away on this occasion. The arguments on both sides may be
found in Par. ad loc.
16. 1505] αὐτὸν L:+ Xpoo S.—ow7] + καὶ τοὺς ἡγουμένους τοῦ
βασιλέως 44, τοῦ: καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἄρχοντας 64: καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἄρχοντας
248, C, Ald.: λέγων L.—1135] om. 64.—Any] “2.3. 55: ἠτίμασεν A.
This is a denom. from jy ‘sin,’ found only in Aram. and late Heb.
Construed with Sy 4.A.— nv] om. 44, 106.—2] om. L&].—ornya $5 dyn]
kal τοὺς ἡγουμένους G: Περσῶν καὶ Μήδων L: om. 44, 106: et gentes DL.
THE ADVICE OF THE MINISTERS 159
—ny12 - Ww] om. L 6 L.— 274] om. L¥.— wvrneny] om. L G: Haupt
deletes.
17. 12] poo 5: καὶ yap G: καὶ L.—xs]+ Ley $—arsdnn 727]
ἡ ἀδικία αὐτῆς L: eo contumelia regis &.— own 95 Sy] + ae --3σ
$: αὐτοῖς G: εἰς πάντας τοὺς λαοὺς L: etiam ab omnibus mulieribus DB:
instead of Sy Haupt reads 5x, but the two are often confused in late
Heb.—v5>-nva395] om. 6 L.—nvaad] «2399 9: quod contemnat B:
Hiph. inf. cstr., @.4.—o70N3] the m. suf. is used because men and
women alike will say this. Even if the suffix referred to the women
alone, the m. form would be possible-—}>27] regina G.—v1b-wrwns]
om. G.—wvywns] Haupt deletes.— 1375] inf. cstr. w. > after ὍΝ, as in
6', frequent in late Heb., but also 1 S. 24!!.W—nN2 Ny] καὶ ὡς ἀντεῖπεν
τῷ βασιλεῖ ws οὖν ἀντεῖπεν τῷ βασιλεῖ ᾿Αρταξέρξῃ G: ὅτι ἠκύρωσε τὸ πρόσ-
ταγμα τοῦ βασιλέως L: neglexit enim et contempsit GH: the reading of &
is a combination of two parallel texts.
18. om. L.— an own] exemplo hoc 9: L¢scau $: quomodo non L.—
M37ONN] parvipendentes omnes J: ore S: τολμήσουσιν (καὶ αὐταὶ)
ὁμοίως ἀτιμάσαι G: negligent et contumeliam facient ἸΏ. Instead of
ΤΟΟΝΠ we should probably read A312n, Qal or Hiph. from ΤΠ
‘rebel,’ or, less probably, from 77» ‘be bitter.’ In that case it may be
necessary to read 923 instead of 52, but the change is perhaps un-
necessary in this late Heb.—n11w] ai τυραννίδες ai λοιπαὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων
G: 1.55.9 $.—-d 5] some codd. incorrectly 012.—1n)] om. H.— wx -
man] om. J: ἀκούσασαι τὰ τῷ βασιλεῖ λεχθέντα ὑπ’ αὐτῆς (ὦ: aut
quomodo non infamia tradetur adversus regem &: Haupt deletes—5]
imperiad: ous — $:0m.6 L.— 5a Ww] maritorum 9: τοὺς ἄνδρας
αὐτῶν (6: viris suis Τ,.---- ὨΣΡῚ -- υἼ2}] om. G: unde regis justa est indig-
natio J: etiam his qui extra regnum sunt ©: \pgo |2opams atso
$= 1991 PT ὙΠ ND N73 2120) 101 ὅτ. No help can be gained from the
Vrss., all of which fail to understand this phrase. Haupt’s conjecture
of 2 instead of 512 is probably correct. In Jb. 39%5 ‘52 is used in the
sense of ‘whenever,’ for which ordinarily we find 5πὸ (1 S. 17 1839 1 Καὶ
1428. 2 Ch. 12! 2 K. 48 Is. 2819 Je. 312°). In that case ) before 43> must
be regarded as introducing the predicate (Kau. ὃ 143 d).—} 33] 4...
from 713 ‘despise.’—y] late Heb. for 5x (cf. 117 39 54. 8 73),
19. 105] tibi 3|: τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν L: tibi maxime rex G.—wipsn-xs]
προσταξάτω βασιλικὸν G: jube LH: om. L.—m25n] used frequently in
Est. in the sense of ‘royalty’ as a substitute for qn, e.g., 11: 9 218 5!
65 815.— 2 }») -- 2Γ}2}}} γραφήτω els πάσας Tas χώρας Kal πρὸς πάντα τὰ
ἔθνη καὶ γνωσθήτω L.— N73] κατὰ τοὺς vouous G&— 101 Ὁ] so N 55, 930,
249 δὶ ὁ- 8: Μήδων και Περσῶν G&— 2p) 1] et de malitia Vasthi regine
quomodo abusa sit te &.—3y.] in the sense of ‘pass away,’ ‘cease to
exist,’ as in 9?7f (BDB. 718 §6). In the parallel passage, Dn. 69,
the Aram. equivalent is xty.— ian xd ἼΦΝ] pr. πος δ: μηδὲ εἰσεὰ-
160 ESTHER
θάτω ἔτι G: ἠθετηκυῖα L: quoniam non introtit L.— nv] + |dadso
®: ἡ βασιλίσσα G: om. F.—wrnwnx- 250] so A, 93b under *, ©: πρὸς
αὐτόν G: τὸν λόγον τοῦ βασιλέως L: Haupt deletes wy wnx.— ar nn] et
meliori G.
20. imabn—ynws] καὶ φαινέσθω ὑπακούουσα τῆς φωνῆς Tod βασιλέως
καὶ ποιήσει ἀγαθὸν πάσαις ταῖς βασιλείαις L.—pdins] aane Ba. G: Dna
al.: ὁ λόγος A: verbo &: hoc J. This is a loan-word from the O. Pers.
patigama (cf. BDB. 834; Marti, Aram. Gram. p. 79); here cstr. in spite
of the long vowel in the ultima.—Awy»— yon] om. JI— ws] o $.— 423]
om. 53 @.— m5] om. suffix $—x7 73793) quoniam verum est BT:
om. ( &: >> is concessive, ‘although,’ as Je. 439 1412 4015. 19f- κοι! Ho.
1315 Zc. 85 Ps. 37% 40197. 1373 Na. 110 23 (cf. BDB. p. 473, 2¢).—5>] +
οὕτως G—rp + καὶ δόξαν L.—yand] tr. w. next 6 L ZB.
XERXES ACTS ACCORDING TO THIS ADVICE (1?!-2),
21. And the advice seemed good to the King and the viziers, and
the King acted in accordance with the advice of M’mtkhani, i.e.,
he accepted both propositions, to degrade Vashti, and to send
notice of this decree throughout the kingdom. In regard to the
execution of the first proposition no details are given. Vashti
does not appear again in the story, and the book does not inform
us what became of her. @', G2, and Jewish comm. hold that she
was put to death. The execution of the second proposition fol-
lows in the next v.
22. And he sent dispatches [G1 + written and sealed with his
seal] unto all the King’s provinces]. Cf. 3245 89-4. According
to Her. v. 14, vill. 98; Xen. Cyrop. viii. 6, 17, the Persian empire
had a highly organized system of posts.—Unto every single province
in its script, and unto every single race in its language]. A vast
number of languages were spoken in the Persian empire in the
time of Xerxes. In Persia itself there were the Iranian dialects
spoken by the ruling race, and the Elamitic, Babylonian, and
Aramean dialects of the older subject-races. The inscriptions
of Xerxes and other Achemenian rulers at Persepolis and else-
where are mostly trilingual, containing in parallel columns Old
Persian, Babylonian, and Susian. In India, Sanskrit and cognate
tongues were spoken, together with numerous Dravidian and other
aboriginal languages. In Babylonia and Assyria, Assyrian was
XERXES’ DECREE 161
spoken, together with Aramaic and possible survivals in certain
quarters of Sumerian and Kassite. In Armenia there was old
Vanic, along with later Indo-European dialects; in Asia Minor,
Greek, together with Lydian, Carian, Cappadocian, and a host of
other aboriginal tongues. In Mesopotamia and Syria, Aramaic
prevailed, and also in Palestine, although Phcenician and other
local idioms still held their own. East and south of Canaan
Arabic was spoken; and in Egypt, Egyptian. It is inconceivable
that Xerxes should have had at his court scribes who were able to
write all these and the other languages that were spoken in various
parts of the empire. We have no evidence that this was Persian
custom, and the trilingual inscriptions of Persepolis lend no sup-
port to the idea. Even in Assyrian days Aramaic had become the
language of trade and of diplomacy, and in the Persian period
was ordinarily employed for official dispatches, cf., for instance,
the Aramaic letter of the Jewish Chief of Elephantine in Egypt to
the Persian governor Bagoas lately published by Sachau in Drez
aramdische Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine (1907).
[Φ: + And he proclaimed and spoke thus: You, O peoples,
nations, and tongues, who dwell in all my dominion, be advised]
that every man should show himself ruler in his own house], lit.,
unto each man’s becoming ruler. This clause gives the contents
of the dispatches.—And should [δ᾿ + compel his wife to] speak ac-
cording to the tongue [© + of her husband and according to the
speech of] his people]. This clause has given great perplexity to
the Vrss. and comm. @', @2, Mid., RaShI, IE., and Jewish
comm. generally understand it to mean, that, if a man has married
a wife of another race, he is to compel her to speak his language,
instead of speaking hers (cf. Ne. 1333 5.); so Pisc., Dieu., Gen.,
Baum., Keil, Schu., Haupt, αἰ. Pag., J. & T., Cler., and many of
the older comm. and versions, supply an object for speak from
the preceding clause and translate, and should proclaim it (the
dispatch) in the language of his people; so AV. and RV.; similarly
Oet., except that he points the ptc. as a passive. This is an im-
possible rendering of the Hebrew, and the idea which it yields is
irrelevant. What we expect, is not directions for the prornulga-
tion of the decree, but for a man’s regulation of his household. If
|
102 ESTHER
the text be sound, it must be rendered as the Jewish comm. have
done. It cannot be denied that this yields a passable sense, still it
is not what we should expect in this connection. Haupt regards
it as a late gloss, meaning that he is to talk plainly to her. Most
modern comm. regard the text as corrupt. Maur. makes no at-
tempt to emend it. Bétt. also offers no suggestion. Hitzig, in a
private communication to Bert., makes a slight alteration in the
text and reads, and should speak what suited him. This emenda-
tion meets the approval of Bert., Raw., Rys., Buhl. Wild. and
Sieg. mention it with reserve. Scho. finds a historical interpreta-
tion impossible, and concludes that the passage is symbolic of the
gift of tongues at Pentecost (see note). ‘The absurdity of this sol-
emn edict commanding wives to obey their husbands struck even
the doctors of the Talmud. Raba said: “If this first letter had
not been written, the enemies would have left nothing of Israel.
But the people said, What sort of decree is this that is sent unto
us, that every man should show himself ruler in his own house?
Even the weaver is master in his own house (so when the decree
came to destroy Israel they took it also as a joke)” (Meg. 120).
21. 7399] + [σι 9. —s'y3] ἐν καρδίᾳ L.—a awa] + suff. unc $: om.
L.— nr] ἑτοίμως 1, ---313] καθὰ ἐλάλησεν GY: τὸν λόγον L.—p>10v]
Mamuchan 9: wee ee $: Μουχαῖιος (6: Mardocheus &: τοῦτον L.
22. om. L —now]+ ὁ βασιλεὺς AN @me 93h und * H]—opd) om.
(ὦ. τοῦ is an ancient loan-word from As. Sipru, ‘sending,’ ‘missive,’
then ‘letter.’ It occurs frequently in the sense of ‘letter’ in the Tell-el-
Amarna Letters. The root Japdaéru from which it comes is ph. itself a
Shaphel from 1p (see Haupt, a. /.). In Est. it is commonly used in the
sense of ‘letter’ (cf. 313 85. 10 g20. 25. 30), Τῃ 223 6! 932 τοῦ it means a book
in scroll form —79nA ΓΛ) 2] provincias regni sui J: τὴν βασιλείαν G:
regno suo H.—7 1] so A: om. GH: gens J.—73NI3] κατὰ τὴν λέξιν
αὐτῶν (ὦ: secundum inter pretationes eorum &: audire et legere poterat
11: - κατὰ τὸ γράμμα αὐτῆς 93b under *.— 12w9D—-5x)] so 930 under *:
om. GB: diversis linguis et litteris ¥.— 113-75] esse viros principes
ac majores in domibus suis J: ὥστε εἶναι φόβον αὐτοῖς ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις
αὐτῶν G: ut esset unusquisque in domum suam G.—nvad] inf. w. > intro-
ducing the contents of the dispatches as in 313 8'% An Aram. con-
struction found in late Heb.— 7] denominative from ὙΦ ‘officer,’
‘ruler,’ ptc., ἁ.Ἀ. το νον τ 221] so 936 under *: om. G: et fuit timor
magnus in omni muliere &: et hoc per cunctos populos divulgari 3.
XERXES SEEKS A QUEEN 163
®, T', and G? presuppose the same text as %. Hitzig’s emendation,
YOY mye-52 7212), which he translates, ‘and should speak everything
that he pleased,’ is unlikely, because 7)% means ‘fitting,’ ‘proper,’ rather
than ‘acceptable,’ ‘pleasing,’ and because it is construed with 5 and
not with oy (cf. 38 513. Haupt reads yw instead of 112, and deletes
the whole clause as a gloss.
THE, CHOICE OF ESTHER, TO, BE, QUEEN (259:
XERXES RESOLVES TO SEEK A SUCCESSOR FOR VASHTI (2! 4).
1. After these events [τ + when he had grown sober, and had
slept off his wine-debauch, and] when the anger of King Xerxes
had subsided]. @ suggests that Vashti’s condemnation occurred
while the King was still drunk, but & indicates rather that this
decree was made at a later meeting of the Privy Council (ς΄. 1").
The drunkenness was over when the decree was made, but the
anger lasted longer.—He [G + no longer] remembered [88 + Queen}
Vashti and [(G + was mindful of] [89 + all] that she had done and
[® + all] that had been decreed against her.
(Mid. + Then he broke out in anger against her and caused her to be
put to death] [@'+ Then his officers answered and spoke thus: Art
not thou he who didst condemn her to death on account of what she did ?
And the King said to them: I did not decree that she should be slain,
but only that she should come into my presence; but when she did not
enter, I commanded to deprive her of royal dignity. They answered
him: It is not so, but thou didst pronounce sentence of death upon her
at the advice of the seven viziers. At this his anger waxed hot.) [©?+
He sent and called all the officers and said to them: Not against Queen
Vashti am I angry, but against you am I angry because of the sentence.
I spoke a word in wine; why have you urged me to slay Queen Vashti
and to remove her name from the kingdom? [ also will slay you, and
will remove your names from the kingdom.] [@'-+ And he commanded
that the seven viziers should be hanged upon the gallows.] [Jos.'*° +
But being lovingly disposed toward her, and not bearing the separation,
he nevertheless could not now be reconciled to her; so he was grieving
over the things that he wished to accomplish as impossible.]
Comm. differ as to the sense in which remembered is to be under-
stood. @',@:, and Mid. take it in the sense of recalled unfavourably,
1604 ESTHER
and so gain a basis for the idea that he inflicted further punishment
upon her. The same conception underlies the interpolations of
G. This view gains some support from the following words, what
she had done and what had been decreed against her, but it is in con-
flict with the context. When his anger had subsided suggests that
he was ready to be reconciled, and the advice of the servants con-
templates the same possibility. Accordingly, RaShI, IE., Ashk.,
Men., Bon., take remembered Vashtt in the sense of called her
beauty to mind, and understand the rest of the v. as referring to the
good that she had done on other occasions and the honour that the
King had once put upon her; but the words what had been decreed
can scarcely refer to anything else than the irrevocable condemna-
tion that had just been published. For this reason, Jos., Drus.,
Cler., and most modern comm. take the clause to mean that Xerxes
had the rejection of Vashti constantly in mind and was uncom-
fortable on acount of it. Vit. and Pisc. take remembered in the
sense of made mention of, and thus find a reason for the remark
of the servants in the next v.
2. Then said the King’s pages who waited upon him]. The
courtiers make haste to drive Vashti out of the King’s mind, lest
she may return to power and their lives be endangered. From the
non-mention of the viziers here and subsequently, ©: and @? infer
that they had been put to death.
[G2 + After she was killed, in order that he might not remember Vashti,
and what she had done, and what had been decreed against her: Vashti
did not deserve a sentence of death, but this was the will of Heaven
in order to destroy the seed of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.]
[Jos.195 + Let the King cast out the memory of his wife and his useless
love for her, and let him send through the whole inhabited world.]
And let there be sought for [τ + the use of] the King beautiful
young virgins], lit., girls, virgins, good of looks. Only virgins
might be taken by the King (1 K. 12), as by the High Priest (Lev.
213), Vy.34 explain in detail how this plan for gathering
virgins is to be carried out.
3. And let the King appoint commissioners in ali the provinces
of his kingdom]. Meg. 12b contrasts the account of the seeking
for a young virgin for David (1 K. 12-4). In that case no com-
XERXES SEEKS A QUEEN 165
missioners were necessary, for men brought their daughters gladly.
In this case the King had to appoint officers to search, because
men hid their daughters from him.—And let them gather all the
beautiful young virgins], lit., every virgin. Gather unto is a preg-
nant construction for gather and bring unto—{J ἸΏ, + And bring
them] unto Susa the fortress]. Cf. 1°—Unto the house of the
women [τ + where there are hot baths and swimming-baths].
Cf. 2". 13, According to Dieulafoy, the house of the women, or
harem, lay in the N. W. corner of the palace-enclosure (cf. 1°).—
[6 ZL + And deliver them] into the charge of Héghé, the King’s
[© + chief] eanuch, the keeper of the women]. Here, as in 1"°, only
eunuchs have access to the women’s apartments. On the name
Héghé, see p. 69.—And let him give their cosmetics (6 J + and
the other things that they need], 1.6., for the twelvemonth’s
process of beautification that they have to undergo before they
can be presented to the King (ς΄. 2").
4, And the girl who pleases the King, let her reign instead of
Vashti, [Jos.1%° + for his longing for his former wife will be
quenched, if he introduces another; and his affection for her
gradually diminishing, will turn to the one that is with him.]_ The
courtiers realize that the only way to get the King to forget Vashti
is to make him fall in love with another woman. The gathering
of the maidens will divert him, and out of the number they hope
that one will win his heart.—And the advice seemed good to the King
and he[L + readily] acted thus [J + as they had suggested]. ‘This
method of selecting a queen is in the highest degree improbable.
According to the Avesta, the King might marry only a Persian.
According to Her. iii. 84, his wife must come from one of seven
noble families; but by this plan of the pages a woman of low birth
from one of the subject-races might come to the throne. Such a
scheme may have been followed to obtain concubines, but surely
never to select the Queen of Persia. One wonders why another
of the wives, that Xerxes already had, was not elevated to Vashti’s
place.
1. ΨΥ ην -- ΠΝ] om. L.—an] καὶ μετὰ G.— Ww] ἐκόπασεν G: cf.
ΓΩΦΣ 1%. Jw (cf. 710) is used of the subsiding of waters, Gn. 8).
Mid. infers from > that it was not a real subsidence, but only ‘like’
166 ESTHER
one.—wywnr] sox © 8. πρὶ 93b under *: om. ( ZH: Haupt deletes.—
21] καὶ οὐκέτι ἐμνήσθη G (καὶ οὐκέτι under + 93b): ἐμνήσθη yap A:
καὶ οὕτως ἔστη τοῦ μνημονεύειν L: to end of ν. om. H.— nw] cf. 1:9.
- ΠΝ] om. 1 ὦ: NadSo §.—anwy] ἐλάλησεν G: ἐποίησεν A L.—
τὸν τ ΓΝ] καὶ ὡς κατέκρινεν αὐτήν G: ᾿Ασσυήρῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ L: ὅσα
αὐτῇ κατεκρίθη Α.--- ΓΝ} Vado 55.-- }}} ἁ.λ., an Aramaism.
2. NY] + aN $.— 7907] πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα A: ejus 3}.-- vow]
pr. o $: om. 6 LF (93d has under *).— wpa] ζητηθήτω G: que-
rantur &: ζητήσωμεν L: the subj. is impersonal, ‘let them seek’= ‘let
there be sought,’ as 6 &@.—nvys 95nd] om. 1, G.—ndina nya] of. Dt.
223 Ju. 21!2—nbyna] so C: mbna Ba. G: ἄφθορα &.
3. naw—sppyjom. Z L.— Ἴ 56] om. J.—ops]om. J H.— n2>nJom.
IS: om. 1 A— wap] ἐπιδειξάτωσαν A—5> mxJom. GF. Kau. ὃ 1174,
Sieg., delete mx because the obj. is undefined. Haupt, on the other
hand, defends its correctness and compares Ec. 311: 156. γ1,-- 9) -- ΠΝ 2]
om. L: et adducant eas ad civitatem Susan et tradant eas in domum
feminarum 34: et perducantur in Susis Thebari in conspectu mulierum
E.—avan—x]om. $.— ox] Za 95: καὶ παραδοθήτωσαν G: et tradentur
LZ: καὶ δοθήτωσαν προστατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ χεῖρα L.—)x] dy Or. Mss., Sx to end
of v. Haupt deletes as a gloss derived from v. §.— 37] soS N? Br. C B!
G Ba.: x39 Ν᾽ B? M Norzi: Eget J: ayn 55: om. G (v.* Tat): Twyatou
L.— nr] qui est propositus et J: om. $ L.—ow:ir]+ regiarum J.—
pny] NdIo $: om. L:+ αὐταῖς 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120, 236: inf. abs.
instead of the finite vb., as 69 and often in Est. (cf. Kau. ὃ 113, 2).—
7p yon] so Norzi, Mich. N? B? G: y,pynn N'S Br. C B! Ba.: om. L:
from prn ‘scour,’ ‘polish,’ lit. ‘their rubbings’: σμῆγμα (ὃ: et nitores DZ:
mundum JI: «σι. 2 8: yanwn anno T!.
4, 9pn-307))] om. eter te ἑτοίμως 1,.
MORDECAI AND ESTHER ARE INTRODUCED TO THE READER (25-7),
5. A man of Judah had been living in Susa the fortress. [2 +
He was called a Judean because he was sinless; and concerning
him David prophesied and said, This day a hero dies in Israel and
one who was a just man.] The abrupt transition is designed to
make the new actor in the story more conspicuous. A man of
Judah, lit. a man, a Judean, is placed before the predicate to
render it emphatic. Mordecai is here called a man of Judah,
although in the next clause he is said to belong to the tribe of Ben-
jamin, because, after the fall of the northern kingdom, Judah gave
its name to the nation; and, during the Exile and subsequently,
BIOGRAPHY OF MORDECAI 167
men of all the tribes were known as Jews, 7.e., Judeans. This ob-
vious explanation is ignored by Meg. 12b, 13a, which offers a
number of far-fetched interpretations. On Susa the fortress, cf. 12.
How this Jew happened to be in the fortress (not the city) of Susa,
the book does not explain. © (in A?) and @' say that he was one
of the officers of the King. This conjecture, which is based upon
the fact that in 2'* 3? he sits in the King’s gate and appears among
the courtiers, has been followed by many comm. According to
Jos., he lived, not in Susa, but in Babylon (see v. "').—And his
name was Mordecai]. On this name and the historical identifica-
tions proposed for it, see p. 88.—Son of Jair, son of Shimet,
[Φ3 + He was the Shimei who cursed David, King of Israel, and said
to King David, Go out, thou wicked man, and man worthy of death.
Then answered Abishai son of Zeruiah and said to David, Let me go
up and take off Shimei’s head. But David discerned prophetically
that Mordecai would spring from him; and because King David per-
ceived this, he commanded his son Solomon, and said to his son Solo-
mon, that he should slay Shimei, when he had ceased from begetting
sons, that he might triumph and go to Heaven; and because from him
should spring a righteous son by whose hands should be wrought signs
and wonders in their four captivities. . . . Shimei was put to death
justly, because it is written in the law of Moses, “ἃ just judge thou
shalt not despise, and shalt not curse a ruler of thy people’’; but he
cursed David, King of Israel. But David spared him and did not put
him to death, because he saw that two saints would spring from him,
through whom deliverance would come to the house of Israel. (@!
has a similar, though briefer interpolation.)]
The son of Kish]. Jair, Shimei, and Kish are regarded by
Cler., Ramb., Raw., as the immediate ancestors of Mordecai; and
in the case of Jair this view may be correct. By all the older
comm., as by Jos., Meg., ζι, ζ55, and Mid., Shimei and Kish are
regarded as remote ancestors; one, the Shimei of 2 5. 165 δ. 1 K. 25:
36-40: the other, Kish the father of Saul (1 S. οἱ 14% 1 Ch. 833).
This view is probably correct. Haman, the enemy of Mordecai,
is of the family of Agag, whom Saul overthrew (1 S. 15); and,
therefore, in this genealogy it is probably the author’s intention to
represent the victorious Mordecai as of the family of Saul. For
this reason he wastes no time on the intermediate links, but leaps
168 ESTHER
back at once to the well-known Shimei and Kish of τ 5. Scho.
follows Meg. in allegorizing all these names as epithets of Mordecai.
[Ὁ + son of Shemida, son of Baanah, son of Elah, son of Micha, son
of Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, son of Saul, son of Kish, son of
Abiel, son of Zeror, son of Bechorath, son of Aphiah, son of Shecarith,
son of Uzziah, son of Shishak, son of Michael, son of Eliel, son of Am-
mihud, son of Shephatiah, son of Pethuel, son of Pithon, son of
Meloch, son of Jerubbaal, son of Jehoram, son of Hananiah, son
of Zabdi, son of Eliphael, son of Shimri, son of Zebadiah, son of
Merimoth, son of Hushim, son of Shechorah, son of Gezah, son of Bela,
son of Benjamin, son of Jacob, the first-born, whose name was called
Israel (similarly @' after 7°).]
A Benjamite [© + a righteous and penitent man, who prayed
to God for his people,] [Jos.'** + one of the chief men among the
Jews,] [ὦ (A?) + a great man, who served in the court of the
King]. By the addition of Benjamite the author identifies Mor-
decai’s ancestors with the ancient Shimei and Kish, who belonged
to the tribe of Benjamin, and carries back the genealogy to one
of the sons of Jacob.
6. Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the exiles
who were deported with Jeconiah, King of Judah, whom Nebuchad-
nezzar, King of Babylon, took captive]. Jeconiah (cf. Je. 24! 277°
28! 29? 1 Ch. 5155} is an alternate form of Jehoiachin, the name of
the last but one of the kings of Judah (2 K. 24°-'7). Hecame tothe
throne and was deported by Nebuchadnezzar (in older documents
more correctly Nebuchadrezzar) in 596 B.c. According to Burg.
in Estius, West., Patr., Cler., Ramb., Raw., the relative pronoun
who refers, not to Mordecai, but to his great-grandfather Kish.
Against this view are the facts, that, as just remarked, Kish is
probably not an immediate ancestor, but is the father of King
Saul; and that Heb. usage demands the reference ‘of who to
Mordecai. The appositives ben Jair, ben Shimei, ben Kish, like
Johnson or Jackson, serve merely as surnames to Mordecai. If,
however, Mordecai himself was carried away with Jehoiachin in
596, he must have been at least 113 years old in the third year of
Xerxes (483 B.C.), supposing him to have been an infant in arms
at the time of his deportation. When he became grand vizier in
BIOGRAPHY OF MORDECAI 109
the twelfth year of Xerxes (37 8), he was at least 122 years old.
An appointment at such an age seems very unlikely, although
most Jewish and some Christian comm. have not hesitated to ac-
cept it. This difficulty has led many of the older critics to identify
Ahasuerus with Cyaxares, Darius, or one of the early kings of
Persia. Such identifications are, however, impossible (see p. 51).
G, &, Esti., Grot., Men., Mar., May., Kamp., Bert., Keil, Schu.,
Oet., think that carried captive means only that his ancestors were
exiled by Nebuchadnezzar, and compare Gn. 4627, where the sons
of Joseph are spoken of as coming to Egypt with Jacob, although
they were born in Egypt; Ezr. 2? 3: Ne. 77 *-, where the later in-
habitants of Jerusalem are said to have returned with Joshua and
Zerubbabel; Heb. 72%, where Levi pays tithes in the loins of
Abraham. ‘These cases, however, are not parallel, and the fact
remains that who was carried captive is not a natural way of say-
ing whose ancestors were carried captive. Most recent comm.
frankly admit that the author has here made a blunder in his
chronology. So Wild., Sieg., Stre. (see p. 73).
[G2 + But Mordecai went back again with the people who freely
offered themselves to rebuild the House of the Second Sanctuary.
Then Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried him captive a second
time, and then in the land of the children of the captivity his soul did
not cease from signs and wonders.] [+ But when Cyrus and Darius
carried Babylon captive, Mordecai went forth from Babylon, with
Daniel and the whole company of Israel who were there in Babylon,
and they went forth and came with King Cyrus to dwell in Susa the
fortress. ]
These additions assume, as also IE. and Light., that Mordecai
is identical with the Mordecai of Ezr. 2? Ne. 77, who returned to
Jerusalem with Zerubbabel. In these passages his name is fol-
lowed by Bilshan, from which it is inferred that he spoke many
tongues. According to Meg. τοῦ, 15a, Hul. τοῦ, he was identical
with Malachi, and prophesied in the second year of Darius.
According to Shek. v. 1, Men. 64b-65a, he was a member of the
Great Sanhedrin and was able to speak seventy languages. He
decided all difficult matters of the Law, and, therefore, was known
as Pethahiah. According to G (4.3), he was a high official of the
170 ESTHER
King. According to Meg. 12a, he and Haman were the two chief
cup-bearers. Other legendary embellishments of his history will
be noted in connection with later passages of the book (cf. Selig-
sohn, Art. ‘‘ Mordecai,” in JE.).
7. And he had adopted Hadassah, she is Esther]. In Meg.
13a, ©, G2, and later Jewish comm., opinions differ as to whether
Hadassah or Esther was the original name. Those who hold that
Esther was original, regard Hadassah, ‘myrtle,’ as a title, and sup-
pose that it was given to her, either because she was of medium
height like a myrtle; or because the righteous are compared to
myrtles (Zc. 110); or because Is. 551% says, “‘instead of the brier
shall come up the myrtle,” 7.e., instead of Vashti shall come up
Esther ; or because the myrtle does not dry up in summer or winter,
so Esther enjoyed both this life and the life to come. Those who
hold that Hadassah was original regard Esther as a title given be-
cause she concealed (sathar) her nationality. Only R. Nehemiah
(Meg. 13a) seems to have suggested that the name Esther was
given by the Persians, “‘because the tribes of the earth called her
by the name of [stahar,” 1.6., Pers. sitdr, ‘star,’ particularly the
planet Venus, the Babylonian Ishtar (cf. Levy, Neuheb. W.-B.,
s. v.); similarly ©. This view has been followed by the older
Christian comm., namely, that Hadassah was the girl’s original
Heb. name and Esther her Persian name, or the name that she
received when she became Queen. For the modern view, accord-
ing to which Esther is the same as the Bab. goddess Ishtar, and
Hadassah a Bab. title of this goddess, see p. 88.
The daughter of [6 + Amminadab] his paternal uncle [& + and
Mordecai had cherished her like an adopted daughter]. That is,
Esther was an own cousin of Mordecai, not his niece, as is persis-
tently stated incorrectly by the comm. ‘Those who suppose that
Mordecai was carried captive with Jehoiachin, and that he was
now upward of 120 years old, have some difficulty in explaining
how his own cousin Esther, who must have been at least 50 or 60,
should have been so beautiful as to have won the heart of Xerxes.
Jewish comm. explain it by the hypothesis that Esther, like Sarah,
remained perennially young; Christian comm. by the assertion
that in the seclusion and care of an Oriental harem, beauty lasts
BIOGRAPHY OF MORDECAI 171
to an extreme age(?). Others suggest that Mordecai’s uncle
may have been 20 years younger than his father, and that he
may have taken a young wife when he was 60 years old. 10 ἀπά I
avoid the difficulty by making Esther’s father the brother, not the
uncle, of Mordecai. That the word wncle can have the wider
sense of kinsman, has not been proved. According to 2'" his
name was Abihayil, for which @ here and elsewhere substitutes
Amminadab.—For she had neither father nor mother [ιν + when
her father died, she was left in her mother’s womb; and as
soon as her mother had borne her, she died also]. This addi-
tion, which is found also in Mid., is based by Meg. 13a upon
the repetition in ΤΡ of the statement that her father and mother
had died.
And the girl had a fine figure and was [3] & L + very] good look-
ing, [Jos.!? + so that she drew the eyes of all beholders upon her].
[Meg. 12b + She was neither tall nor short, but of moderate
height like a myrtle. Her complexion was sallow, but she had
charms.] According to some of the Rabbis, the four beautiful
women of the world were Sarah, Rahab, Abigail, and Esther, but
others gave the fourth place to Vashti (Meg. 14b).—And, after her
father and her mother had died, Mordecai took her unto him [G: + into
his house and spoke of her] as a daughter]. ‘The older comm. were
troubled to see how Mordecai could take a girl of his own genera-
tion into his house as a daughter. According to Semitic custom,
a cousin on the father’s side is the most suitable of all persons to
take as wife (cf. Ar. bint ‘amm, ‘daughter of paternal uncle,’ as a
synonym for ‘wife’). Meg. 13a solves the difficulty by reading
I'bhéth, ‘for a wife,’ instead of /’bhath, ‘for a daughter’ (in Rab.
Heb. béth, ‘house,’ has the secondary meaning of ‘wife’), and justi-
fies this interpretation by 2 S. r2*, where ‘like a daughter’ is parallel
to ‘slept in his bosom.’ This view has been followed by 6, and
has found wide acceptance in the Targums, Midrashes, and comm.
It must be admitted that nowhere else is a wife of Mordecai
mentioned; but it cannot have been the intention of the author to
represent Esther as his wife, since in 2* he says that only virgins
were collected for the King. Raw. thinks that Mordecai may
have been a eunuch.
172 ESTHER
[@? + On account of Esther Mordecai went into captivity, for he said,
It is better that I should go and bring up Esther than that I should
live in the land of Israel. . . . She was the same Esther in her youth
and in her old age, and did not cease to do good deeds.] [@'! + She was
chaste in the house of Mordecai for seventy-five years, and did not look
upon the face of any man, except that of Mordecai, who had brought
her up.]
δ. ws] pr. καὶ 6 LS.— 7] om. F.— a] cf. Jb. τ', not equivalent
to a simple ‘was’ (cf. BDB. 226, III.).—awvan] Thebari L = τῇ βάρει.
— 2772] so B? everywhere exc. 412, see Norzi: 127792 Baer everywhere:
‘277.9 Ginsburg everywhere: Μαρδοχαῖος (6 1,.--- Ὁ -- 13] cf. Al.— wv]
de stirpe J: [Lom SoS: ἐκ φυλῆς G: τῆς φυλῆς L.— 2] Jemini J:
Βενιαμείν(μιν) (61, ὅ5: an abbreviation of 13D) 73, cf. 1 S. gt: 4 2 8. 20h.
6. om. L.— aban ws] ex captivitate L.—arban oy] de captivitate 17: eo
tempore J: om. G (930 has under *).—7A7)- wrx] om. GF (93d has
under *): Haupt deletes—oy andar] om. J.— wx] om. J.—7399223]
Ναβουχοδονοσόρ G&G. The Bab. original Nabf-kudurri-ucur is most
closely represented by 11¥8773133 (Je. 4928). ‘The form 738775)33 is com-
mon in Je. and Ez.; in later writings 1¥()343)23, with change of Ἢ to 3,
is the regular form. @ suggests that the original vocalization was
Syx270922 (cf. Haupt, a. 1.).
7, mDIA-jox] τούτῳ παῖς θρεπτή (ὦ: ἐκτρέφων πιστῶς L: alli L.—wnoa
“ΠΟΝ] so 93b under *: καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῇ ᾿Εσθήρ G: τὴν Ἐσθήρ L: tr. to end
of v. (Hester) 15: que altero nomine vocabatur Esther $.—y19 N32) θυγάτηρ
᾿Αμειναδὰβ (᾿Αμιναδὰβ καὶ A) ἀδελφοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ &: filia fratris ejus
et nutrierat eam Mardocheus sicutt adoptatam filiam ἼΠ: filie fratris
sui J.—odx)- 5] om. 6 L: GF has.— awn] + σφόδρα 8 & ame LL: + nimis
10 J.—arxrn naw] 50 Ls © 4 ™z, 93 under *: om. 6 G.—nab—nyna)] om.
L.— 3 1] so 8 © 8 πιρὶ g3b under *: om. G—nab] εἰς γυναῖκα G (εἰς
θυγατέρα 93).
ESTHER IS TAKEN TO THE PALACE (28-!),
8. And afterward, when the King’s word and law became known,
and when many [3] + pretty] girls were gathered (and brought) to
the fortress of Susa, [8 + and were delivered] into the charge of
Hégai, [5 + the eunuch,] a resumption of the thought of v. 4,
which has been interrupted by the account of Mordecai and Esther
vv. ὅτ, The language is almost a verbal repetition of v.%. Ac-
cording to Josephus 390 (cf. 2!*), the number of the girls was 4oo.
The interval of four years (215), during which one girl was pre-
ESTHER TAKEN TO THE PALACE 173
sented every day to the King, suggests that there were as many
as 1460 girls.
[©2-+ Mordecai heard that virgins were being sought, and he re-
moved Esther and hid her from the officers of King Xerxes, who had
gone out to seek virgins, in order that they might not lead her away.
And he hid her away in the closet of a bedroom that the messengers of
the King might not see her. But the daughters of the heathen, when
the commissioners were sent, danced and showed their beauty at the
windows; so that, when the King’s messengers returned, they brought
many virgins from the provinces. Now the King’s messengers knew
Esther; and when they saw that she was not among these virgins, they
said one to another, We weary ourselves unnecessarily in the provinces,
when there is in our own province a maiden fairer of face and finer of
form than all the virgins that we have brought. So, when Esther
was sought and was not found, they made it known to King Xerxes,
and he wrote in dispatches, that every virgin who hid herself from the
royal messengers should be sentenced to death. When Mordecai
heard this, he was afraid, and brought out Esther, the daughter of his
father’s brother, to the market-place.]
And Esther [35 + also] was taken [© + by force and brought]
unto the house of the King, [Jos. + and was delivered] into the
charge of Hégai, [Jos. L + one of the eunuchs,] the keeper of the
women]. ἸΏ contains no hint that Mordecai was unwilling to
sacrifice his cousin to his political ambition, or that Esther was
unwilling to be made a concubine of the King on the chance of
. becoming Queen. The form was taken, instead of went, does not
naturally suggest compulsion. It is the regular expression for
marrying a wife (cf. also 215, where Mordecai ‘takes’ Esther as a
daughter). δι: and @? excuse their conduct by the foregoing in-
terpolations. ὦ, in the prayer of Esther (( 13:30), makes Esther
protest that only under compulsion has she had anything to do
with Xerxes. The older Christian comm. defend Esther, either
on the ground that Xerxes, not being a Canaanite, was not so
wicked that marriage with him was a sin; or that the end justified
the means; or that Mordecai was inspired to do on this occasion
what under ordinary circumstances would not have been per-
missible. By the house of the King Dieulafoy understands the
private quarters of the monarch on the east side of the palace at
Susa, in distinction from the louse of the women in the N. E.
174 ESTHER
corner. Here house of the King seems to be the same as house
of the women in 2%, but in 213 and elsewhere they are carefully dis-
tinguished. If the text be sound, King’s house is used in two
senses; in one case, of the private apartments; in the other, of the
whole palace-complex (cf. 2° 4:3).
9. And the girl pleased him[L + more than all the women,] and
[1,15 + Esther] gained his favour [L + and pity]. Hégai, who was
a connoisseur in such matters, discerned in her the most likely
candidate for Vashti’s place.—And he [J + commanded a eunuch,
and he] hastened to give her her cosmetics [ [05.390 + which she used
for anointing her body,] [©! + and her necklaces and royal cloth-
ing,] and her dainties]. Thinking that she was likely to become
Queen, he did his best to ingratiate himself by promptness. Since
at least a year must be spent in preparation before she could go to
the King (215), it was well to begin at once. On cosmetics, see 2°.
Dainties are lit. portions, i.e., choice parts of dishes (cf. 9! 3
τ S. τ“ Ne. 8:5. #2; Wellhausen, Skizzen, iii. p. 114). The girls
who were to be presented to the King were not merely beautified
with cosmetics, but were also given a special diet (cf. Dn. 1°).
There is no trace in & of any objection on Esther’s part, such as
Daniel and his friends manifested, to eat these heathen viands;
but the interpolations in © and G (( **) make her refuse to touch
them. According to R. Samuel, she was offered flitches of bacon ;
according to R. Johanan, she finally obtained vegetables like
Daniel. Rab held that she was given Jewish food from the first
(Meg. 13a). Jos. translates portions by ‘abundance of ointments’ ;
others, more generally, ‘the things that she needed’; so Mal.,
Men., Ser., Lyr., Bon., AV.—And to give her the seven picked
maids out of the King’s house.
[! + They served her on the seven days of the week. H6lta on the
first day of the week, Roq‘itha on the second day of the week, Gendnitha
on the third day of the week, Néhéritha on the fourth day of the week,
Rohashitha on the fifth day of the week, Harpitha on the sixth day of
the week, and Régo‘itha on the Sabbath. All were righteous and were
worthy to bring her food and drink in their hands.] [5 -᾿ And the
dainties which were given to her, Esther gave these heathen maids to
eat, for Esther would not taste anything from the King’s house.]}
ESTHER TAKEN TO THE PALACE 175
The article with seven maids shows that this was the prescribed
number allotted to every one of the candidates for royal favour.
The addition of picked shows that Esther’s seven were better than
those assigned to the other beauties. ‘That these maids came from
the house of the King, rather than the house of the women, is sur-
prising (cf. 28). Perhaps the meaning is merely, that they were
supplied and maintained by the King.—And he transferred her
and her maids to the good (rooms) [© + and to the delicacies] of
the house of the women], i.e., he did not allow her to remain in the
ordinary quarters of prospective concubines, but assigned her
apartments such as were reserved for royal favourites.
10. Esther had not disclosed her race nor her descent]. This
is a parenthetical remark relating to an earlier period, and there-
fore not expressed by the impf. with Waw consec. Wherever
they have lived, the Jews have made themselves unpopular by
their pride and exclusive habits (cf. the additions to 3° and C‘*).
Esther, accordingly, knew that she would not be treated so well
if she revealed the fact that she was a Jewess. This concealment
involved eating heathen food and conforming to heathen customs
(in spite of G and @:), yet the author sees nothing dishonourable
in it. L and Jos. save her reputation by omitting this v. How
Esther was able to conceal her race from the officers who collected
the girls and from the eunuchs and jealous rivals in the harem,
especially when her cousin Mordecai the Jew (3* 515) came every
day to inquire after her (2:1), the author does not try to explain.
—For Mordecai had bidden her not to tell [J + anything about this
matter].
[Φ! + For he thought in his heart, Vashti, who sought honour for
herself and was not willing to come and show her beauty to the King
and the nobles, he condemned and put to death; . . . and he feared
lest the King, when he was angry, might both slay her and exterminate
the people from which she was sprung.]
There is nothing of the martyr-spirit in Mordecai, as in Daniel
and his friends, who display their Judaism at all cost. So long
as there is any advantage in hiding it, he does not let Esther tell her
race; only when secrecy is no longer useful, does he bid her dis-
close it (45). The addition of © shows consciousness that this
176 ESTHER
is not the noblest sort of conduct. The older comm. are much
concerned to show that Mordecai was justified in giving this ad-
vice, and that Esther showed a beautiful spirit of filial obedience
in following it. According to Cas., Mordecai displayed singular
unselfishness in not letting his relationship to Esther be known.
11. [Jos.2* + Removing also from Babylon to Susa in Persia,
her uncle lived there,] and every day Mordecai used [© + to pray
and] to walk in front of the court of the house of the women, [I +
in which the chosen virgins were kept,] 10 inquire after Esther’s
health and [33 + to ascertain] what had been done with her,[Jos.2% +
for he loved her like an own daughter]. This is another paren-
thetical remark, which serves the purpose of showing how subse-
quently Mordecai is able to advise Esther in an emergency (4?-!*).
Although he does not allow her to disclose her origin, yet he keeps
in touch with her; both because he is interested in her fate, and be-
cause he wishes to retain her loyalty so that she may carry out his
directions. How he could thus gain daily access to her after she
had been taken to the royal harem, is a question that puzzles the
comm. Bert. and Wild. suggest that women were not secluded
so carefully in ancient Persia as in the modern Orient, and that
Mordecai might have been permitted to hold a brief daily inter-
view with his cousin under the supervision of a eunuch. Only
later, when he was in mourning, was he unable to enter the palace-
precincts. ©, @:, Jewish comm., Bon., San., al., suppose that
Mordecai was of princely rank, because he was one of those carried
away with Jehoiachin (2 K. 24:3); so that, as officer or courtier,
he had free access to the palace (cf. 25). From the fact that no
wife of Mordecai is mentioned, Raw. infers that he was a eunuch
and, therefore, could enter the women’s quarters. Haupé also
regards this as possible. Keil, Haupt, a/., think that he did not
see Esther after she was taken to the palace, but that he used the
servants as intermediaries, as in 42%. See further on 2”. How
Esther could keep it secret that she was a Jewess, when she was
daily inquired after by Mordecai, who was well known to be a
Jew, no commentator has yet explained. Haupt’s reflections
a. 1. do not help the case. In front of the court of the house of the
women probably means at the entrance of the passage which led
ESTHER TAKEN TO THE PALACE ὙΠ
into the inner court of the harem. What had been done with her,
i.e., how she was progressing in the process of beautification.
Ὁ: translates, “‘What miracles were wrought by her hand.”
Mid. understands it of magic arts practised against her.
8. 5) τ} om. L.—1ny] om. (9 12 (93b has under *): et juxta man-
datum illius ¥.—nvyx} |ANcdo $—737) om. J.—v dy] pr. et tra-
derentur 9: 2a $—27] Egeo I:+ LWSeuntd ὅθ: Tal (ὁ Twyatou
93b: T'aln 249 Ἄγαι C): Oggeo L&.— 37 +» bs] Haupt deletes in 85, cf. 8».—
mpony]+ ve} 5.-- nox] τὸ κοράσιον L: Haupt deletes—ysn2—5x] so L,
93) under *: om. (Ὁ 37: inter ceteras puellas $.— 37 τιν ὉΝ] δὲ J: πρὸς Tal G
(ΤΠ άην 249): ἐπὶ τὸν Twyatov 93b: καὶ εἶδε Bovyaios ὁ εὐνοῦχος 1, (Cwyatos
93a): αὖ Oggeo L.— un] om. §.—dw37 Ἴ2Φ] ut servaretur in numero
feminarum J: ὁ φυλάσσων τὸ κοράσιον L.
9. 1.»}}8 -- 3:2] om. BH: a favourite expression in Est., cf. 12! 24 τις
—anyn] om. JL.—ron xwmy] ἁ.λ., of. 1 Kwa 215. 17 52, the usual ex-
pression is 10M ΝΕ or }M N¥D.—)5na»] Pi. in the sense of ‘hasten’ is
found only in late Heb., cf. 2 Ch. 35%! Ec. 5! 7°. Haupt objects to the
translation ‘hasten’ on the grounds that Esther’s treatment with cos-
metics lasted a year in any case, and could not be ‘hastened,’ and that
she did not need to have her food ‘hastened,’ and translates ‘and he
took a special interest’; but the beginning of the treatment could be
‘hastened,’ even if the process itself could not be abbreviated, and it
was not her ‘food’ but her ‘dainties’ that he ‘hastened.? The mean-
ing ‘hastened’ is attested by G ἔσπευσεν, J accelerare, B wompm,
and by all the passages in the OT. where this form occurs, cf. 8"
pypinn) Ὁ 555, ‘hastened and impelled’; 614. sand WAIN, ‘they hastened
to bring.’ — pron] mundum muliebrem I: md 2 Ns Φ: τὸ σμῆγμα
G: προστατῆσαι αὐτῆς L: ad omnes nitores ejus H.—AM 30 ΤΙΝῚ] so B?
Ba.: Moun nN) G: om. 1,2Π.--- ΠΝ] Ἄς πιο $.—75 nnd] καὶ ἐπέδωκεν ὑπὲρ
L: om. G. The inf. with Ὁ preceded by its objects is a pure Aram.
construction. Another object being introduced after this, the phrase
is repeated (cf. Dn. 219. 46 6%); so the versions, Keil, Bert., Oet., Schu.,
Wild. Kau. §115¢ and Sieg., Com. a. ἰ., hold that the phrase does not
depend upon 573», but upon the preceding noun, and should be trans-
lated ‘which ought to be given to her.’—nx)?] om. L.— npn] + σι 8.
—nyxin] τὰς ἅβρας 1,.--- nvx7] on the insertion of Daghesh, cf. Kau.
§75v. Ba. Gom. Daghesh (cf. Ba., p. 72). This use of the pass. part.
of AN 15 not found elsewhere in the OT., but is common in BT.—
nnd4Jom. J6 LY|.— 7] om. ILZ.— ows - man] om. L.— qn] ejusdem
%.— ba man nb nnd] Haupt deletes as a misplaced correction of the
preceding 95 nnb,— aw] et tam ipsam ornaret 3}: wp 20 BH: καὶ ἐχρή-
σατο αὐτῇ G. In τ 3% the (αἱ of this vb. is used in the sense of ‘be
different’; here the Pz. in the sense of ‘change.’ The construction
12
178 ESTHER
with acc. of the person and of the place is Aram., cf. Levy, Aram.
W.-B. iv. 586; Payne-Smith, Thes. 4234. There is no reason to sus-
pect that the text is corrupt in spite of the variations of the versions.
—mnnyi—aw] om. B.—ow 31-3109] atque excoleret J: καλῶς ἐν τῷ
γυναικῶνι G (+ els ἀγαθόν 93b under *): @tatis ipsius in conventu muli-
erum &. Ἶ
10, om. Τ'.---- Ὁ] pr. o &: pr. καὶ (9 1Π.-- >] que I.—nny] nsow
$.—anrdin] ODD $.— WIN] + de hac re omnino L.
11. om. L.—593)] om. 1G (A οὖ have).— 2770] qui J.— 3195] 3 R 2.
—n3] om. $.—ow37] in qua electe virgines servabantur J.—nyr>] not
merely of an attempt to know, but of the attainment of knowledge (cf.
Dt. 8? 134).—o>w—nx] Lope 55: τὲ συμβήσεται (95: usually construed
with bxw rather than with yw (cf. τ S. ro*).— 70x] οἷ L—na-nn 1] om.
G L.— 73] 75 some codd. (R).
THE PREPARATION OF THE GIRLS TO GO TO THE KING (212-14),
12. And whenever each girl’s turn came to go to King Xerxes].
So, according to Her. iii. 69, the wives of the false Smerdis came
to him in turn. How the turn was determined, is not stated.
The next clause narrates merely that no girl could go to the King
until she had been twelve months in the palace. Presumably, as
the girls arrived at the palace, their names were recorded; and, at
the expiration of twelve months, they were called in the order of
their arrival. Those who came from Susa would naturally begin
their preparation sooner than those who came from India or Kush,
and so would be ready earlier to go to the King.—After she had
been treated in the manner prescribed for the women [δι + while
they tarried in their delicacies] twelve months [G1 + of the year].
Lit., at the end of its being to her, according to the law of the women.
What the daw of the women was, is explained in the next clause.
It was a twelvemonth’s process of beautification with cosmetics.
Cler. wrongly explains the phrase after the analogy of Gn. 18"
31°, On law, see 18:—For this was the regular length of their
period of massage; six months [( J + they were anointed] with oil
of myrrh, [G+ + which removes the hair and makes the skin soft,]
and six months with perfumes and feminine cosmetics,| [Jos.2°°+
and the number of the girls was 4oo.] This parenthetical remark
gives the contents of the /aw of the women mentioned in the pre-
ceding clause. From this it appears, that every maiden was re- Ὁ
THE PREPARATION OF THE GIRLS 179
quired to take this twelvemonth’s treatment before she could be
admitted to the King. Hégai could not shorten the period in
Esther’s case; the best that he could do was to begin it as soon as
possible. In regard to the credibility of this long period of prep-
aration opinions differ.
13. And whenever [Jos.2™ + Hégai thought that the virgins had
done all that was necessary in the aforesaid time, and were now
ready to go to the King’s couch,] [© + after they had completed
twelve months of the year and] each girl was going unto the King],
a resumption of the thought of the first part of 1295, which has been
interrupted by the long parenthesis in the rest of the v. The con-
nection is, whenever each girl’s turn came to go to the King, .. .
and in this (i.e., in turn) each girl was going to the King. The
second clause is not the apodosis, but is a continuation of the
temporal clause. The apodosis follows in '%».—Every thing that
she demanded [3] + that belonged to her adornment,] ὦ: + whether
a noble or an officer,] used to be given her [© + at once] to go with
her from the house of the women unto the house of the King]. Each
girl was given a chance to make the best impression, and to this
end was allowed to select any garment or jewel that she thought
would enhance her beauty. Whether she was permitted to retain
these after her visit to the King, we are not told. Haupt thinks
that she had to return them. Probably the idea is, that she kept
them as a mohar, or wedding-gift. V.'5 suggests that most of
the girls used the opportunity to load themselves with jewels.
Here the house of the women, or harem, is distinguished from the
house of the King, or private apartments, in which Xerxes received
the women in turn (see 1).
14. In the evening she used to go in[G' + to wait upon the King],
a circumstantial clause, defining more precisely the manner of
presentation, and also preparing the way for the future action of
the book. The girls were not merely shown to the King when
their turns came, as we should expect; but in each case the mar-
riage union was consummated, as appears from '», where they
return to the house of the concubines.—And in the morning she
used to return unto the second house of the women, into the charge
of Sha‘ashgaz, the King’s eunuch, the keeper of the {3 + royal] con-
180 ESTHER
cubines]. Having received the honour of admission to the King’s
couch, no girl could return to the company of candidates in charge
of Hégai; but went now to another section of the harem, under the
custody of a different eunuch; where, as a concubine of the King,
she was kept presumably under stricter surveillance. On Sha‘ash-
gaz, see p. 69.—[G? + Her name was recorded and] she did not
go in again to the King unless the King longed for her and she was
summoned by name [G+ + distinctly and in writing.] Most of the
girls, apparently, never got a second summons; but remained in
practical widowhood in the house of the concubines. Only oc-
casionally one made sufficient impression on the King for him to
remember her and to wish to see her a second time. How many
girls preceded Esther, we are not told; but evidently no one had
such charms that the King thought of her as a possible successor
to Vashti. This story bears marked resemblance to that of
Shehriyar at the beginning of the Avabian Nights. He also had
a new wife every evening, and did not suffer one to come to him
a second time (see p. 76).
12. om. L.—yranay] οὗτος δὲ ἢν G: καὶ ὅταν A: et quando esset &: cf.
4 64 οἱ. 26, ἃ is used instead of 9 because the turns kept coming.
The inf. takes its time from 1n3) ν. 13, z.e., it denotes recurring action
in the past—any3] om. 15: |DSexSs — κω S.— myn] om. GL.
-- ΨΥ ΓΝ] om. IGG (936 has under *): Haupt deletes.— pn] is regu-
larly followed immediately by the time-limit (cf. Gn. 43 Ju. 1189 2S. 1435).
Here an equivalent of the time-limit comes first and the time-limit
follows in apposition —o1w39-n5] omnibus que ad cultum muliebrem
pertinebant J: tempus puelle LH: om. G (930 has under *): καῖρος κοράσια
A.— wy aw] undecimo G: ἐπὶ ἕξ Jos.—wrn]+ vertebatur J: |Dsoas
$.— n wbn°] of the completion of a prescribed period, as Gn. 25% 29%!
50° et al. The impf. is used to express recurring action in the past,
‘the days used to be fulfilled,’ z.e., in each individual case.—}m>p172] 4.A.,
of. pry (2% 9: 2) and the n. on 23.--ο] ΡΥ -- ἸΝ .] om. J—owrn]
oe S:+ ἀλιφόμεναι G:+ ut ungerentur J—ron yow3]. The
meaning ‘oil of myrrh’ is certain from the versions and the cognate
languages. Meg. 13a translates it ΓΘ ‘stacte’ (cinnamon oil) or }1).pp2&
‘omphacinum’ (green olive oil). @! combines both renderings. Myrrh
had a healing and purifying effect upon the 5ΚΊη.--- 0) -- ΠΦ ΦῚ] om.
GL—ownn)] + aliis 3}: a S.—ow 7) uterentur 3}.
13. om. L.—a3)] om. J. ‘And in this,’ z.e., ‘in turn,’ refers back
to the first words of ν. 15, In this case 713) is acontinuation of the tem-
ESTHER IS CHOSEN QUEEN 181
poral clause of v. 12 and the apodosis follows in 135 (so Bert., Rys.,
Wild.). Others make this the apodosis of the sentence. In that case
m2) must be taken temporally, ‘and in this time,’ ‘then’ (so 6, @',
J. & T., Pisc., Sieg., Haupt). Others understand 72) to mean ‘and
in this condition,’ 7.6., ‘prepared,’ as described in the previous verse
(so §, Miin., Tig., Vat., AV.); but the expression for this is 133 (4:5).
RV. seems to suggest that ‘and in this’ means ‘under the following
conditions,’ and refers to the permission to take with her whatever she
pleased.—ny29] ὑπ codd., Ty3I7 Q: om. JGL (93 has under *).
—anw3] pte. f., not pf., on account of the accent (¢f. Ewald, ὃ 331;
Konig, i. 643 f.). It takes its time from the following impf. used to
express recurring action in the past.— Ἴ 5 Π -- ΠΝ] om. G.—>> ns] καὶ
@. This can hardly be taken as the obj. οἵ 72Nn. It is rather the
subj. of the pass. 173. construed with nsx (Kau. ὃ 121@).— 79s] ‘com-
manded’ as in 1!°, This verb and the following one are impf. to ex-
press recurring action in the past (Kau. ὃ 1o7e). They govern the time
of the protasis in !-!3—yn})] on the pointing, see Ba., p. 72.— ny 725]
et ut eis placuerat composite transibant J. We should expect rather
xvanb, but the reading is sustained by G συνεισέρχεσθαι. This has
suggested to 5: the idea that persons, not things, accompany the girl
to the King. So Ramb. al/., but v. 15 shows that this is impossible.
14. πΝ2-- 2}3] et cum introiret mulier ad domum regis G: tr. to ν. 15 L.
—nx3] ptc., taking its time from the preceding impf. as a frequentative
in the past.—7p31)] cf. Ba., p. 72.- πὩ Φ NT Ip23\] ad diem unum et
recurrebat 17: tr. to v.18 L.—naw] + atque inde deducebatur J.—na >x-
qbn7] om. L.—ow7] om. J.— 2] maw S*bhir: om. §. This word
is grammatically unrelated to the rest of the sentence, as in Ne. 3%.
We must either read n3v' ‘a second time,’ or (n))3¥n ‘the second,’
agreeing with 03 ma (so Ba., Rys., Wild., Sieg.). Buhl suggests
mvp. Haupt deletes as a gloss, as in 219 7? 9%, and supposes that the
girls returned to the same building from which they set out, only to the
care of a different eunuch.—)x] ὃν Var. Or.: pr. que J.—ow > pA- ON]
om. &.—v ὉΝ] οὗ G— bor] om. J 44, 106.—o wp) a foreign word
of unknown origin. For the theories as to its etymology, see BDB.
811.—n13n xd] pr. καὶ GH: non habebat spado potestatem inducendi L.
— bnn=y] om. G.—ox 13] ws δὲ L.—onn-yon] κατεμάνθανεν 6 βασι-
λεὺς L: om. GL (93h has under *).—owa AN pn] om. 1 GZ: πάσας
Tas παρθένους L.
ESTHER IS BROUGHT TO THE KING AND IS CHOSEN QUEEN (215-18),
15. And when[J + the time had gone round in order,] the turn
came of Esther, the daughter of ’Abihayil, Mordecai’s uncle, whom
Mordecai had adopted as a daughter, to go in to the King]. Cf. ν. ".
182 ESTHER
These genealogical details are mentioned in order to distinguish
Esther from the nameless herd of girls that had gone before her.
For ’Abihayil (cf. 92°) G has everywhere in Est. ᾿Αμειναδάβ,
which is used elsewhere for both ’Abinadab and ‘Amminadab
in G. How this could have arisen out of ’Abthayil, it is difficult
to see. On the other hand, it is possible that ‘Amminadab was
original, but was objectionable to Jewish ears on account of its
connection with the name of the heathen god ‘Amm, and there-
fore has been changed in & (cf. Paton, Art. ‘‘Amm” in Hastings’
Dict. Rel.).— [ἢ + And it came to pass, when she went in to the
King,] she did not request [O'+ the use of] any thing, except that
which Hégai, the King’s eunuch, the keeper of the women, advised
[J + and gave her as ornament, for she was exceedingly shapely
and incredibly beautiful], z.e., she did not take the chance that
was offered her, according to v. 13, to enrich herself at the King’s
expense. Vat., Keil, and most comm. see in this an evidence of
Esther’s extraordinary modesty; Grot., of her confidence in her
beauty; Mal., of protest against this heathen alliance. Others
see in it a sign of her good judgment in leaving everything to
Hégai, who was experienced in such matters and knew the King’s
taste. The passage does not say that she went unadorned, but
only adorned in the manner that Hégai regarded as most becom-
ing.—And Esther won the admiration [3] ©: + and love] of all
beholders. [Meg. 13a + Every one thought that she belonged to
his nation.] This was not on account of her modesty, but on ac-
count of her beauty, as dressed by the master-hand of Hégai.
This is an anticipation of the favour that she finds with the King
(217). From this passage Meg. 7a infers the inspiration of the
Book of Est. How else but by inspiration could it be known
that all admired her?
16. And Esther was taken unto King Xerxes (©: + as wife, and
he brought her] wnto [G: + the house of the bed-chamber of] the
royal house]. In taken there is no suggestion of force, any more
than in 25, 4. Ὁ. Royal house is here evidently the same as house
of the King, 213 (cf. 19). Perhaps the change in expression is due
merely to the desire to avoid the repetition of King.—In the tenth
month, that is, the month Tebhéth]. The name is derived from
ESTHER IS CHOSEN QUEEN 183
Bab. Tébétu, and occurs here only in the OT. It equals Dec.-
Jan. The Bab. names of the months, together with the number-
ing from Nisan, were adopted by the Jews after the Exile (cf.
KAT. p. 330 f.).—In the seventh year of his reign]. According
to 15, the deposition of Vashti occurred in the third year. The
appointment of a commission to gather girls followed speedily,
‘‘when the anger of King Xerxes had abated” (2'). Four years,
accordingly, elapsed from the time that the King set out to seek
a successor to Vashti until Esther was brought to him. Why was
her presentation delayed so long? Her home was in Susa (2°),
so that she must have been one of the first to be taken to the palace;
and Hégai did everything to hasten her preparation (2°). Bon.
thinks that the delay was due to the number of girls that pre-
ceded her. At the rate of one a day for four years, there must
have been 1460 maidens on the waiting-list ahead of her. This
is a goodly number, and it is a tribute to Esther’s beauty that out
of so many she was the first to captivate the King. Bert. thinks
that, if time be allowed for the abating of Xerxes’ wrath, for the
appointing of a commission, for the collecting of girls, and a year
for Esther’s preparation (213), four years is not too long. Making
all allowances, however, it seems incredible that Xerxes should
have been willing to remain four years without a queen. 9 solves
the difficulty by changing the seventh year to the fourth. San.
thinks that v. 15 refers to a first visit of Esther to the King at an
earlier date, and v. 15 to a second visit after he had tried the rest
of the girls; but v. 17 shows clearly that only one visit is meant.
Baum., Hav., Keil, Raw., and other defenders of the strict his-
toricity of the book, hold that the delay was due to Xerxes’ ab-
sence in Greece during the sixth and the seventh year of his reign
(480-479 B.c.). It is possible that, after the battle of Platza,
Xerxes returned to Susa by Dec.-Jan., in time to take Esther as
Queen before the end of the year; but the Book of Est. contains
no suggestion of a two years’ interruption of the presentation of
girls, while the King was absent on a great military expedition;
on the contrary, 213-15 assumes that the girls were brought regu-
larly one after the other until Esther’s turn came. If the King
had been away two years, and the preparation of the girls had
184 ESTHER
lasted one year, there would not have been time for the extensive
testing that the book assumes before the selection of Esther
(cf. 28 ‘many,’ 217 ‘all’) (see p. 73).
17. And the King loved Esther [L $ + exceedingly] more than
all the wives [©: + that he had taken], and she gained his grace
and favour more than all the virgins. [Meg. 13a + If he wished
to enjoy a virgin, he enjoyed her; if he wished to enjoy a matron,
he enjoyed her]. ‘The sense is not, as Bert. suggests, that he loved
her better than both the older and the younger women, but, as
©: and Meg. indicate, better than the wives that he had already,
and better than the girls that he had just gathered.—And he
placed the royal turban upon her head, [© + and he cast out from
the bedroom of the house where he slept the statue of Vashti, and
placed there a statue of Esther. And he seated her upon the second
throne,] and he made her Queen instead of Vashti. [05.393 + So
Esther was married without disclosing her race.] After the King
had seen Esther he had no desire to investigate further. The
presentation of girls came to a sudden end; and Esther, apparently,
was made Queen at once. On royal turban, see 1". ‘There can
be no doubt as to the author’s intention to represent Esther as
wife and queen, in contrast to the other women who were only
concubines (see p. 71).
18. [Jos.22 + And he made a wedding-feast for her, and sent
angarot, as they are called, to every race, commanding them to cele-
brate the nuptials;] and the King made a great banquet [J + be-
cause of his union and marriage] for all his officials and courtiers
[ὦ + for seven days] [6 1, G:+and celebrated] Esther’s banquet
[L + publicly]. [@ + And he gave gifts to the provinces; and
he said to her, Tell me now whether thou art sprung from the
Jewish people? And she said to him, I do not know my race nor
my descent, because, when I was a child, my father and my
mother died and left me an orphan (cf. Meg. 13a).] On banquet,
officials, courtiers, see τ. Apparently this banquet followed im-
mediately after the choice of Esther as Queen in the seventh year
of Xerxes.—And [G2 + when Xerxes heard this word] he made
a release {© + from paying tribute] for [L & H+ all] the provinces].
Release, lit. a causing to rest, although understood by © and many
ESTHER IS CHOSEN QUEEN 185
comm. of a release from tribute, probably means a release from
prison (cf. 1 Mac. 10% Mt. 27!°; see Haupt a./.). Others think
of a release from work, a holiday (so 9, J, Bert., Sieg.), or a re-
lease from military service, as Her. iii. 67 (Drus.).—And he gave
a largess (© + and a present] with royal liberality (G2 + for he
thought in his heart, and said within him, I will do good to all
peoples and kingdoms because among them is the people of
Esther. . . . And the princes of the King said to him, If thou
dost wish Esther to tell her race and her descent, arouse her
jealousy with other women, and she will tell thee her race and her
descent (so the King made a second gathering of girls)]. Largess
is lit. a lifting up, i.e., either something taken from one, or some-
thing given to one. Here the latter meaning is demanded. In
Am. 5" Jer. 405 the word is used more specifically of gifts of fooa
(of. Xen. Cyrop. viii. 27; Anab. i. 9, 25). With royal liberality,
568 “ΤΊ:
15, rn prunay] ἐφάνη ἐπιφανεστάτη L: + introeundi LZ: of. v. %—n3a—
end of v. om. L.—nab—"1n Haupt deletes as a gloss derived from v. 7
and 92°.—ynvan]so 4: Abihail 3}: neem] $4: Cee] SED Qiao}
$U: Abihel (Chihel) G: Αμειναδάβ G (Αβιχάιλ C).— I] fratris AL.—
nab—wx] om. 6G (93 has under *).— 135] ἐν τῷ ἐισελθεῖν A: pr. ὅν
ἔμελλεν 44: introibat L.— p07] + et factum est cum introiret ad regem ἴῃ.
— 35] muliebrem cultum J.—nx->2] om. 6L.— ws] ὧν ὦ: ὧν αὐτῇ
x AN 55, 64, 71, 74, 76, 106, 108a, 243, 248, 249, C Ald.: ἐκ πάντων ὧν
αὐτῇ 44: ex quibus &— 7] om. GF (936 has under *).— nn pd]
Haupt deletes.— 79D] om. I$ GL (93) has under *).—ow39 aw] om.
Z τοῦ: + hec ei ad ornatum dedit erat enim formosa valde et incredibili
pulchritudine J.—>nodx »n\]om. J.— dx] Haupt deletes.—nx¢¥'3] with
quiescent x, cf. Ba. 73, Stade, §112¢c. On the phrase cf.v.*. The peri-
phrastic form with the ptc. expresses the constancy of the favour that
she enjoyed.— 7x4] see Ols. § 176c.
16. y5nn—npdn)] tr. aft. 29 L.—anox] om. 93b J.— wrens] om. LL
44, 106: Haupt deletes.—nva 5x to end of v.] om. L.— 125 - 5x] om.
GL (93b has under *).—rwwyn] τῷ δωδεκάτῳ GL (δεκάτῳ 93b C).—
wan xn] om. L.—nav] n3y Ba.: ωγωΐ to &: ᾿Αδάρ GL: ᾿Αδέρ 248
(so always): Τηβήθ 8 ¢® C: Βήθ 93b.—yav] 235] 9.
17, NDX—34N»] ἤρεσεν αὐτῷ σφόδρα L (tr. aft. 2*)— nN] + wag ΡΞ:
αὐτῆς 44, 76, 106.—dw3n 530] om. 6 L|F (936 has under *).— 10m] om.
& GL (930 has under *).— 395] om. G (93h has under *).— mdynan 530]
super omnes mulieres J: om. L.— dv] Daco $.— ny2>n] τὸ γυναικεῖον
186 ESTHER
G: om. L.—awsr3] αὐτῇ G@F.— snvy-A5o)] om. G L: | has, and 93b
under *.
18, ys2yy—wyy]om. L.— na] om. I.—3] om. ( G (930 has under *).
πολ} paso &: καὶ ταῖς δυνάμεσιν + ἐπὶ ἡμέρας ἑπτά, καὶ ὕψωσεν G:
+ καὶ ἤγαγεν ὁ βασιλεὺς L.—arnwn] pro conjunctione et nuptiis J: τοὺς
γάμους GL: τὸν γάμον L.—rndx anwn nx] Haupt deletes.—937)] kal
ἄφεσιν G: καὶ ἀφέσεις L: Lamalo S: et requiem J: Hiph. inf. from ms.
The form is Aram. rather than Heb. (cf. Stade, $$ 244, 621 c). Haupt
regards it as an inf. abs. used instead of a finite vb., as 2? and often in
Est., and deletes the following 1vy.—niyIn>] τοῖς ὑπὸ τὴν βασιλείαν
αὐτοῦ @: pr. πάσαις L 44, 71, 74, 76, τού, 35 3.—boa-jn] om. (6 L&.—
nxvn] Haupt reads nxwn, ‘portions,’ ‘rations’ (see also on το). Winck.
(26-29) proposes to transpose 2!7f- to a position before ro!, on the grounds
that the elevation of Esther to be Queen is the proper climax of the
book, and that nxvp is the same as Ὁ in ro!, and the same gathering of
tribute is meant. He then reads thes. 73.49 instead of the pl., and finds
in it an allusion to Seleucia as the capital of the empire. All this is
utterly fanciful.
MORDECAI DISCOVERS A PLOT AGAINST THE KING (219-35).
19. And when virgins were being gathered a second time]. What
is meant by second is a crux interpretum. (1) ὦ, Tir., Bon.,
Lap: Mal)Osi.,o.Caj;;Hez.,», Maur.,. Keil, Schu.,) Raw.,4,Oet:,
Wild., Stre., think of a gathering that followed the selection of
Esther as Queen; and suppose, either that these were girls from
a distance who arrived after the game was over; or that the King,
although he made Esther Queen, was not content with her charms,
but demanded continually a fresh supply of concubines; or that
the courtiers, being jealous of Esther’s influence, tried to lead him
to select another favourite; or, as ©? maintains, that Xerxes made
this second gathering so as to rouse Esther’s jealousy and to get
her to tell her race. The objections to this view are, that 21**
suggests that Xerxes was so well satisfied with Esther that he tried
no new candidates; and that there is no reason why a gathering
after Esther’s marriage should be called the second, since many
gatherings must have preceded it.
(2) Drus. and Bert. think that second refers to a gathering of
concubines into the second house of the women, either after visit-
ing the King, or after attending Esther’s wedding; but why in this
MORDECAI DISCOVERS A PLOT 187
case should they be called virgins, instead of concubines, as in
24? It is not a sufficient answer to say that virgins means only
young women, or that they are so called because they were lately
virgins. Gather must also have the same sense here as in 2* ὅ.
(3) In view of these facts, Grot., Vat., Mar., Cler., Ramb.,
hold that this is a parenthetical remark referring to a time previous
to Esther’s marriage. Vat., Mar., think that there was a similar
gathering of girls before Vashti was chosen, and that second refers
to the gathering from which Esther was taken. Cler., Ramb.,
suppose that the first gathering occurred in the provinces, and the
second at Susa. Others suppose that second means the second
detachment of girls that arrived in Susa in accordance with the
order of 22-4. The difficulties with this view are that on this in-
terpretation we should expect an art. with virgins, since they have
been mentioned before; that v. 39, which follows immediately,
does not refer to the past but to the present; and that v. # shows
that these events occurred after Esther became Queen.
(4) Dat., Bar., Jahn, despair of an interpretation, and follow
G in deleting the passage; but the omission by G does not prove
that the words did not stand in the original text, but only that G
could make nothing out of them. Haupt deletes the whole of
v. 19. as a misplaced gloss to ν. *.
(5) Sieg. explains the clause as due to the clumsiness of the
author, who wanted to say something about Mordecai’s discov-
ering the plot, and knew no better way in which to introduce it.
If we must choose between these theories, the first probably offers
the least difficulty; but there is strong ground for suspicion that
the text is corrupt (see crit. note).
Why this statement about a gathering of virgins is introduced
at this point, is also a puzzle. Schu. thinks that the confusion
attending the arrival of the girls gave the conspirators a chance to
discuss their plans (v. 31), and gave Mordecai a chance to observe
them without being noticed, since they supposed that he was
merely an ordinary member of the throng; but a crowded gate is
surely not the place that conspirators would choose for discussing
plans to murder the King. It is better with Keil, Raw., and most
comm. to regard the clause as introduced solely for the purpose of
188 ESTHER
giving the time of the events. It is parallel to in those days, v.#\—
While Mordecai (©: + was praying, and having gone forth] was
sitting in the King’s gate]. The verse-division in #1, $, J, and
most modern versions and comm. treat this clause as the apodosis
and translate, when virgins were gathered—Mordecai was sitting;
but the same expression occurs in v. 31, and there it is temporal.
It is better, accordingly, with Cas., Rys., Stre., to regard this as
a second subordinate clause. What Mordecai’s sitting in the
King’s gate has to do with the gathering of virgins, is not clear.
The older versions and comm. suppose that he was a royal official
who had charge of the reception of the girls (see 61°, where the
King knows that he sits in the gate), but this is not a fair inference
from the text. Schu., Wild., think that, when a company of girls
arrived, people crowded into the King’s gate to see them, and that
Mordecai took this opportunity to penetrate farther into the palace
than he could ordinarily go; but this hypothesis is unnecessary,
since in 211 he walks daily before the court of the women, and in
3° 5'* he sits in the King’s gate when no virgins are being brought.
If we regard this clause as subordinate, like the first, there is no
need of seeing any causal nexus between the two. The King’s
gate is presumably a large fortified entrance to the palace-enclosure,
such as Dieulafoy discovered at Susa. Such gates have always
been used in the Orient as courts of justice and as lounging-places
for the rich (see HDB. Art. Gate”). From 27! 325 59. 13 610. 12
(cf. 42: 5) it appears that this was Mordecai’s favourite haunt.
This shows him to have been a man of leisure, but not necessarily
a royal official. His reason for sitting here may have been solely
his desire to pick up news concerning Esther (see 2*- "). Haupt
thinks that he may have been a money-changer who placed his
table here. :
20. Esther had never disclosed her descent nor her race, as Mor-
decai had enjoined upon her (6 & + to fear God] [& + every day].
The sentence begun with the two temporal clauses in v. 19 is broken
off to insert this parenthetical remark, which shows why Mordecai
still sat an idler in the King’s gate, although his cousin had become
Queen; and also explains why he could spy upon the conspirators
(v. #4) without being detected. Descent is here put before race be-
MORDECAI DISCOVERS A PLOT 189
cause the main point is Esther’s relationship to Mordecai (cf. 2"°).
Meg. 13a, ©, regard this as the apodosis of the sentence, and take
it to mean that, although Xerxes tried to arouse Esther’s jealousy
by gathering other girls, yet still she did not reveal her origin,
through loyalty to Mordecai, who sat in the King’s gate. This is
a very forced interpretation But Esther had always obeyed the
injunction of Mordecat.
[G + She had kept sabbaths and fast days, she had taken heed to the
days of her separation, she had avoided the food of the heathen, and had
not drunk their wine, and she had observed all the commandments which
Israelitish women ought to keep, according to Mordecai’s instructions,]
[G2 + for she showed herself humble when she became Queen.]
Just as when she grew up in his house [G6 + and Esther had not
changed her manner of life]. This continuation of the parenthesis
restates in positive form the thought of the preceding clause. The
injunction of Mordecai was, of course, to conceal her race, not, as
©: thinks, to keep the Jewish Law, which would have resulted in
the immediate disclosure of her origin. ‘The author wishes us to
admire Esther’s filial obedience even after she has become Queen.
This is important in the further development of the plot.
21. [Jos.2°°-++ Now the King had enacted a law that, when he sat upon
his throne, none of his household should approach him, without being
called; and men with axes surrounded his throne ready to cut down any
that approached the throne without a summons. The King, however,
sat with a golden sceptre in his hand; and when he wished to save any
one who came uncalled, he held it out to him; and he that touched it
was safe (cf. 411): but enough of this matter.]
In those days while Mordecai was sitting [τ + in the sanhedrin
which Esther had established for herself] im the King’s gate].
This is a resumption of the sentence begun in τ. 13, but inter-
rupted by the parenthesis in vy. *°. In those days corresponds to
and when virgins were being gathered. ‘The second clause is the
same in both vv.—Bigthan and Teresh, the two royal eunuchs,
[J + doorkeepers at the entrance of the palace,] who guarded the
threshold, (© + noticed this and met together and] were angry
[ὦ + because Mordecai was promoted].
τοῦ ESTHER
[τ + And they said one to another: Does not the Queen with the con-
sent of the King seek to remove us and to put Mordecai in our place?
It is not fair to remove two officers in order to substitute one. Then
they took counsel in their language.] [Meg. 13) + Bigthan and Teresh
were Tarsees and spoke the Tarsee language, and they said one to the
other: Since this (Esther) has come to court we can get no sleep at night;
therefore let us put poison into the King’s drink, that he may die. They
did not know that Mordecai belonged to the Great Sanhedrin, every
member of which understood 70 languages (similarly @*).] [Jos. 391 +
And Barnabazus, a Jew, a servant of one of the eunuchs, becoming
aware of the plot, revealed it tothe uncle of the King’s wife;] [G (A's) +
and he heard their discussions and investigated their schemes and learned
them (similarly L in A‘).]
And they sought [© + to give a deadly poison to Queen Esther
and] to lay hands on King Xerxes [L IT: + to slay him] [G@' + with
the sword in his bed-chamber]. The object of all these additions
is to explain why Bigthan and Teresh were angry with the King.
(6 and @' think that it was because of the promotion of Mordecai,
so Tir., Drus., al. Meg. holds that jealousy of Esther was the cause.
Others have supposed that the two eunuchs were friends of Vashti
and resented her degradation. Lap., Men., Cler., suppose that
this was part of a plot of Haman to seize the throne (cf. 6%:.).
Oet. brings the anger into connection with the gathering of vir-
gins (v. 19), and thinks that then the wishes of the eunuchs were
thwarted. The author gives no indication of his opinion. On
Bigthan and Teresh, see p. 69. The two royal eunuchs, not two
of the King’s chamberlains, as AV. and RV. The threshold which
these eunuchs guarded was presumably the entrance to the
King’s private apartments. ‘They were the most trusted watch-
men; and, therefore, their treason was doubly dangerous. Lay
hands on, lit. send forth a hand upon, is the equivalent of Rill (cf.
Gn. 372% 1 S. 247 4). Such conspiracies were common in the
ancient Orient, and were the only way to get rid of a despot.
Several of the kings of Judah and of Israel perished in this way
(of. 1 K. 1527 169 2 K. og 151%. 25 2128); also of Damascus (2 K. 8'5),
and Assyria (2 K. το"). Xerxes himself perished through such
a conspiracy (Diod. Sic. xi. 69, 1; Ctesias, Pers. 29), and a like
fate befell Artaxerxes Ochus.
MORDECAI DISCOVERS A PLOT 101
22. And the affair became known to Mordecai [5 + through a
holy spirit] [τ + because he was able to speak 70 languages].
How Mordecai knew this plot, & does not say. The additions
supply a variety of reasons. The comm. have conjectured that
he overheard the conversation of the eunuchs because he sat in
the King’s gate, but this would not be a likely place for the con-
cocting of a plot. Mordecai’s sitting in the gate has no other con-
nection with this v. than as an indication of time.—And [L +
having considered well,] he disclosed it to Queen Esther, and Esther
told it to the King [τ + and it was written] in the name of Mordecat
[J + who had reported the matter to her]. Mordecai still man-
aged to keep in communication with Esther, even after she had
become Queen; but how this was done, or how it could be carried
on without revealing Esther’s race, the author does not explain.
Mordecai was well known to be a Jew (2° 3"- δ 513 610); and, if he
used the Queen to communicate his intelligence to the King,
it must have been conjectured that they were related. It is
also hard to understand how Xerxes could have forgotten so
promptly (65), if the news of this great service had been
communicated by the Queen. Haupt solves the difficulty by
changing the text of the v. to read, ‘‘And he disclosed it to
Haman, son of Hammedatha, the Gogite, keeper of the thresh-
old” (see note).
23. [75.395 + And the King was alarmed] and the affair was
investigated and was found [τ + true,] and (6 L + having con-
fessed,] both of them were hanged upon a gallows]. Cf. 5% 64
79. 10 87 gis. 14. 25, The word translated gallows is lit. tree or pole;
hence it has been inferred that impaling is meant (so L in 6",
Haupt). Jos., 8, J, al. think of crucifixion (cf. Ἐ15), but both of
these methods of execution seem to be precluded by the fact that
the tree of 5 is Socubits high. This can only have been a gallows.
[Jos.2°* + But at that time he gave no reward to Mordecai who
had been the means of his escape, only] [L + Xerxes,] [6 + the
King, commanded] [Jos. + the scribes to record his name] and it
was written [6 + for a memorial] in the book of the chronicles
[ζ΄ + which was read continually] before the King [6 + with
praise concerning the good will of Mordecai.] [Φ L (A's) + And
192 ESTHER
the King commanded that Mordecai should serve in the King’s
court and should guard every door publicly. And he gave him
gifts on account of this] [Jos. + as though he were a most inti-
mate friend of the King.]|_ Why Mordecai should not have been
rewarded at once, but his services merely recorded in the annals,
is hard to understand. Literary rather than historical consider-
ations have here shaped the narrative. solves the difficulty by
inserting rewards. The book of the chronicles, lit. book of the acts
of the days, was a sort of royal diary recording memorable events
(61 το). Such annals were kept by the ancient kings of Baby-
lonia and Assyria, by the Hebrew kings (1 K. 1419 157 and
oft.), and by the kings of Persia (Ezr. 415; Her. vii. 100; viii. 85,
90; Diod. Sic. ii. 32). Before the King indicates that the an-
nals were kept in his apartments, so that anything important
might at once be jotted down (cf. 6'). Haupt arbitrarily trans-
lates ‘at the disposal of the King,’ but cf. the passages just cited
from Her.
19. om. L.—n3w—-yapna)] om. G GZ (93b has under *): + et congre-
garentur 3: + is] $: perhaps instead of n3v ‘a second time,’ we
should read τὺ ‘different, various’ (cf. 17 38).— 271701] om. 1 §.—
av] here only in book written defectively, 41: ἐθεράπευεν G: sedebat
G.— no7] om. G (930 has under *).
20. om. L. Haupt deletes the whole v. as made up of two tertiary
glosses to 127719 ὈΦΞ Td ANON ὝΝΓῚ v. 2.—n yn) Hiph. pte. f. express-
ing the continuance of E.’s refusal to tell her origin (cf. Kau. δὲ 107d,
116c) —Any ΓΙΝῚ] om. (6. (exc. 93b *).— 72ND] omnia G: a late word, as
in 115 g%— 9770) ille J: αὐτοῦ G: om. F.— ἼΠΟΝ] om. 6L.—avy]
ποιεῖν (Ὁ: servaret L.— 7322] om. GF (exc. 93d *).
21. om. L.— bnn—-nn3] om. G: ἕως τῆς νυκτός καὶ ἡσύχασεν Map-
doxatos ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ (ὁ (A'f-): ws τῆς ἡμέρας Hs ὕπνωσε Μαρδοχαῖος ἐν τῇ
αὐλῇ τοῦ βασιλέως 1, (Α.11).--τ-- Ὁ.))2)3] pr. o $.— 197701] om. 1 85.---- ΣΡ] pr.
καὶ (ὁ $: om. 172: μετὰ G (A) L(A”). The vb. is singular because it
precedes the two subjects.— 4D" »\nwn] Haupt deletes from this connec-
tion and inserts in the emended text of v. 2332, on the ground that win) 7n22
is the correct text in 1!° instead of 8na3N) NNj3, and that in 1!° these are
body-servants of the King, not door-keepers (see p. 67). The present
text is supported by all the Vrss. except L.— 07] τὴν αὐλήν G (A):
atrium & (A).— wpa] wpa Ba. now] ἀποκτεῖναι & G.—wrywnr]
so Oc.: winwnx Or.: om. 44, τοῦ ©: Haupt deletes.
22. om. L.—a0>-yr)] καὶ ὑπέδειξεν τῷ βασιλεῖ περὶ αὐτῶν G
MORDECAI DISCOVERS A PLOT 193
(A8): εὖ δὲ φρονήσας ὁ Μαρδοχαῖος ἀπήγγειλε περὶ αὐτῶν 1, (A').—129)]
+ αὐτὸν 248 C:+ Mardocheus 2Π.--ττο 19119-3291] om. (6 in A, 1, in Α!,
— 3 τ 0 -- ἼΠΌΝΟ] instead of this Haupt substitutes ΝΠ NNIDA 12 17d
yDN pwn, and after ν. 33. he inserts 7399 aA yD 1D pw Nd bom.
His reasons are, that the King’s neglect of Mordecai is inexplicable, if
the news of his service was reported by Queen Esther herself, as the
present text relates, and that the subsequent action of the book becomes
clearer, if we suppose that Mordecai told Haman of the plot, and that
the latter took the credit of the discovery to himself. This will explain
why Haman was exalted (3!), why Mordecai refused to bow down to
him (32), and why Haman was afraid to put Mordecai to death at once
(Haupt, Purim, p. 37). The theory is ingenious, but is wholly un-
supported by the Vrss., all of which offer substantially the same text as
&. It is unsafe to assume that the inconsistencies which Professor
Haupt would have avoided, if he had written the Book of Est., were neces-
sarily avoided by the author. Moreover, this theory does not remove all
difficulties. If, as Haupt assumes, Mordecai’s service was written in the
royal chronicle (28 6! £-), then it would have been impossible for Haman
to claim the honour of discovering the plot for himself—a25n7] om. 6G
(exc. 93b *).— NMI] om. ἭΝ J.— 70x] αὐτῇ (6: ἡ βασιλίσσα A: illa J
— nb] + ᾿Αρταξέρξῃ w amg A, 936 --.— 770 ὉΦ3] τὰ τῆς ἐπιβουλῆς G:
et nomen Mardochai &.
23. om. L.—xsn-wpay] om. 44, 106.—wpan]+6 βασιλεύς G.—
7277] τοὺς δύο εὐνούχους G.—xxynr] καὶ εὕρε τοὺς λόγους Μαρδοχαίου
L (Α5): et invenit sic L: om. (Ὁ: - καὶ ὁμολογήσαντες G (A"), 15 (A"):
+ καὶ ὁμολογήσαντες οἱ εὐνοῦχοι 1, (A").— bony] ἀπήχθησαν & (A),
Ι, (Α1:).-ῦν by] om. @G&.— an] mandatum est historiis et traditum
3: axds flo $: καὶ προσέταξεν ὁ βασιλεὺς καταχωρίσαι els μνημόσυνον
G: καὶ ἔγραψεν ὁ βασιλεὺς εἰς μνημόσυνον (6 (A'): καὶ ἔγραψεν ᾿Ασσυ-
ἢρος ὁ βασιλεὺς L (A): et scriptum est memoriale G.— bnn-7d3] ἐν τῇ
βασιλικῇ βιβλιοθήκῃ G: τοὺς λόγους τούτους (6 (A'): περὶ τῶν λόγων
τούτων 1, (Α15): legis &: + ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐνοίας Μαρδοχαίου ἐν ἐγκωμίῳ ᾧ:
+ καὶ ἐπέταξεν (ἐνετείλατο L) ὁ βασιλεὺς (+ περὶ τοῦ L) Μαρδοχαίῳ
(Μαρδοχαίου 1,) θεραπεύειν (+ αὐτὸν L) ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ (+ τοῦ βασιλέως
καὶ πᾶσαν θύραν ἐπιφανῶς τηρεῖν L) καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δόματα (om. L)
περὶ τούτων G (Α15) 1, (Α.15). According to Winck. (AOF. iii. 5), vv. 2-38
are in their right place in G, and their insertion here is a gloss. Simi-
larly Erbt, Purim, p. 22.
194 ESTHER
HAMAN’S ELEVATION AND HIS PLOT (3:-41ὴ.
HAMAN IS EXALTED AND ALL MEN ARE REQUIRED TO BOW DOWN
TO HIM (3!-24).
1. [L@ + And it came to pass] after these events]. This is a
vague indication of a later date (cf. 2!). This may have happened
at any time between the seventh and the twelfth year of Xerxes
(216 Boe
[G'+ The measure of judgment came before the Lord of the whole
world and spoke thus: Did not the wicked Haman come down from
Susa to Jerusalem in order to hinder the building of the house of thy
Sanctuary ? but behold now how] King Xerxes magnified Haman, son
of Hammédhathd, the Agagite, [3 + son of Sadda, son of Kuza, son of
Eliphalot, son of Dios, son of Dioses, son of Peros, son of Ma‘adan,
son of Bal‘aqan, son of Antimeros, son of Hadros, son of Segar, son of
Negar, son of Parmashta, son of Wayzatha, son of Amalek, son of the
concubine of Eliphaz, the first-born of Esau (cf. @ on 51).
On Haman and the other proper names, see p. 69. Accord-
ing to Meg. τοῦ, ©, Haman was the same as M®mikhan (1").
For other legends concerning him, see Seligsohn, Art. ‘‘Haman”
in JE. The only Agag mentioned in the OT. is the King of
Amalek (Nu. 247 1 S. 15° 5g.). Jos", Meg. 130, , :, all
Jewish, and many Christian comm. think that Haman is meant
to be a descendant of this Agag. ‘This view is probably correct,
because Mordecai, his rival, is a descendant of Saul ben Kish,
who overthrew Agag (1 S. 157!-). Amalek was the most ancient
foe of Israel (Ex. 175-15), and is specially cursed in the Law
(Dt. 2517). It is, therefore, probably the author’s intention to
represent Haman as descended from this race that was character-
ized by an ancient and unquenchable hatred of Israel (cf. 31",
“the enemy of the Jews’). When 93a makes him a Gogite (cf.
Ez. 38-39), and L makes him a Macedonian, these are only other
ways of expressing the same idea (see p. 69f). In 1 Ch. 42:
it is recorded that the last remnant of the Amalekites was destroyed
in the days of Hezekiah, but this creates no difficulty for our au-
thor in assigning Haman to this race. That an Amalekite should
MORDECAI DEFIES HAMAN 195
be raised to the highest rank in the Persian empire, is very im-
probable. The cases of favour to Greek exiles adduced by Baum.
(p. 26 f.) are not parallel—And exalted him [©'+ prince over
everything,| and placed his throne above all the officials that were
with him], i.e., made him grand vizier.—[{L + so that all stooped
and bowed down to the earth to him.]
[5! + And the Lord of the world replied: It is not yet revealed in the
world. Let me alone until he magnifies himself: then shall it be re-
vealed to all peoples; and afterward recompense shall be taken from him
for all the sufferings which he and his fathers have inflicted upon the
people of the house of Israel.]
22, And all the King’s courtiers that were in the gate [© + of
the house] of the King used to bow down [© + to an idol which he
had placed upon him,] [Mid. + embroidered upon his garment
and worn over his heart, so that all who did homage to him, wor-
shipped it]; and they used to prostrate themselves before Haman
[Jos.2°° + when he went in to the King], for so the King had com-
manded concerning him]. On King’s courtiers, lit. slaves of the
King, see τ΄. Prostration before high officials was a universal
custom in the ancient Orient. In the case of the Persians it is
attested by Her. i. 134 (for other references, see Bris. i. το). From
this passage it cannot be inferred that Mordecai was a royal
official (cf. 25- 15).
1, ἼΠΝ] pr. καὶ ἐγένετο 1, 1Π.---Ὑ ΝΠ -- 1} καὶ ἣν ᾿Αμὰν ᾿Αμαδάθου
Βουγαίος ἔνδοξος ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασιλέως G (Α:1): ᾿Αμὰν ᾿Αμαδάθον Μακε-
δόνα κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ βασιλέως 1, (Α17).--- 51] Pi. with pathach
(Stade, § 3866).—wmnwnx] Haupt deletes—]p97-nx] so Ben Asher:
y2n-nx Ben Naphtali (Ginsburg).— xv] om. IS.
2a, yon nay] om. GLE (exc. 93b *).— ywa wr] om. L.— bn72]
om. @ LE (exc. 8 © 4, 93b *).—onnwn] om. (61,27 (exc. 93b *).—
yond] αὐτῷ (5 1, (Αμάν A Z).— > — end of v.]om. 106.— 15] eis 9: ποιῆσαι
G: fieriL: αὐτοῖς ποιῆσαι 953}: om. L.
MORDECAI REFUSES TO BOW DOWN TO HAMAN (325-5).
2°. But Mordecai [3] + alone,] [Jos.2° + because of his wisdom
and the law of his nation,] would never bow down [© + to the idol]
and would never prostrate himself [τ + before Haman, because
196 ESTHER
he had been ἃ field-slave who had sold himself to him for a loaf of
bread]. Mordecai’s refusal to bow down to Haman is quite inex-
plicable. In 3‘he tells the courtiers that it is because he is a Jew,
but the Hebrews prostrated themselves, not only before kings
(1 S. 24°), but before all superiors (Gn. 237 272° 33%). There
was nothing repugnant to their feelings in doing obeisance to
such a great man as a grand vizier.
(1) The oldest explanation of Mordecai’s refusal is that of ©
in C7 (= 1312), namely, that Haman claimed divine homage,
which Mordecai, as a pious Jew, could not render. This view
has been followed by Jos., 5, RaShI, San., Lap., Ser., Bon.,
Men.,-Tir., Jun., Mal., Drus., Kamp., Bert, Keil; Net., Schu:;
Hal., Raw., Scho., Wild., αἰ. In its support it is claimed that the
Persian kings assumed divine honours, according to Aésch. Pers.
644 ff.; Plutarch, Themist. xxvii.; Curtius, viii. 55*-; and that
Haman, as the King’s vizier, shared this assumption of divinity.
But no such claim on the part of the kings is found in the Pers.
monuments; and, if they had made it for themselves, it is hard to
see why it should have extended to their viziers. Even granting
this assumption, Jews must have been able to bow before Persian
rulers without regarding this as an act of worship. Ezra and
Nehemiah could not have come into the close relations which
they maintained with the Persian court without observing the
rules of Persian etiquette. Esther and Mordecai also must have
observed them when they came before the King. Mordecai could
not become vizier without rendering to Xerxes precisely the hom-
age that he here refuses to Haman, and he must himself have re-
ceived it after his elevation (8'°).
(2) © (cf. 61), the Midrashes, IE., and Jewish comm. in gen-
eral suppose that Haman had an idol ostentatiously embroidered
upon his robe, so that Mordecai could not bow to him without
worshipping the idol (cf. Pirg. Ixix); but this is a gratuitous as-
sumption.
(3) Meg. τεῦ, 16a, and ©: say that Haman had been a slave of
Mordecai and had been a barber for 22 years in the town of Kefer
Qargum, and that this was the reason why Mordecai would not
bow down to him.
MORDECAI DEFIES HAMAN 197
(4) Kuen. and many modern comm. see in this act the influ-
ence upon the author of Greek ideas of freedom. Thus the
Spartan ambassadors Sperthies and Bulis refused to prostrate
themselves before Xerxes (Her. vii. 136).
(5) Caj., Burg. in Bon., Jun., Osi., Grot., Oet., hold that
Mordecai refused to bow because Haman was an Amalekite
(cf. 3'). This idea is suggested also by ©? on 35, where the cour-
tiers ask Mordecai why he refuses to bow to Haman, when his an-
cestor Jacob bowed to Haman’s ancestor Esau (Gn. 335). Such
a motive is quite in accord with the spirit of the book; but here,
as elsewhere, it is not necessary to seek for historical reasons.
The literary reason is clear enough. Mordecai must do some-
thing to provoke Haman in order that he may seek to destroy the
Jews; and this refusal to bow down, unreasonable as it is, serves
the purpose.
3. [L + And the King’s courtiers saw that Mordecai did not
bow down to Haman,] and the King’s courtiers who were in the
gate [© + of the palace] of the King said to Mordecai, [& + say-
ing,] [Ὁ + O Mordecai,] [©* + What dignity hast thou above us
who have to bend and bow before Haman that thou dost not bow
down before him ?] Why dost thou [J + unlike the rest] disobey the
command of the King [L& + by not bowing down to Haman ὃ]
[ἢ + and he would not answer them.]
{G2 + Then Mordecai answered and said to them, O fools, destitute
of intelligence, hear a word from me; and tell me, you villains, whcre is
there a son of man who can exalt and: magnify himself? for he is born of
a woman, and his days are few, and at his birth there is weeping, and
woe, and distress, and groaning, and all his days are full of trouble, and
at the end he returns to the dust; and I, should I bow down to such a
one? I will not bow down, except to the living and true God; who is a
flame of consuming fire; who has hung the earth upon his arm, and
spread out the firmament through his might; who by his will darkens the
sun, and at his pleasure makes the darkness light; who in his wisdom has
set a bound to the sea with sand, while he gives its waters the taste of
salt and its billows the smell of wine; who has enclosed it with a barrier
and shut it within boundaries in the treasuries of the deep that it may
not cover the earth, and that when it rages, the deep may not pass over
its bounds; who by his word created the firmament, and expanded it in
198 ESTHER
the air like a cloud, spread it like a mist above the clouds, like a tent
over the earth, which by its strength sustains both the upper and the
lower world. Before him run the sun and moon and the Pleiades, the
stars and the planets; they miss not their time, they rest not, but all of
them run like messengers to the right and to the left to do the will of
- him that created them. Him it is meet that I should praise, and that
before him I should bow down. ‘They answered and said to Mordecai,
we have heard that thy forefather bowed down before Haman’s fore-
father. Mordecai answered and said to them, Who was it that bowed
down before the forefather of Haman? They replied, Did not thy fore-
father Jacob bow down before his brother Esau, who was the forefather
of Haman? (Gn. 33%). He answered, I am of the seed of Benjamin;
but when Jacob bowed down to Esau, Benjamin was not yet born; and
from that day onward he never bowed down toa man. ‘Therefore God
has made with him an eternal covenant, from his mother’s womb until
now, that he should inhabit the land of Israel, and that the Holy House
should be in his land, and that his habitation should remain within his
borders, and that all the house of Israel should gather there, and that
peoples should bend and bow down in his land. Therefore I will not
bend or bow down before this wicked Haman, the enemy.]
In & it does not appear whether the courtiers spoke to Morde-
cai to warn him of the risk that he ran in disobeying the King, or
because they were jealous of his assumed superiority to them; nor
does Mordecai make any reply to them. Both deficiencies are
well supplied by the long addition of ©».
4. Afterward, when they had spoken to him day after day with-
out his listening to them, they told Haman, so as to see whether Mor-
decai’s conduct would be tolerated [τ + in opposition to the orders
of Haman]. The courtiers bear Mordecai no grudge, and give
him fair warning of his danger; but, when day after day he refuses
to heed their advice, they become irritated and resolve to bring
him to his senses by calling Haman’s attention to him. Be ἰοί-
erated, lit. stand (cf. Pr. 127), 1.6., whether it would be judicially
approved as legal conduct. Others following J translate, “whether
Mordecai would persist in his conduct.”—For he had told them
that he was a Jew [© + and that he did not bow down to Haman,
because he had been his slave, who had sold himself to him for a
loaf of bread; and that he would not bow down to the idol that he
wore upon him, for the Jews do not serve nor bow down to such].
MORDECAI DEFIES HAMAN 1099
From this it appears that Mordecai’s reply to the courtiers was,
that, being a Jew, he could not bow down to Haman. Why his
Judaism was inconsistent with this act of homage, we are not told
(εἴ. νὰ
5. And when Haman [3] + had heard this and] saw that Morde-
cai never bowed [© + to the idol] nor prostrated himself before him,
[Mid. A. G2» + he came toward him from another direction,
and acted just as if Mordecai had saluted him, and said, My lord,
peace be upon thee; but Mordecai said, There is no peace, saith
the Lord, to the wicked.] [Jos.* + And he inquired whence he
came; and, when he learned that he was a Jew,] then Haman was
full of wrath [L + against Mordecai, and anger was kindled
within him,] [Jos. + and he said to himself, that the free Per-.
sians did not hesitate to bow down to him, but that this slave did
not see fit to do so.}_ Apparently Haman had not noticed Morde-
cai’s conduct until the courtiers called his attention to it. This
explains why so many days passed without Mordecai’s getting
into trouble.
2b, say Jom. 1 L.— yr] + αὐτῷ GLE: + ἐπὶ τὴν γὴν πάντας, πάν-
των οὖν προσκυνούντων g3a: the impf. is used to express recurring action
in the past. mymnw ΝΟΥ] om. 6 1, 1Π (exc. οὐ *): + καὶ εἶδον οἱ παῖδες
τοῦ βασιλέως ὅτι ὁ Μαρδοχαῖος οὐ προσκυνεῖ τὸν ᾿Αμάν L.
8. qonn nay] om. GF (exc. 93b *).— ws] om. 95. L.— nn yw] om.
L— 29905] cut 3B: Mapdoxate 248:-++ Mapdoxate G (exc. 44, τού:
930 --).— sD NN 73] cf. 927 2 Ch. 2439, In Dt. 2618 A009 Vay.— M39 ΓΝ]
om. L.
4, »J]om. 6: om. 19) $.— 07x = 7] om. L.— Ὁ5Ν3] OVNI Q. The
K¢thibh is preferable to the Q*ré. The latter would mean ‘as soon as
they spoke.’ ἐλάλουν 6. — wox]om. $ L.— a ov] cf. 24. — 2790 = 1a]
om. 44, 106.—113")] καὶ οὐκ ὑπέδειξαν τοϑα.---- 13770 — MNS] Μαρδοχαῖον
τοῖς τοῦ βασιλέως λόγοις ἀντιτασσόμενον G: quoniam Mardocheus non
obedit regi ut adoret te 17: περὶ αὐτοῦ L: scire cupientes utrum perseve-
raret in sententia J.— >>) καὶ G L.— v9 — 3] tr. after ν. 3 L: καὶ εἶπε Map-
doxatos Ἰουδαῖος εἰμί 71: e0 quod sit Judeus &: Haupt deletes the clause
as an erroneous explanatory gloss to 1377) 1729.— 7] pluperf. as in 2!°
38,—pnd] + ὁ Μαρδοχαῖος G (exc. 106: 930 +).
δ. ὃ -- .5)] om. L.— 2172] om. 8 44, 71, 74, 76, τοῦ, 236.— TNNwny] om.
GF (exc. 93b *).—ann=Ndnn] + στ by K 76, 117, 166, 188, 218, 249
σι: Ὁ: ἐθυμώθη σφόδρα GL: ἐθυμώθη τῷ Μαρδοχαίῳ καὶ ὀργὴ ἐξεκαύθη
ἐν αὐτῷ L: iratus est valde 9: Haupt deletes 1,
200 ESTHER
HAMAN CASTS LOTS TO DESTROY THE JEWS (3°-’).
6. And it seemed to him beneath his dignity to lay hands on
Mordecai alone (©: + to kill him,] for they had told him [© + that
Mordecai was a descendant of Jacob, who had taken away from
Esau, the ancestor of Haman, the right of the first-born and the
blessing, and that the Jews were] the race of Mordecai. So Ha-
man sought to destroy all [J + the nation of] the Jews that were in
all Xerxes’ kingdom, the race of Mordecai [L + in one day] [Jos.2"
+ for he was naturally hostile to the Jews, because the race of
the Amalekites to which he belonged had been destroyed by them.]
[L + And Haman, being jealous, and being stirred in his inmost
soul, grew red, thrusting Mordecai out of his sight.] @ and Jos.
think that Haman wished to destroy the Jews because he was an
Amalekite, but # suggests rather, that it was because Mordecai
had based his refusal of homage on the ground that he was a
Jew. If being a Jew prevented his bowing down, then other
Jews might be expected to act similarly. That Haman should
conceive this preposterous plan of destroying all the Jews for the
offence of one, is perhaps possible. Raw. compares the massacre
of the Scythians (Her. i. 106) and of the Magi (Her. iii. 79). No
reason, however, appears why Haman should postpone his ven-
geance on Mordecai. He would naturally dispatch him at once,
even if he intended to kill the other Jews later. The delay is due
solely to literary reasons.
7. In the first month, that is Nisan, in the twelfth year of King
Xerxes]. ‘The month is numbered and named in the Babylonian
style that was adopted by the Jews after the Exile (cf. 2'*); the old
Hebrew name of this month was Adib. It corresponds to our
March-April. The twelfth year, i.e. of the King’s reign, was
474 B.C., five years after Esther had been made Queen (2!*).—
They cast pur, that is, the lot, before Haman]. ‘The verb is singu-
lar, and Pisc., Bert., Oet., think that Haman is the subject. This
is natural after v. *, but does not correspond well with the next
words, before Haman. Keil, Schu., Rys., Sieg., and most of the
older versions and comm. take the subj. as impersonal, one cast,
HAMAN PLOTS AGAINST THE JEWS 201
they cast (cf. Miill., Syntax, § 123, 2). Perhaps a slave was desig-
nated for this purpose, or perhaps the casting of lots was the func-
tion of a particular sort of diviner. Haman, like the King, must
have had astrologers and soothsayers attached to his court. For
the various theories in regard to the origin and meaning of pur,
see Introduction, § 28. From the earliest times the lot has been
employed in all lands as a means of ascertaining the will of the
gods. Its use among the Persians is attested by Her. ili. 128;
Xen. Cyrop. i. 6"; iv. 5** (cf. Baum. tor /.).
What Haman wished to learn from the lot, we are not told. It
is commonly assumed that he sought to discover an auspicious
day for ordering the destruction of the Jews, and this view is
favoured by the fact that the massacre is planned (3:3) in the same
month for which the lot fell (37); but the first thing that Haman
would wish to ascertain would be, not the day of destruction,
but a lucky day for going to the King to make his request; and, so
soon as a day had been pronounced lucky, we are told that he went
to the King (v.*). This looks as if the lot were cast in the first
instance to find a suitable time for presenting his petition; and as
if, after this day had proved itself unfavourable for the Jews, it
was selected in the following year as the date for their massacre.
—From day to day and from month to month [L J + to know the
day of their death,] [6 & + so as to destroy in one day the race of
Mordecai.]
[Mid. (abbreviated) + The first day was unfavourable because in it
God made heaven and earth. The second day was unfavourable be-
cause in it the waters were separated, as Israel is separated from the
nations. ‘The third day was unfavourable because in it seeds were cre-
ated that the Israelites bring as offerings. The fourth day was un-
favourable because in it the heavenly bodies were created to give Israel
light. The fifth day was unfavourable because in it beasts were created
for Israel to sacrifice. The sixth day was unfavourable because in it
the first man was created. The seventh day was unfavourable because
it was the Sabbath. Then he tried the months. Nisan was unfavour-
able because of the merit of Passover; Iyar, because the manna was
given in it; Sivan, because of the merit of the Law; Tammuz, because
of the merit of the land; Ab, because they had already suffered enough
in that month; Elul, because in it the walls of Jerusalem were finished;
Tishri, because of the merit of the Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atone-
202 ESTHER
ment, and Tabernacles; Marchesvan, because Sarah died in it; Chislev,
because of the Feast of Dedication; Tebeth, because of the merit of
Ezra; Shebat, because of the merit of the men of the Great Synagogue.
But in Adar no merit was found.]
If the view suggested above be correct, that Haman was try-
ing to find a lucky day for going to the King, we must suppose that
he cast lots on each successive day to see whether this were favour-
able for his plans. ‘Those who hold that he was trying to deter-
mine the date for the massacre, suppose that the lots for the differ-
ent days were all cast at one time; but this is hardly a natural
interpretation of the words he cast the lot from day to day and from
month to month. In that case we should expect, for day and day
and for month and month_{G L + and the lot fell for the four-
teenth (L, thirteenth) of the month] the twelfth one, that 15, the
month of Adar]. The text of 4 makes no sense at this point, and
it is necessary with Bert., G, Rys., Wild., Sieg., Buhl, Haupt, to
supply the words inserted by @ L. The reading thirteenth in L
is probably correct in view of 3:5 (see crit. note). Thirteen is an
unlucky number in the Book of Est. as it was also among the
ancient Babylonians. Adar is mentioned only in Est. It cor-
responds to February-March.
6a. om. G (exc. 93b *) L.— vaya 134] [epee Zon τως 99 Ῥ: et
pro nihilo duxit J: et querebat L— "ΟἹ + σι 55.---- 27703] οἱ 1Π.---- Ὑ12Ὁ] ut
perderet eum &.— 3179-13] Haupt deletes as a gloss.— [ὉΠ] om. IG L:
Haupt deletes.— yawns] om. $.— wrnwns —5> nx] om. L.— 533] om. >
3GL.— 31» oy] et Mardocheum et genus ejus LH: τὸν Μαρδοχαῖον καὶ
πάντα τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ Τ,: om. JG: Haupt deletes as a gloss to the preced-
ing oI,— 19970 OY] Daghesh forte dirimens (Ewald § 28).
7. Haupt deletes the entire v. asa misplaced later addition to v. 13, but
the larger part of it is sustained by the Vrss.— wmwns — win] om. L.
-τ- 0.) τ- wins] om. G (exc. δὶ ὁ: ὃ ™E,— wR] + neomenie L.— win] om.
& F.— bn] τῆς βασιλείας G: regnante G.— yor- 57] καὶ ἐποίησεν ψή-
φισμα καὶ ἔβαλεν κλήρους G: decretum fecit et misit sortem GZ: καὶ ἐπορεύθη
᾿Αμὰν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς αὐτοῦ L aft. v.19: missa est sors in urnam, que
Hebraice dicitur phur I.— >] 1x8 §: φοῦρ 93b*.— x7] uote ¥.—
yon Ὡ80] so 93b *: om. 6 L.— wand -ovn] om. L.— vynd] wth var. Oc.:
+ gens Judeorum deberet interfici et exivit mensis B:4- ὥστε ἀπολέσαι
ἐν μιᾷ ἡμέρα τὸ γένος Μαρδοχαίου καὶ ἔπεσεν ὁ κλῆρος els THY τεσσα-
ρεσκαιδεκάτην τοῦ μηνὸς G (93b om.): + τοῦ ἐπιγνῶναι ἡμέραν θανάτου
αὐτῶν καὶ βάλλει κλήρους εἰς τὴν τρισκαιδεκάτην τοῦ μηνὸς 1, aft. ν. 10;
HAMAN PERSUADES THE KING 203
+ perdere gens Mardochei que cecidit sors in quarta cecima die mense
DB: + bujpeo $.— wy ow] om. 6 1, G has).— x7] om. L.— vr] om.
ΘΈ 1, .---τἰν + Νισάν L (Νεισάν 936) aft. v. 10.
HAMAN OBTAINS AN EDICT TO DESTROY THE JEWS (35:.}).
8. [Meg. 13b + When the lot fell on the month of Adar, Haman
rejoiced greatly, for he said, It is the month in which Moses died,
but he forgot that it was also the month in which Moses was born.
Now there was no one who could slander so well as Haman.]
And Haman spoke to King Xerxes [& L + with base heart, evil
things concerning Israel, saying,] [Meg. 135 + Let them be de-
stroyed; but he answered, I am afraid of their God, lest he treat
me as he has those who have gone before me. Haman replied,
They no longer keep the commandments. But, said the King,
there are rabbis among them. Haman answered,] There is a
single [Jos.22 + wicked] people [Meg. + and if thou sayest, I shall
make a bare spot in my kingdom, (I reply,) They are] scattered and
[Meg. + if thou sayest, We have advantage from them, (I reply,)
They live] separated (although) among the races, [© + and nations
and tongues] [Meg. + like mules that are unproductive. And if
thou sayest, they live in one country, (I reply,) They are] i all
the provinces of thy kingdom.] Scattered refers to the Diaspora,
which began with the Exile and reached its height in the Greek
period. The statement that Jews are found im all the provinces
shows that the author lived later than the Persian period. Sep-
arated refers to the barrier of the Law, which the Jews erected in
the post-exilic period to save themselves from being absorbed by
the heathen world. The language of Dt. 45- is in the author’s
mind. What is there the boast of the Jew, Haman here uses as
a reproach._{L + They are a warlike and treacherous people,]
[Jos.22 + unadaptable, unsociable, not having the same sort of
worship as others.] [@? + They are proud and haughty of spirit.
In January they gather snow and in July they sit in (hot) baths,
and their customs are different from those of every people,] and
their laws differ from (those of) every race.
[Meg. + They will not eat with us, nor drink with us, nor will they
intermarry with us.} [ὦ] - Our bread and our food they do not eat,
204 ESTHER
our wine they do not drink, our birthdays they do not celebrate, and our
laws they do not keep,] and the laws of the King they do not obey, [Meg. +
because they observe now Sabbath, now Passover, and other feasts differ- |
ent from ours.] [L%-+ They are known amongall nations to be wicked
and to disregard thine injunctions.] [5 - When they see us, they spit
on the ground, and regard us as an unclean thing; and when we go to
speak to them, or to summon them, or to make them render some service
to the King, they climb over walls, or break through hedges, or ascend
to rooms, or get through gaps; and when we run to seize them, they turn
and stand with flashing eyes, and gnashing teeth and stamping feet, and
they frighten people, so that we are not able to seize them. They do
not give their daughters to us as wives, and they do not take our daugh-
ters unto them; and whoever of them is drafted to do the King’s service
makes an exception of that day with excuses; and the day on which they
wish to buy from us they say is a lawful day, but on the day when we
wish to buy from them they shut the bazaars against us, and say to us, |
It is a forbidden day. In the first hour they say, We are repeating the
Shema; in the second, We are praying our prayers; in the third, We are
eating food; in the fourth, We are blessing the God of heaven because he
has given us food and water; in the fifth, they go out; in the sixth, they
return; and in the seventh, their wives go out to meet them and say,
Bring split beans, because you are weary with working for this wicked
king. They go up to their synagogue and read in their scriptures and
interpret their prophets, and curse our king and revile our rulers, and
say, This is the day in which the great God rested. Their unclean wom-
en on the seventh day go out at midnight and defile the waters. On
the eighth day they circumcise their sons and do not spare them, but say
that they are distinguishing them from the heathen. (The rest of the
passage which relates to the Jewish feasts is too long to insert.)]
No better commentary on the meaning of the v. could be found
than these additions of the Vrss. They show why anti-Semitism
was as prevalent in antiquity as in modern times (cf. Ezr. 41*"'*).
—And it is not proper for the King to tolerate them, [Meg. + be-
cause they eat and drink in a manner to disgrace the King; for
if a fly fall into a goblet of wine, they take it out and drink it; but
if the King touches the goblet of wine, they pour it out.] Ha-
man’s real argument, which is obscured by the additions of the
Vrss., is, that Mordecai’s Judaism has made him disobey the
King’s command; therefore all Jews may be expected to be law-
breakers. This is a good deal like M‘mtkhan’s argument in
JT 16-18,
HAMAN PERSUADES THE KING 205
9. If it seems good to the King, [L & + and the decision is good
in his heart,] [Jos.* + and if thou wilt do a favour to thy sub-
jects]. This is the regular formula for presenting a proposition
to the King (cf. 11°).—Let it be written [© + in a writing] to de-
stroy them, [Jos. + and that no remnant of them be left, nor any
of them be preserved in slavery or in captivity. But, that thou
mayest not lose the revenue that accrues from them, I will make
it up out of my own fortune,] and 1 will weigh out 10,000 talents
of silver [Jos.24* + whenever thou commandest] into the hands of
the proper officials to bring into the King’s treasuries.
[Jos. + And I will pay this money gladly that the kingdom may be de-
livered from these evils.] [J/7zd. 13b + It was known to him who said
one word and the world was created, that Haman would one day offer
money for Israel. Therefore he had commanded before, that they
should pay shekels of silver to the Lord, as we have learned in a mishna,
that on the first of Adar it was announced that the shekels should be
given (cf. JT. Meg. 1°).] [€' G2+ And what does the sum equal?
It equals the 600,000 minas that their fathers paid when they went up
out of the bondage of the Egyptians.]
The unit of measure for silver in the Persian empire was the
light Babylonian royal shekel weighing 172.8 gr. troy and worth
almost exactly 2 shillings. The mina was composed of 60 shekels
and the talent of 60 minas. The talent thus contained 3,600
shekels and was worth about £360 (see HDB. iii. 421; EBi. iv.
4443 ff.; Weissbach, ZDMG. 1907, p. 402). The 10,000 talents
that Haman promised were thus worth about £3,600,000 or
$18,000,000. The purchasing value of this sum was, of course,
much greater in antiquity than at the present time. How the
author came to hit upon this amount is shown by the additions of
Meg., ©, and G2. In Nu. 2* the total number of the children of
Israel is set at 600,000. By paying a mina apiece for their de-
struction, instead of the half shekel that they paid for their re-
demption (Ex. 30'-!*), the sum is obtained (cf. Néldeke in 181. ii.
1401).
According to Her. iii. 95, the total revenue of the Persian em-
pire was 14,560 Euboeic talents or nearly 17,000 Babylonian
talents. Haman thus offered almost % of the annual income of
the empire. How he proposed to raise this vast sum we are not
206 ESTHER
told. Tir., Bert., Keil, Oet., Wild., Sieg., suppose that he in-
tended to secure it from the plunder of the slaughtered Jews (cf.
313), and that this indicates the author’s estimate of the wealth
that was in their hands; but 3 suggests that the plunder was
offered to those who did the work of killing, and in 8" οἵδ the Jews
are permitted to keep the spoil of their enemies. We must sup-
pose, therefore, with Jos. and most comm., that the author means
to represent Haman as promising this sum out of his own private
fortune. In regard to the probability of such an offer opinions
differ. Raw. compares Pythius’ offer of 4,000,000 gold darics
to Darius (Her. vii. 28) and Tritachmes’ income of an artabe of
silver daily (Her. i. 192). Monarchs must have been juster in
the ancient Orient than they are in the modern Orient, if a sub-
ject could safely make such a display of wealth. Haman hopes
that his generous offer will tempt the King to look with favour
upon his plan. Those who regard the book as historical point
out that Xerxes’ finances must have been greatly impoverished
by his unsuccessful war with Greece, and that he would naturally
be glad to recoup himself in this manner.
10. And the King drew off his signet-ring [3] + which he used]
from his hand and gave it to Haman, son of Hamm‘dathd the
Agagite, the enemy of the Jews, [6 + into his hand to seal what
had been written concerning the Jews.] In ancient times the seal
took the place of the written signature, hence to give a man one’s
seal was equivalent to allowing him to sign one’s name (cf. 8°: *- °
Gn. 4142 1 Mac. 615). The Jews were now at Haman’s mercy.
Originally seals were worn on cords hung around the neck.
Subsequently they were set in rings (cf. HDB. Art. ‘Seal’; EBi.
Art. ‘“‘Ring’’). On the proper names, see p. 69. The enemy
of the Jews defines more precisely what is suggested in the title
Agagite (cf. 3').
11. And the King said to Haman, The silver [3] + which thou
hast promised] zs given to thee]. It is beneath the King’s dignity
to take a bribe for doing something that will promote public
welfare. Those who think that Haman proposes to raise the
money by confiscating the property of the Jews, hold that the
King bestows this sum upon him as a reward for his service in
HAMAN PERSUADES THE KING 207
denouncing the traitors.—And the people [€' + is delivered into
thy hand] to do with it as seems good to thee.| ‘Vhere is not the
least delay or hesitation on the part of the King in handing over
the entire Jewish race to destruction. Not merely the Jews in
Susa and in the provinces of the Persian empire, but also those
in Palestine are included in the edict. Despot as Xerxes was,
it may well be questioned whether such an insane project ever met
with his approval.
8. 1] om. $.— [2] om. G (exc. 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120, 236: 93b *)
GZ L—vywns] ficto corde propter genus Judcorumet dixit L: καρδίᾳ φαύλῃ
κακὰ περὶ Ἰσραὴλ λέγων L: + λέγων G (om. 93): Haupt deletes.— 1) }}]
with 3 inserted before the suf. asin Dt. 29 1S. 1439 233 (of. Konig, L. ii. 1,
102; Ols. ὃ 97 b; Stade, $ 3706; Brockelmann in ZA. xv. pp. 347 ff.). The
form should probably be pointed 13%) (cf. Haupt a. /.).— ἼΠΝ] οτα. 85 GF L.
— 79D1]om. & (exc. 93b *) L: incredibile L.— 3752) Vd] both καὶ ptc.
é.X.—onya ps] om. JHL—nw1] om. GHL.— My] Lasse
ΟΦ, $: ταῖς βασιλείαις 1,: + λαὸς πολέμου καὶ απειθής Τ, .---- ΠΤ]
+ et ceremoniis 3,.---- dy b2n]om. JL L.— 5) π| σοῦ βασιλεῦ L: tuis L—
owy] + et optime nosti B:+ qui cognoscuntur in omni pestilentia et
precepta tua spernunt &: + Ὑνοριζόμενοι ἐν πᾶσι τοὶς ἔθνεσι πονηροὶ ὄντες
καὶ τὰ προστάγματά σου ἀθετοῦσι L.—on3n9— qbnby] πρὸς καθαίρεσιν τῆς
δόξης σου L; in diem munitionis glorie tue ἼΠ.-τ- oma] on the Aramaiz-
ing Hiph. inf. with Daghesh, see BDB. 628 B. ‘The word has rather an
Aram. than a Heb. meaning.
9. 310] + καὶ ἀγαθὴ ἡ κρίσις ἐν καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ L: + et optimum est sensut
tuo B.— dra“? snp] δοθήτω μοι τὸ ἔθνος εἰς ἀπώλειαν L: detur mihi
genus hoc in perditionem &.— 97385] om. Ὁ 9S. The Pi. of this vb. is
used of massacres on a large scale (cf. 3132 Κα. 11!), Winck. 26 deletes asa
gloss.—0>]om. JG.— x35 -Sy] om. G (exc. 93h *, 8: 8. ™) LZ.—>y]so
Oc.: 5x var. Or.— 72Nb27 wy] of royal officials in general 93 (cf. 1 Ch. 29°).
Here the following words show that treasury officials are meant.—1379]
om. J.— 133] pl. as in 47.— 507 2] tue J: tuo LD: om. L.
10. aft. 34% L.— pau] + αὐτοῦ A.— rv dyn] om. GH.— Aan] + εἰς
xetpa(s) (ὦ 15 (exc. 8 *).—o77-73] om. GLZL: Haupt deletes as a
gloss.
11. 551 om. L— yon] eum J: αὐτῷ L: om. $ G.—Instead of p27
oym 5 ὉΠ) Haupt proposes to read 7) 110) oyn and to regard 4027 as a
gloss, on the ground that no Oriental monarch would thus make a pres-
ent of 10,000 talents to his vizier. ‘The conjecture is unsupported by the
Vrss., and it is unnecessary to make any emendations in Est. on the
ground that a statement is historically improbable.
208 ESTHER
AN EDICT TO DESTROY THE JEWS IS SENT OUT (312-15),
12. And, [Jos. + when Haman had gained what he desired,]
the King’s scribes were called [ + on that day] in the first month,
on its thirteenth day.| ‘The scribes had charge of the engrossing of
royal edicts (cf. 8°). If every language and script of the Persian
empire was used, as the following clause asserts, there must have
been a large body of clerks. Those who suppose that Haman
cast lots (37) to determine the date for the destruction of the Jews,
think that the scribes were called in the same month. If, how-
ever, the lots were cast to determine a time for asking this favour
of the King, then the scribes were called in Nisan of Xerxes’
thirteenth year (see on 37).
[G: + And the (heavenly) King sent unto his Temple by his righteous
servants unto Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who sai in the chamber
of hewn stones and prophesied there concerning the great wall of Jeru-
salem. And after 72 of its towers had been built, the wicked Xerxes sent
and brought 127 scribes out of 127 provinces, every man with a scroll and
a tablet in his hand; and they sat in the gate of Susa; and they wrote, and
they sent out hard edicts against the Jews and against their laws.]
And a dispatch was prepared in accordance with all that Haman
commanded [& + the scribes] unto [3] + all] the King’s satraps
and unto the governors, [Ὁ + who had been appointed rulers]
over every single province [6 ἸΏ + from India to Ethiopia, 127
provinces,] and unto the officials of every single race]. Here there
are three grades of officials: the satraps, ruling over the 20 great
divisions of the empire; the governors, ruling over the smaller sub-
divisions; and the officials, serving under the governors (cf. 1'- *).
—To every single province in its script, and every single race in its
language], see 12.—In the name of King Xerxes it was written,
and it was sealed with the King’s seal, [L + for no one can annul
that which is sealed.] This is the use to which Haman puts the
seal that is given him v. '° (cf. 88).
13. And dispatches were sent out by means of couriers], cf. 17
31° 810-4, These are the ἄγγαροι of Her., Xen., and Jos., who were
stationed at intervals of four or five parasangs, and who forwarded
THE EDICT AGAINST THE JEWS 209
dispatches with extraordinary rapidity. In 8'° they ride on thor-
oughbred royal race horses; but that is not stated here, as there was
no need at this time for special haste—Unto all the King’s prov-
inces, to destroy, to slay, and to annthilate all the Jews, from boy to
old man, children and women]. ‘The heaping up of synonyms is
in imitation of the legal style, and is common in Est. (cf. 8").
On the probability of this wholesale slaughter, see v. '.—Jn one
day, on the thirteenth of the twelfth month, that is, the month of
Adar]. If, as suggested above, Haman cast lots to determine the
day for presenting his petition to the King (37) and decided on
the 13th of Adar, in Xerxes’ 12th year, then the day for the massa-
cre was set one year later, on the 13th of Adar in the 13th year.
The reason for this extraordinary delay of nearly a year is hard
to find. If the Jews had been warned a year in advance of their
impending destruction, they would have found means to escape.
The massacre of St. Bartholomew would not have been a great
success if the Huguenots had been informed a year beforehand.
Schu. thinks that this long time was needed for the preparation
and sending out of the dispatches to remote provinces, but this
does not accord with what we know of the excellence of the Per-
sian postal system. Bert. thinks that it was to enhance the suffer-
ing of the Jews by keeping them in suspense as long as possible.
Cler., Keil, Raw., suppose that it was to give the Jews an oppor-
tunity to leave the country, but Haman is hardly to be credited
with any such benevolent intention. The reason probably is
merely literary. ‘The author wishes to put the massacre on the
unlucky 13th of Adar in the 13th year, and also to gain time for the
development of Haman’s pride and for the issuing of the counter
edict by Mordecai.—And to plunder their goods [$ + In one day,
in the month of Adar, on the thirteenth it was written.] This is
offered as an inducement to all people to attack the Jews. There
is no suggestion that the plunder is to be gathered into the royal
treasuries or to be given to Haman (cf. 3°). According to Meg. 12a
the reason why God sent this disaster upon the Jews was because
they had attended Xerxes’ feast.
14
210 ESTHER
ADDITION B.
XERXES’ LETTER.
At this point 6@L insert what purports to be a copy of
Haman’s letter (B'-7). Jos. gives a free reproduction of the sub-
stance of @. 5: gives under 4' a letter similar in substance but
differently expressed. It is probably derived indirectly from 6.
In regard to the authenticity of the addition, see Jntroduction,
δ 20. For a critical apparatus to the text, see Paton in HM.
ii. pp. 18-20. The addition reads as follows:—
1Now this is the copy of the letter: The great King Artaxerxes writes
these things to the governors of 127 provinces from India to Ethiopia,
and to the officials that are subject to them. *After I became lord over
many nations, and had dominion over the whole world, without being
lifted up with presumption of my authority, but carrying myself always
with equity and mildness, I purposed to settle my subjects continually
in a quiet life; and, by making my kingdom peaceable, and open for
passage to the utmost coasts, to renew peace, which is desired by all men.
3Now when I asked my counsellors how this might be brought to pass,
Haman, that excelled in wisdom among us, and was approved for his
constant good will and steadfast fidelity, and had the honour of the sec-
ond place in the kingdom, ‘declared unto us, that in all nations through-
out the world there was scattered a certain malignant people, that had
laws contrary to all nations, and continually set aside the command-
ments of kings, so that the union honourably intended by us, cannot be
established. ‘Seeing then we understand that this nation is alone con-
tinually in opposition to all men, following by their laws an alien life,
and evil-affected to our state, working all the mischief they can, that our
kingdom may not be firmly established: *therefore have we commanded,
that they that are indicated in writing unto you by Haman, who is or-
dained over the affairs, and is a second father unto us, shall all, with
their wives and children, be utterly destroyed by the sword of their ene-
mies, without any mercy or pity, on the fourteenth day of the twelfth
month Adar of this present year: ‘so that they who of old and now also
are malicious, may in one day with violence go down to Hades, and so
ever hereafter cause our affairs to be well settled, and without trouble.
14. The contents of the edict (were), Let it be given out as law in
every single province, published to all the races, to be ready for this
day [Jos. + for the destruction of the Jews]. The contents is lit.
THE EDICT AGAINST THE JEWS att
the copy, not a copy, as AV. and RV. render, because the follow-
ing genitive is definite. The purpose of the dispatches has been
indicated so fully already in v. ' that only a brief summary of their
contents is given here. If the long addition of G had stood in the
original text, this v. would have been unnecessary ; or, at least, the
addition must have followed it instead of preceding it, as it is
clumsily inserted in (6. This day means the 13th of Adar, as in-
dicated in v. ™.
15. The couriers went out expedited by the King’s order]. Ha-
man hastens the matter as much as possible so as to get the law
promulgated before the King changes his mind. If there was
such haste, the postponement of the execution of the Jews cannot
have been due to the need of a long time for circulating the edict.
—And the law was given oul in Susa the fortress], 1.6., simultane-
ously with the dispatching of the couriers. On Susa the fortress,
see τ΄, [& + And all the gentiles made a feast,] and the King
and Haman sat down to drink [τ + wine]. Thisisa very effective
piece of contrast. Orders have been sent out that will throw the
empire into confusion, but the King and his prime minister enjoy
themselves after finishing this troublesome business. Perhaps, as
in 7!, we should translate banquet instead of drink, regarding the
verb as a denominative from the word ‘banquet,’ lit. ‘drinking.’
And the city of Susa was perplexed [L + at these events] [G + on
account of the joy of the heathen and the mourning cry of the
people of the house of Israel]. The city of Susa is the metropolis
in contrast to Susa the fortress (see 12). That the people of Susa
would feel any great grief over the destruction ot the Jews is im-
probable. The author here ascribes his own emotions to them.
{& + And the Jews invoked the God of their fathers and said: Lord
God, thou alone art God in heaven above, and there is no other God be-
sides thee. If we had kept thy Law and thy precepts, we should per-
haps have dwelt in peace all our life long; but now, because we have not
kept thy precepts, all this trouble is come upon us. Thou art just, and
calm, and exalted, and great, O Lord, and all thy ways are justice. And
now, O God, do not give thy children up to captivity, nor our wives to
violation, nor to ruin; for thou hast become favourable to us from Egypt
even until now. Pity thy chosen people and give not our heritage up to
shame, that our enemies should rule over us. And in Susa, the city
212
ESTHER
nearest to the King, a copy was displayed and the writings became
known.]
12. 13-1899] om. L.— wer] + αὐτὸς ὁ μὲν Νισὰν (kal) Ν᾿ © ame inf,
93b +.—13 ov] om. G (exc. δὶ & ame, 93b +): τοῦ μηνὸς 44, 71, 74, 76,
106, 120, 236: Lupe σι §: die G.—an>] om. 19: λέγων γράφε L:
καὶ ἔγραψαν G: et scripta sunt L.— ws ?—So3]0m. L.— 5329 om. 6G (exc.
930 *).—ox] + omnes J.— ΡΥ ΓΝ] τοῖς στρατηγοῖς G: et ducibus LZ:
satrapes 31: Yaw 25 $: wid wrwor 1: yp T2. (Cf. 89 93.) The word
is Pers. khshatéa-pavan, Gr. σατράπης, ‘protectors of the realm’ (cf.
Spiegelberg, Altpers. Keilinschr., p. 215. Lagarde, Ges. Abhil., p. 68, 14;
Sem., i. 42 7. reads jPywAN.— Tbr 3] om. G (exc. 93b *).— ΠῚ ΠΡ Π] a loan-
word through the Aram. of As. palzdéti, an abbreviation of bél-pahati,
‘lord of the province’ (see BDB. 806).— Sy] + 53 $6 L.— amin] τὰς
χώρας L: πόλεις 936.-- Γ)) 2] om. G (exc. x “- *) L (exc. 93@).— 3N33— xt]
om. L.— nv 5x] om. J.— opr oy] LSa8as ὅ5: τῶν ἐθνῶν κατὰ τὴν αὐτῶν
λέξιν G: uniuscujusque loct gentium secundum inter pretationem eorum D.
—anwss—arsn] om. 6H.— wrwasx] so Oc.: var. Or. wwnx: Haupt
deletes.— 2n>3] om. IG: pr. καὶ 93b L.— bon -- nn] om. G (exc. 930 *).
—onng)] on) Ba. G: καὶ σφραγίζου L: Niph. pf. or ptc. Τῇ pf., it is an
instance of the late use of pf. with connect. instead of impf. with ¥con-
sec.— ona 4] ipsius 33.
13. Winck. 26 deletes the whole ν. as a late addition.— πο) Niph.
inf. abs. in continuation of the narrative after impf. with ) consec. (see
Kau. ὃ 113, 2).— pysan— mw] kal ἀπεστάλη διὰ βιβλιαφόρων G (βιβλιο-
γράφων 245, 248, C, Ald.): καὶ ἔσπευσε καὶ ἔδωκεν εἰς χεῖρας τρεχόντων ἱπ-
πέων 1, (tr. aft. 31%): et dimisse sunt littere per librarios L.— 901 -- 9x}
om. L 44, τοῦ: els τὴν ᾿Αρταξέρξου βασιλείαν (ᾧ G.— 135) 775] om. 6 FZ L
(exc. 93b *).— 2995] pr. » J.— 33Ndy] om. I.— 52 nx] τὸ γένος GFL.—
Ὁ} Φ)}-- Ἴ)57 om. GF (exc. g3b *): ἀπὸ ἀρσενικοῦ ἕως θηλυκοῦ καὶ διαρπάζειν
τὰ νήπια Τ,.-τ-- 10} -- Ὁ.)}2] om. L.—awy nvbwajom. (6 17 (exc. 93) *).—
wy ow) undecimoL: om. $.— x7] om. 55.-- wvinjom. $ GF (exc. οϑὐ Ἔ).
—abovi] «σι.» 5.5.1. 9: καὶ τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῶν (ᾧ G.— 12>] διαρπάσαι
GE:+ wods2] lems ASAD 59] τὰς πῶ pwr 9.
14, om. 1, 71.--τ 3737 yawns] summa epistolarum hec fuit J: τὰ δὲ ἀντί-
ραφα τῶν ἐπιστολῶν G: om. H.—yawn] cf. 48 813, Τὴ Ἔχε. 4. 33 56 7"
it appears as }2w7p. It is a loan-word through the Aram. from O. Pers.
paticayan (see Andreae, in Marti, Aram. Gram., p. 79*; Gildemeister,
WZKM. iv. 210; Lagarde, Ges. Abhi. 79; Armen. Stud. § 1838; Meyer,
Ent. 22; BDB. 1109).—10379] 137? Ba. G: μὲ scirent 3|: ἐξετίθετο G: et
imperatum est &. The inf. with Ὁ is regarded by Sieg. as introducing the
contents of the edict, as in 1%. Haupt regards the clause 933 ΠῚ yn3m>
ΤΥ ΟῚ 73.90 as equivalent to a relative clause modifying 3n27.— ΓΙ] see
18 15 212 38: om. IS GEL (exc. 93) *) — boa] om. 55 G: omnibus E.—
DHE DERRORVOR LH JEWS 213
Dnyn=AD] om. L.— 72-70] om. G (exc. 93) *).— onya-da]om. I.—
3] .--339 §: καὶ προσετάγη G: not in agreement with ΓΟ which is f. (cf.
38. 18 411), but with the impersonal subj. of πὴ understood before Γ΄.
Keil, Haupt, take it in agreement with yawnp, and regard the clause be-
ginning with }7399 as a parenthesis explaining the contents of the edict;
but on this interpretation the publication of the law takes place before
the sending out of couriers (ν. 15). Keil avoids this difficulty by translat-
ing 192 ‘unsealed’ (cf. Je. 32" '4), but this is less natural than the con-
struction proposed above which is that of Bert., Rys., Sieg. — 719 — nay]
Winck. (26) deletes as a late addition.—ony] so ΝῚ 5. Br. C B!: ory
Ba. G.—ar17] statutum 10.
15. qoon-—os79] om. L.— ws>- 0-897] om. 6 27 (exc. 93b *).— οὐβυπτ
7313] ἐσπεύδετο δὲ τὸ πρᾶγμα GE (γράμμα 52, 64).— dp) lit. ‘driven,’
‘impelled.’ The vb. occurs only here and 6" 8" 2 Ch. 262°.— 5:7] om.
GE (exc. 936 *).— 7301 ΓΙ ΠῚ] om. G (exc. 93b *).— Ἰρ 31 103. some
codd. and edd.: + et convivium fecerunt omnes gentes G.— A127] om. J
G@L (exc. 93b *).—rinw— yon] om. L: Aman autem cum introisset
regiam cum amicis luxuriabatur G.— nw] + | ee] $.— 933 -- Vy]
tr. aft. 4! L: om. & (cf. 4°): et cunctis Jud@is qui in urbe erant flentibus J.
— vv] so B?: γυῖγυ Ba. G: om. J G (exc. 936 *).
MORDECAI AND ALL THE JEWS ARE FILLED WITH TERROR (4: ἢ).
1. When Mordecai had learned {© + through Elijah the high
priest] all that had been done] {© + in the highest heavens], i.e.,
not merely the royal edict published in Susa and the consequences
of his arrogant refusal to bow down to Haman, but also the cir-
cumstances of the issuing of the edict. In 47 Mordecai is able
to tell Esther how Haman obtained the decree. The same secret
sources of information that helped him in the case of the two
eunuchs (2%) apparently still stood at his disposal.
[Φ! + And that the people of the house of Israel had been condemned
to be destroyed from the world; and that, just as it was written and sealed
to destroy them from off the face of the earth, so it was written and sealed
in the highest heavens, because they had enjoyed the feast of the wicked
Xerxes (however the seal was sealed with clay); then the Lord of the
world sent Elijah the high priest to declare to Mordecai himself that he
should continue praying before the Lord of the world for his people: and
when he knew this,] [L + coming to his house,]
Mordecai rent his garments, and clothed himself with a hair
214 ESTHER
garment [© + upon his flesh] and [6 & IT: + strewed] ashes
[Ὦ δ! + upon his head]. These were familiar signs of mourning
among the Hebrews (Gn. 377%: * 1S. 412 2S. 121319 1532 1 K. 2051 ¢.
2 K. 650). The garments were rent when bad news first arrived.
Haircloth and ashes were put on later. The ellipsis of a verb
before ashes is supplied by the Vrss., but the insertion is unneces-
sary. ‘These rites belonged originally to the cult of the dead,
being designed to protect one from the attacks of malevolent
spirits; subsequently they became general signs of grief, and were
believed to be efficacious in turning away the divine wrath (1 K. 2127
2 K. 19'f Dn. g* Jon. 3°). Nothing is said by the author of any
religious significance in Mordecai’s conduct, but it can hardly be
doubted that this was in his mind (see p. 95).—And Mordecai
went out into the midst of the city and raised a loud and bitter cry
[32 + from the court of the men even unto the gate of the women,]
[G: + and wept in the bitterness of his spirit with the voice of one
afflicted], Cf. Gni 77 2 9 τ ΠΧ 27 3 ἘΠΕῚ ὙΠ 995 ix 27. --
[ὦ 1 + saying, An innocent people is condemned to death.]
[Meg. ταῦ + Haman is greater than Xerxes, an earthly king is
more esteemed than a heavenly.] [3 + Alas! how terrible is this
edict that the King and Haman have decreed against us. Not
a half is cut off and a half spared, not even a third or a fourth;
but concerning the whole body of us he has decreed to destroy
and to uproot (followed by a long account of an assembly of the
Jews and Mordecai’s address to them).]
2. And [Jos. + having spoken thus,] he came as far as the
space in front of the gate [© + of the palace] of the King [6 L +
and stood], for no one could enter the gate [© + of the palace] of
the King in hair clothing [6 + and ashes]. Haircloth was a sign
of mourning for the dead and, consequently, was ceremonially
unclean (among the Persians?), so that Mordecai could not enter
the palace ; but he was anxious to come as near as possible in order
to establish communication with Esther. On the question whether
he would have had access if he had not been dressed in mourning,
see 2". On King’s gate, see 21%
3. And in every single province [© + and in every single city]
wherever the King’s command and his law arrived, [Jos. + all did
THE TERROR OF THE JEWS 215
the same as Mordecai;] there was great [L + and bitter] mourning
[G + and grief] among [L & + all] the Jews, and fasting, and weep-
ing, and lamentation [Jos. + on account of the calamities decreed
against them]. These are probably to be understood as religious
acts performed in unison by the Jewish communities when the
fatal news reached them. After the fall of Jerusalem days of
mourning and fasting became a regular part of the Jewish calendar
(of. Zc. 73-5 819 Lev. 2327%-). In g”- 3: laments and fasts are con-
trasted with ‘‘good days” or holidays——Haircloth and ashes were
spread out by most of them (©: + that were righteous], that they
might lie and sit upon them as the expression of deepest grief
(see note). Here also there is no mention of God, yet it cannot be
doubted that the acts have a religious significance (see p. 95).
1. 0] et hic L— 53] om. G¥.—rwys wy] scripta que erant in
epistola G: +. 3 43 in part g.v. L. yp] περιείλετο L.— 3770] om.
IGGL: Haupt deletes.— pw] appears also as a sign of mourning in Baby-
lonia (cf. III. R. 36, 3d; Winckler, Altor. Forsch. ii. p. 44; Jensen, KB.
vi. p. 400), from which Zimmern (Κ 4 7.3 pp. 603, 650) concludes that it
is a Bab. loan-word in Heb. It seems to have been a loin-cloth of goat
or camel hair, the original dress of the desert, that survived in later re-
ligious rites.— ἼΡΝῚ] καὶ σφοδωθεὶς L: om. 71.— 770)— ΝᾺ] om. L.— ΝΥ]
om. x3v J.— 3] διὰ τῆς πλατείας G: per totam plateam B.— py] + év
Σύσοις τῇ πόλει 93b + .— Apy1] et vociferans GZ: om. 71.— A] om. B 71.
-- ΠΥ] om. 6 25: ostendens amaritudinem animi sui et hoc ejulatu J.
2. 129] et sedit L.— ry] in L.— 1189] om. B: atrio L— -ΨΨ] τὴν αὐλὴν
L: aule B: τῆς πόλεως 93h: τῆς αὐλῆς A.— yor] τὴν ἔξω L: muliebris D:
om. 93).— px]-+ wedly bwotal §.— ΝΣ pr] of. Kau. ὃ 114 k.— rye]
τὴν αὐλὴν GL: πύλην 8 © ἃ πε 93b: om. L.— nA] om. G ZB: τῆς πόλεως
93): τὰ βασίλεια L.— pw] + καὶ σπόδον & (936 +).
3. tr. to 41 L: tr. to 318 end G.— ayn] πόλει L: om. L.— Γ)} 1] op pidis
3: om. GF S (exc. δὶ © ἃ πρὶ 93b *).— pyran — 7971] om. L.— opr] ae locis
3.— d)pn] cstr. before the relative clause (Kau. ὃ 130¢).— 739] τὰ γράμ-
ματα (Ὁ: exemplum epistole & (τὸ πρόσταγμα & © ὃ me),— qbnn] om. 6E
(exc. 8 & mz, g3b *).— NW] crudele I: om. $GL.— yr] intrans. ‘ar-
rived,’ cf.6" Gn. 2813,---- bax] pr. καὶ G L: tr. aft. 12021 G.— dy] + ἐγένετο
44: + ἐγίνετο 74, 76, τοῦ, 236.— 093719 -- ὈΥΧῚ] 0m. L L.— 0131] om. G (exc.
930 *).— 231] κραυγὴ G (κλαυθμός 93h *).— D0] + ἦν καὶ A: + καὶ 44,
74, 76, 106, 120, 236, C.— ys] pro strato utentibus J.— 0°31] ἑαυτοῖς G.
If the text be sound, 0°395 must be translated ‘by most of them.’ For >
expressing the agent after a passive vb., see Kau. § 121 f. The presence
of the article precludes the translation ‘many’ of AV. and RV. Haupt
210 ESTHER
reads ys) (ptc. = yD, of. Kau. § 53 5) and translates ‘most of them had
a sack-cloth and overspread ashes.’ In this case y¥) agrees only with
3px, and 5 with 0°27 denotes possession.
ESTHER INQUIRES WHAT IS THE MATTER, AND IS CHARGED BY
MORDECAI TO GO TO THE KING, AND TO PLEAD FOR HER
PEOPLE (4"-9).
4, And Esther’s maids and her eunuchs came in and told her
[Jos. + that Mordecai stood thus in mourning garb before the
court]. The maids have been mentioned before (2°); the ewnuchs
were assigned after her marriage (cf. 4°). These people all know
that Esther is a relative of Mordecai (cf. 22) and understand that
she will be glad to hear news of him; yet, strange to say, none of
them suspects that she is a Jewess (cf. 22°). How this is possible,
the author does not explain. What they tell Esther, apparently,
is merely the fact that Mordecai is in mourning (cf. vv. 7 jf.).—
And the Queen was exceedingly shocked [6 + when she heard
what had happened], not, as Haupt thinks, at the fact that Morde-
cai was so slightly clad, for this was customary, but at the grief
of which it was a sign. Jewish authorities differ as to the way in
which Esther’s distress showed itself (see Meg. 15a). According
to Mid. she gave birth to a still-born child—And she sent [© +
royal] garments to clothe Mordecai, and to take his haircloth off
from him], so that he might come into the palace and tell her more
fully what had happened. The author assumes that Esther could
hold an interview with Mordecai, provided that he were properly
dressed (see 2").—[L & + And she said, Bring him in] [@ + that
I may know what my brother wishes, why I hear the voice of my
brother, a loud voice of trouble and mourning and weeping and
distress and need; and the eunuch went out and told him,] but he
would not receive them [Jos. + nor put off his haircloth, because
the sad occasion that made him put it on had not yet ceased.]
This addition of Jos. gives correctly the reason for the refusal.
Since nothing had yet been done to relieve the Jews, Mordecai
could not take off the dress of a suppliant.
δ. So Esther called [Meg. 15a, ©: + Daniel, who was surnamed]
ESTHER IS CHARGED BY MORDECAI 217
Hathakh (Meg. 15a, ©: + because by the utterances of his mouth
the affairs of the kingdom were decided, ] one of the King’s eunuchs
whom he had put at her disposal]. Since Mordecai will not lay
aside his haircloth and come to her, Esther is compelled to send
a messenger to him. On the name Hathakh, see p. 70.—And
charged him concerning Mordecai, [3] + that he should go] éo learn
[J + from him] what this meant [© + that he was weeping with
such a lamentable cry,] and why it was [© + that he did not re-
ceive the royal garments that she had sent unto him.] [Meg. 15a
+ Have the Jews perchance transgressed the five books of Moses ?]
The additions of © indicate admirably the scope of Esther’s in-
quiries. Two things puzzle her, why Mordecai is in mourning,
and why he will not put off his mourning. Both problems Morde-
cai solves in wv.?-8.
6. And Hathakh went out [τ + to speak] to Mordecai, into the
city-square that was in front of the gate [© + of the palace] of the
King]. The square, lit. the broad place, denotes the open space,
outside of the gates of all Oriental cities, that is used as a market-
place. On the gate of the King, see 219.
7. And Mordecai told him all that had happened to him (©: +
because he had not bowed down to Haman and had not wor-
shipped his idol], 1.6., he explained the circumstances that had led
him to put on mourning. What these were, the next clauses de-
scribe more fully.— [Jos. + And the dispatch which had been sent
by the King into all the country,] and the exact amount of silver
which Haman had offered to weigh [© + into the hands of the
collectors of the revenue] for the King’s treasury, (6 & + namely,
10,000 talents] for the Jews, in order that he might destroy them.
Cf. 3°. Happened is used as in 613; exact amount, as in τοῦ. Mor-
decai shrewdly calculates that this buying of the Jews will rouse
Esther’s wrath more than anything else. The King’s refusal to
take the offer he does not mention, so that money seems to be the
only cause for the Jews’ destruction. How Mordecai came to
know of this private transaction between the King and Haman,
we are not informed.
8. And the copy of the draft of the law to destroy them, which had
been published in Susa, he gave him to show to Esther and to explain
218 ESTHER
to her (©: + what the wicked Haman had devised against the
people of Judah]. In order that there may be no doubt in Esther’s
mind as to the gravity of the situation, Mordecai gives her docu-
mentary evidence. On copy, see 3; on Jaw, 1%. Contrary to
the accents, Bert. attaches ¢o explain to the following clause, but
this does not improve the sense. Perhaps we may infer from it
that Esther was unable to read Persian, so that Hathakh needed
not merely to show her the edict, but also to interpret the con-
tents.—And to enjoin upon her to go to the King to implore mercy
of him, [Jos. + and, for the deliverance of her people, not to think
it beneath her to assume a humble mien,] and to entreat him [ἴθι +
for pity] on behalf of [L + himself and] her race [some codd. G +
and her native land,] [6 L + remembering her lowly days, when
she was brought up by his hand, because Haman, the next in rank
to the King, had sentenced them to death; and to call upon the
Lord, and to speak to the King on their behalf, and to rescue
them from death.] Hitherto Mordecai has counselled Esther
to conceal her origin (cf. 21:5), now that nothing is to be gained by
secrecy, he advises her to reveal the fact that she is a Jewess in
hope that through love for her the King will be moved to spare
her people.
9. And Hathakh came and told Esther [(Ὁ + all] the words of
Mordecai. [{& + And it came to pass, when Esther had read her
brother’s letter, that she rent her garment, and cried out with a
bitter and loud voice, and wept copiously, and her body was made
to tremble and her flesh became exceedingly weak.] This passage
in & takes the place of v. * in #, but logically it follows it.
4, mypsnDy—AyNIAN)] Kal ἐκάλεσεν εὐνοῦχον Eva καὶ ἀπέστειλε πρὸς ’Ko-
θήρ L: et audivit Hester regina vocem Mardochei fratris sui Hebraica
voce lingua &.— Ayan] awam Q Oc.: eso $.—ny:] om. s.—
mpDy] om, 1 H.—AND=Hy] om. L¥.—dnonnni] Aithpalp. from ow
(see Stade, ὃ 518 c) = ‘writhe.’—1N2 nssnn] quod audiens J: ἀκούσασα τὸ
γεγονός &.— voyn—nbwn)] καὶ εἶπεν ἡ βασίλισσα περιέλεσθε τὸν σάκκον L:
et misit spadonem, qui presto erat in conspectu tpsius, dicens, vade, ext
celerius hinc, et auferes vestimenta que est indutus, et indue illum vestt-
menta alia &—d13] om. G (exc. 93b *).— 2790 NN] ewm J.— ap Ny]
et noluit Mardocheus deponere saccum et omnem humilationem suam Z.
bap is an Aram. form. Cf. 9% 27.
ESTHER IS CHARGED BY MORDECAI 219
5. om. L&.— ponrJaft. ws J: αὐτῆς G: om. 249.— 1359 - ws]om. 71.
—-pnyn] sehc] $.— 9] is not equivalent to 9x v.!° (AV. RV.), but means
‘concerning’ (cf. Gn. 122° Nu. 8” 1 Ch. 22!f-), Haupt emends to 5x.—
τ» 5] + ab eo 3: + αὐτῇ G (93b +): + αὐτόν δ «9 A,N, 71,74, 76, 120,
236, 249.— 71 MD] τὸ ἀκριβές G: + τὸ ἀκριβές * τί τοῦτο 930: om. 71.—
m—5yy] om. IG (exc. 93) *).— τι 3] om. 85.
6. om. GZ L (exc. 935 *): 8 & mE has εἰς τὴν πλατείαν τῆς πόλεως 4
ἐστὶν κατὰ πρόσωπον THs πύλης τῆς πόλεως: A has ἐπὶ τὴν πλατείαν πρὸς
τῇ (τῇ A * τὰ sup. ras. A*) βασιλέᾳ.--- sna] palatii J.
7. om. L.—w7p- 1] om. F.— 93] om. (6 (exc. δὶ & 8 πᾷ 93h *).— ON)
—end of v.] simul de decem millibus talentorum que dedit Aman pretium
perditionis Judzorum & (tr. aft. 48).— 727] om. G (exc. & δ: * mE, 93b *).
—S pw] om. G (exc. δὶ © 5, 930 *).— by] + δ $.— Ὁ] Thy S: τὴν
γάζαν G: pl. as in 3°.— 707] om. S—ovw3] 9973 Ὁ Oc.: o72_var.
Oc. 20f the price as Ly. 17%.
8. “ΤΌΝ -- ΓΝῚ] om. L, 71: tr. w. rest. of v. Z.— -3n>] so Ben Asher: 39
Ben Naphtali (Ginsburg): om. $ G (exc. 8 © 5, 93b *): with Qamets in
the cstr., of. Kau. ὃ 93 τὸ. w—nv] om. GE (exc. δὶ © 5, 93b Ἔ).--
Dyown>—aAwWsN] om. G.— ]3] om. 44, 74, 76, τού, 236.— o1 own] om. IB:
inf. w. > giving the contents of the law, cf. 31} 41} 64.— 772] misit L— 1]
confestim &.— nds -- nyxn9b]om. £.— anos] regine J.— 319>)] καὶ εἶπεν
(01: ἀλλ᾽ εἶπεν L: om. J $— 15] αὐτῷ G: οὕτως L: spadoni L: om. J 9.—
nso] ἐντείλασθαι G: ἐρεῖτε L: vade dic G.— aby γυνὴ cf. 219 Gn. 215
286 1 K. 23 aJ.— xvab-end of v.] surge, quid sedes et taces? quoniam ve-
nundata es, tu et domus tua et patris tui, et gens et omnis progenies: surge
si poterimus pro gente nostra laborare et pati, ut Deus propitius fiat genti
nostra &.— 89-135] μὴ ἀποστρέψῃς τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα L.—
w125] εἰσελθούσαν Α.--- 15 ὩπηΠὉ] cf. 85 Hos. 125 Jb. 9! το15.--- wapdp wpady]
om. J 71.—y wpa] cf. 77 Ne. 2! Ezr. 828, in the sense of ‘beg (favour)
for,’ alate usage.—ny] Tod λαοῦ GL: + καὶ τῆς πατρίδος δαὶ ὁ ams, A, 44,
71, 74, 76, τού, 120, 236, 249, 936 *.
9. Factum est autem cum legisset Hester litteras fratris sui, scidit
vestimentum suum et exclamavit voce amara et gravi, et ploravit ploratione
magna, et corpus ejus formidolosum factum est, et caro ipsius concidit
valde &.— N73 813)] om. L.— 47] cf. 45: Αχθραθαῖος καὶ ἜΑ: ᾿Αγχραδαῖος
44.— 3-410 Jnab] om. 93b.— ΠΌΝ 5] so 8 * A, 64, 243, 249, C, Ald.:
αὐτῇ & L.— 2772 -- ΓΝ] τὴν ὀδύνην τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ L.— ΓΝ] + πάντας & (exc.
44, 71, 74, 76, 100.— "2)0}}} τούτους G,
220 ESTHER
ESTHER FEARS TO GO TO THE KING, BUT IS URGED BY MORDECAI
TO DO SO (4!°14).
10. And Esther instructed Hathakh and ordered him (6 © + to
go and to say] unto Mordecai]. ‘The pregnant construction of G
is rightly interpreted by @.
[1 + That he should not stir up strife with Haman by taking upon
himself the enmity that existed between Jacob and Esau. Esther also
put words into Hathakh’s mouth, saying to him: Speak thus to Mordecai,
Has not the wicked Haman decreed through the command of Xerxes
that no one may go in unto the King into the inner court without per-
mission ?]
11. All the King’s courtiers and the people of the King’s prov-
inces know, that for every man or woman who goes in unto the King
into the inner court without being called] [© + by the mouth of
Haman] one penalty is prescribed, namely, to put (him or her) to
death, except that person to whom the King [J + in token of clem-
ency] may extend the golden sceptre in order that he may live, [Jos.
+ for whenever the King does this to one who has come in un-
called, he not only does not die, but obtaining pardon, is saved.]
The law that no man might approach the King without summons,
was designed to give dignity to his person and to protect him from
assassination. According to Her. i. 99, it was first enacted by
Dioces the Mede. According to Her. iii. 72, 77, 84, 118, 140;
Corn. Nep., Conon 3; it was also enforced by the Persian mon-
archs (see Baum., pp. 82 ff.). Her., however, is careful to state
that people might send in a message to the King and request an
audience. If this had not been permitted, the King would have
been shut off from communication with the outer world. The
Book of Est. knows no such qualification. According to it, even
the Queen had no way of obtaining an interview with her husband,
except by waiting for a summons. This is most improbable.
Either the author does not know Persian custom, or he intention-
ally suppresses his knowledge in order to make Esther’s going to
the King more heroic. Jos. tries to solve the difficulty by the as-
sumption that this law applied only to members of Xerxes’ house-
ESTHER FEARS TO GO TO THE KING 221
hold (see the addition in 2%). This is very unlikely. @', followed
by Lyr. Ser., adds the hypothesis that Haman had enacted this
law recently to keep Esther from getting word to the King; but
Haman evidently has no suspicion that Esther is a Jewess (5"'.),
and the words all the people of the provinces know show that the
law had long been in force. Keil and Schu. suppose that Esther
might have requested an audience of the King, but feared to do
so because she was not in special favour, not having been sum-
moned for thirty days. If, however, she were out of favour, why
was it wiser to go to the King at the risk of her life than to request
an audience? ‘These theories all fail to render the narrative
probable. The zzner court is in contrast to the outer court of the
King’s house (64). From it (5!) one could see the King sitting
upon his throne (see on 1°).
[52 + And for thirty days I have been praying that the King may not
desire me and may not cause me to sin; because, when I grew up in thy
house, thou usedst to say to me, that every woman of the house of Israel
who is taken and brought to the house of a heathen of her own accord,
has neither part nor lot with the children of the tribes of Israel.]
And now for thirty days I have not been summoned to go in to the
King, [. £4 + and how can I go without being summoned Ὁ]
These words clearly assert that Esther knows no way to obtain
an audience with the King, except by waiting for a summons; and
this she has no reason to expect, since she has not been called for
amonth. The case of Phadyma (Her. iii. 69) is not parallel, since
the question there is not the obtaining of an interview with the
false Smerdis, but the obtaining of a chance to see whether his
ears have been cut off. The reason for the cooling of Xerxes’ af-
fection is not given. ‘The comm. suppose that another woman
now enjoyed his favour.
12. [τ + Now when the wicked Haman saw Hathakh, whose
name was Daniel, going to and fro to Esther, his anger waxed
‘great against him, and he slew him; but instantly there came
thither the angels Michael and Gabriel (similarly ©*),] and they
told Mordecai [G + all] Esther’s words, [ΤΠ + and Mordecai was
angry.] In ν. 10 Hathakh was sent to Mordecai; here the sub-
ject changes suddenly to the pl. and Hathakh is not again men-
222 ESTHER
tioned. From this ὅθι, @:, and Jewish comm. infer that Hathakh
was killed by Haman. We should probably follow the Vrss. in
reading the sg.
13. Then Mordecai told [τ + Michael and Gabriel] to reply to
Esther [© + speaking thus to her]:
[5 + perhaps thou fanciest and sayest to thyself, I am called to sov-
ereignty merely to be Queen; and perhaps thou thinkest and sayest to
thyself, I do not need to ask pity for the house of Israel; but, if the foot
of one Jew stumbles, do not suppose that thou alone of all the Jews shalt
escape out of the King’s house, because Saul thy ancestor brought this
evil upon Israel. If he had carried out that which the prophet Samuel
commanded him, this wicked Haman of the seed of the house of Amalek
would not have come against us, and this son of Hammedatha would
not have come against us, and would not have bought us from the King
for 10,000 talents of silver, and the Holy One, blessed be he, would not
have delivered us into the power of two wicked men (followed by a long
account of God’s deliverances in the past).]
Do not imagine that thou wilt [δ᾿ + get away and] escape
[ὁ ZI + alone] (in) the King’s house apart from all the Jews}.
Mordecai does not reproach Esther with indifference to the fate
of her people, but shows her that she is in the same peril as they.
Going to the King may be dangerous, but staying away is just as
dangerous. Although she is the King’s wife, Haman will not
allow her to escape, when he knows that she is a Jewess, particu-
larly as she is a relative of the hated Mordecai. No allowance
is made for the possibility that the King may make an exception
in Esther’s favour. Imagine is lit. form in thy soul.
14. For if thou dost persist in remaining silent at this time,
[L ©: + and dost not make intercession for the Jews,] relief and
deliverance will appear for the Jews from some other quarter [© +
on account of the merits of thy forefathers; and the, Lord of the
world will deliver them out of the hands of their enemies]. Here,
as elsewhere, the author goes out of his way to avoid mentioning
God. On the reason for this, see Introduction, ὃ 29. L, Jos.,
@', G2, supply the religious deficiency by the insertion of the name
of God. Although the author does not mention God, there is
little doubt that he thinks of the ancient promises that Israel shall
never perish. Sieg. supposes that he thinks rather of the help of
ESTHER FEARS TO GO TO THE KING 223
some other nation, as, for instance, of Rome in the Maccabean
period (1 Mac. 817 121). Even that, however, he might have re-
garded as providential—But thou and thy family will perish
[Jos. + at the hands of those that are lightly esteemed] [© + on
account of this fault]. Jos. and Lap. suppose that the Jews
themselves will avenge Esther’s disregard of them. Most comm.
think of a special divine judgment inflicted upon her for neglect
of her opportunity. Even though the other Jews may be rescued,
she and her family will not be suffered to go unpunished. Bert.
and Sieg. suppose the meaning to be, that many Jews will avoid
the consequences of Haman’s edict, but that he will not allow
Mordecai and Esther to escape him. Family, lit. house of thy
father, is family in a wider sense, or clan.—And who [G: + is the
wise man who] knows if [G+ in the coming year] αὐ a time like
this thou [ + art called and] hast come unto [: + the possession
of] royalty, [3] + that thou mayest be ready] [& + that thou may-
est deliver thy people]. The meaning of this sentence is uncer-
tain, and there is reason to suspect textual corruption (see critical
note).
10. ἡττῦ -- ἼΣΟΝ] om. L.— nxn] ef misit BH: ‘command,’ as 117 415: 15
6! g4.— ἼΠΌΝ] om. JL.— nab] spadonem suum &: πρὸς αὐτόν 44, τοῦ: et
J.— sm] πορεύθητι G: om. L.— 5x] by Sebhir cf. 45: κατὰ L: the con-
struction with acc. of the person and 5x is correct, cf. 8? Ex. 6!3.— 3399]
Tae L: ταῦτα 93a: eum 1Π: + καὶ εἶπον (+ αὐτῷ 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 236)
87. G: + λέγουσα L: + dicens@: + grolsad 9.
11, min -- 55] om. 1, &.— qbna—- ayy] om. 6 S (exc. & & 8 mg, 93h *).—
oy] et cuncte J.— 927] que sub ditione sunt 9: Artaxerxes rex &: σὺ L.
—p yt] so N! N? Br.: oy Ba. G: γινώσκεις L: dixit L.— 53] παρὰ πάν-
Tas L.— awn) wx] homo omnis gentis &: om. L.— ΓΘ ΒΩ — 5x 2] om. L.—
ssn] here f. (cf. 5! 6), see Albrecht, ZATW. xvi. 49.— mn "1bn] so A BL:
τὴν ἐσωτέραν &.— 75 — nny] absque ulla cunctatione statim interficiatur
3: οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῷ σωτηρία GL: θανάτου ἔνοχος ἔσται L (aft. 3717).— nnx
ὙΓ] lit. ‘one is his law.’ An anacoluthon. After ‘every man or woman’
we should expect ‘has one law,’ or ‘is under one law.’ The indirect object
implied in the suffix of 1n7 is placed absolutely at the beginning of the
sentence, ‘as for every man . . . one is his law.’ ΓΠΝ is placed first for
emphasis.— wxn 135] instead of wx abo (Nu. 62) or Wwsxo Ec. 322.—
pw] of. 52 84, an Aramaism.— 15] om. 6@ L (exc. 8 © 5, 93b).— Ton 4]
om. L.— aw] cf. 53 δ΄, the Aram. equivalent with inserted Ἢ of Heb. vaw
224 ESTHER
(see Stade, § 243, 6; Strack-Sieg. §18c; Kau. ἡ ὃς το; Krauss, Gr. u.
lat. Lehnworter im Talmud, p. 142. All the authorities read wow
(3 Raphe), but the As. equivalent is Sabbitu, which shows that 35 has come
from resolution of 3 (cf. Haupt, a. /.).— any] om. L.— 135] om. L.—
qbnn 5] αὐτόν L.— 71] ‘now’ (cf. BDB. p. 261, ὃ 42). οὐ Ὁ] JaXZ $—
Dy] + igitur quomodo ad regem intrare potero J: + et quomodo introibo ad
regem et exiit & + καὶ πῶς εἰσελεύσομαι viv ἄκλητος οὖσα L: + καὶ ἀπελ-
θῶν γι.
12. om. L.—1992))] awe 8: καὶ ἀπήγγειλεν G: Buhl and Haupt read 739):
+ ‘Axpabatos G ((Αρχαθαῖος A: cf. 45): + spado G— 21105) ili DZ: +
πάντας & (93b +).— ἼΠΟΝ -- ΓΝ] om. J: ταῦτα 71: verba ipsius GB.
18. oN] καὶ ἀπέστειλε L.— 2112] om. ILD: + πρὸς ᾿Αχραθαῖον
((Αχθραθαῖον x) πορεύθητι καὶ (6 (93b +) (om. πρὸς ᾿Αχραθαῖον A, 71:
αὐτῷ 44, 106): + πρὸς αὐτὴν L: + spadoni intra L— awd] rursum 3}:
εἰπὸν © 17: καὶ elev L.— sy] αὐτῇ (Ὁ 10 L.— nox] + dicens J: om. LE 44,
71, 74, 76, 106, 236.—%x—end of v.] om. L.—vbnab] salva fiar EB:
+ tantum 9: + ada] S: + μόνη (Ὁ 1Π.--- nr m3] pr. -29 9: ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ
GG: + ada} $.— 7 m3] generally regarded as acc. of place. Is it
possible that we have here an instance of the late Heb. use of m»2 in the
sense of ‘wife’ (see on 27)? In that case the clause would mean ‘that
thou shalt escape as wife of the King.’ ‘This rendering is suggested by
the addition in &, guoniam uxor regis sum. Waupt reads n»33 as in 19.
— 537 1 in the sense of separation, ‘away from,’ ‘as an exception to,’
as Ru. τὸ (see BDB. p. 578 4).
14, 53] ws ὅτι G: ὅτι A, 44, 71, 74, 76, τοῦ, 120, 236: om. $ L.— wana}
om. 6 17 L (exc. δὶ & ἃ mg, 93b *).—wrnn] παρακούσῃς G: ὑπερίδῃς L: non
premiseris L.— m7 nya] τοῦ ἔθνους cov + τοῦ μὴ βοηθῆσαι αὐτοῖς ἀλλ᾽ L.
—n)] [duced S: om. J: βοήθεια GL: βοηθὸς L: lit. ‘interval,’ ‘res-
pite,’ only here and Gn. 32!7. According to Haupt, JBL. xxvi. p. 33,
the word should be pointed πγ1.---- 753m] καὶ σκέπη G: et defensor G: καὶ
σωτηρία L.— Woy] pr. οὐκ 106.— ny] in the sense of ‘stand forth,’ ‘ap-
pear, ’as Ezr. 263 Ne. 755, a late usage.— Sib] dems G: αὐτοῖς L (ἐν
αὐτοῖς 93a).— ANN DPD] per occasionem aliam J: ἄλλοθεν GV: ὁ Geds L.—
nNid nyd-ox pr 1] Who knows, followed immediately by an impf., is
equivalent to perhaps. Most comm. assume that who knows if has the
same meaning. nyb is commonly rendered for a time, and the whole
sentence is translated, perhaps for a time such as this thou hast attained to
royalty, 1.6., thou hast providentially been raised to the position of Queen
in order to help thy people in this emergency (cf. Gn. 457 507°). No
other instance occurs, however, where who knows if is equivalent to per-
haps. If this were the meaning, instead of O08 we should expect Ν᾿) Ων or
nba, whether not. Moreover τὰν ordinarily means at a time. Accord-
ingly Bert., Keil, Reuss, insist that 08 must be given full conditional force,
and that an implied apodosis must be supplied from the context. Bert.
ESTHER RESOLVES TO GO TO THE KING 225
and Reuss translate who knows (what may happen), if at a time like this
thou goest to royalty? (i.e.,to the King). Keil translates, who knows, if at
a time like this thou hast attained royalty, (what thou shouldst do?).
Schu. translates, who knows whether for a time like this thou hast come to
royalty? in the sense, who knows whether thou hast sufficient courage to
act like a queen in thisemergency. @! takes ny> temporally, and under-
stands /ike this to refer to the corresponding season of another year, so
that the whole sentence means, who knows whether a year from now thou
wilt be Queen? ‘These interpretations are all unnatural, and one is com-
pelled to suspect textual corruption, although the Vrss. support the read-
ing of #1. Perhaps for yt) knowing, we should read yry will harm
(Zp. 12), and translate, and who will harm, tf at such a time as this thou
hast drawn near to the royal presence? 1.6., how can any one hurt thee,
when he learns what impelled thee.to this step? The clause will thus
be an encouragement to Esther to run the risk. For yan in the sense of
‘draw near,’ see 4964817 οἱ. 26, For 7139) ‘kingdom,’ as a synonym for
‘king,’ see 19: 19 216 51 68 815, It is analogous to the English use of
‘majesty.’— neta] + -o δ 2.2] $.— mond] + ut in tali tempore para-
reris J: - ut gentem tuam liberes. Et introtit spado, et renuntiavit verba
Mardochei Hester regine ©: + καὶ ἀπελθῶν ἀνήγγειλεν αὐτῇ 71.
ESTHER RESOLVES TO GO TO THE KING (415-17),
15. [3 + And the eunuch went in and reported to Queen Esther
all the words of Mordecai.] Then Esther told [τ + Michael and
Gabriel] to reply to Mordecai [G6 L + saying] [J + as follows,]
(& + Master, brother, if it seems best to thee, I will go in, though
I may die].
16. Go, gather all the Jews that are found in Susa [{§ + the for-
tress,] and fast for me, and eat nothing for three days, [& + and tell
the elders to keep a fast; let them separate the sucking babes at
night from their mothers, and let not cattle or sheep graze during
these days,] [Ὁ + and pray before the Lord of the world night
and day]. Mordecai’s argument is convincing, and Esther re-
solves to go to the King at once; but since she appears on behalf
of the Jews, she desires their spiritual support. On found, see 1°.
The number of the Jews in Susa must have been considerable,
since, according to 9'*, they were able to slay 300 men. Fasting
can only be a religious act designed to propitiate God. Normally,
it is followed by prayer (2 S. 12'*-3 τὸ K. 2127-:* Dn. g? Jo. 1"
15
226 ESTHER
Jon. 35:9. Here, however, in accordance with the author’s cus-
tom, no mention is made either of God or of prayer (cf. 43: * and
see Introduction, § 29). By three days only parts of three days
are meant. Esther begins to fast on the day that Mordecai gives
her information about Haman’s plot, continues to fast the follow-
ing day, and on the third day goes to the King (51). This consid-
eration detracts somewhat from the observation of the old comm.
that she trusted in God rather than in her beauty, which would be
impaired by three whole days of fasting.—I also and my maidens
will fast likewise]. Although the maids given by Hégai (2°) must
have been heathen, yet Esther values the help of their fasting;
and they are loyal enough to her to be willing to undertake it.
Bon. supposes that under the religious instruction of Esther they
had become proselytes to Judaism.—And in this condition I will
go to the King [3] + uncalled], although this is not in accordance
with the law; and if I perish (© + from my women’s quarters and
am taken away violently from thee (cf. Meg. 15a),] I perish
[@: + from the life of this world for the sake of the salvation of the
people of the house of Israel ;] [G2 + but I shall have a part in the
world to come]. Jf I perish, I perish is a despairing expression
of resignation to the inevitable, as Gn. 43", “If I am bereaved,
I am bereaved.” No religious enthusiasm lights up Esther’s re-
solve. She goes, as one would submit to an operation, because
there is a chance of escaping death in that way.
17. And Mordecai [© + was sad and indignant and he] crossed
over and acted in accordance with all that Esther had enjoined upon
μην. Ordinarily ‘cross over’ means ‘transgress.? Assuming
that the fast began on the 13th of Nisan (312), and that Mordecai
fasted three days, he must have continued to fast until the 15th
of Nisan, which was the feast of Passover; thus he transgressed
the law of Ex. 12 (so Rab in Meg. 15a, ©, G2, Mid., and Mich.).
There is nothing, however, to show that Esther’s fast began on
the same day on which the scribes began to write (313), and it is
quite unnecessary to put this meaning upon ‘crossed over.’ Most
recent comm. assume that this means no more than ‘proceeded’
(cf. Gn. 185 Nu. 225 a/.), and this is certainly a possible interpreta-
tion. In Meg. 15a R. Samuel asserts that a sheet of water lay
THE PRAYER OF MORDECAI 227
between the palace and the city, which Mordecai was obliged to
cross. It is a fact that the Acropolis of Susa was separated from
the city by the river Choaspes, the As. Κη and the modern
Ab-Kharkha, and to this fact the author of Est. may allude in the
expression crossed over.
[Φ! + And he transgressed against the joy of the feast of Passover, and
he appointed a fast and sat in ashes.] [%-+ And the bridegrooms went
forth from their couches, and the brides from their dainties; the elders
also and the old women went out to pray. He prescribed that the cattle
and the sheep should not graze for three days and three nights. All
put on ashes and invoked God most high that he would take pity upon
their humility. Mordecai, moreover, rent his garments, and spread
haircloth beneath him, and fell upon his face to the earth with the
elders of the people from morning until evening (similarly @?).) [Ὁ +
At that time they investigated and found in the assembly 12,000 young
priests, and they gave them trumpets in their right hands and books of
the Law in their left hands; and, weeping and lamenting, thus they cried
toward heaven: O God of Israel, this is the Law which thou hast given
us. If thy beloved people perishes from the world, who will stand and
read from this and will make mention of thy name? ‘The sun and the
moon will be darkened, and their light will no longer shine, because they
were created solely for the sake of thy people. And they fell upon their
faces and said: Answer us, our Father, answer us! Answer us, our
King, answer us! And they blew upon their trumpets, and the people
responded after them, until the hosts of heaven wept and the forefathers
forsook their graves.]
ADDITION C.
THE PRAYERS OF MORDECAI AND ESTHER.
At this point 6 271, insert the following prayers of Mordecai and
Esther (Addition C'-° = Vulg., Eng. 13%-141"). Jos. has the
passage in a different and greatly abbreviated form. Yos. ii. 3
and Mid. also give distorted versions of it. @? inserts a different
prayer of Esther after 5'. In regard to the authenticity of the
passage, see Introduction, § 20. For the Greek text and variants
see Paton, HM. ii. pp. 24-27. The addition reads as follows:
‘Then he made his prayer unto the Lord, calling to remembrance all
the works of the Lord, ?and said, O Lord, Lord, thou King Almighty,
the whole world is in thy power, and if it be thy will to save Israel, there
228
ESTHER
is no man that can gainsay thee: ‘for thou hast made heaven and earth,
and all the wondrous things that are beneath the heaven; ‘and thou art
Lord of all, and there is no man that can resist thee, who art the Lord.
8Thou knowest all things, and thou knowest, Lord, that it was neither
in contempt nor pride, nor for any desire of glory, that I did not bow
down to the proud Haman. ‘For I should have been glad for the sal-
vation of Israel to kiss the soles of his feet. 7But I did this, that I might
not place the glory of man above the glory of God: neither will I bow
down to any but to thee, who art my Lord, neither will I do it in pride.
8And now, O Lord, thou God and King, the God of Abraham, spare
thy people: for they watch us to bring us to naught, and they desire to
destroy the heritage that has been thine from the beginning. *Despise
not thy portion, which thou didst redeem out of the land of Egypt for
thine own self. !°Hear my prayer, and be merciful unto thine inheri-
tance: and turn our mourning into feasting, that we may live, O Lord,
and sing praises to thy name: and destroy not the mouth of those that
praise thee, O Lord. "And all Israel cried out mightily, because their
death was before their eyes.
Queen Esther, also, being seized with the agony of death, fled unto
the Lord: 'and laid away her glorious apparel, and put on the garments
of anguish and mourning, and instead of fine ointments she covered her
head with ashes and dung, and she humbled her body greatly, and all
parts (of her body) that she (ordinarily) rejoiced to adorn, she covered
with her dishevelled hair. “And she prayed unto the Lord, the God of
Israel, saying, O my Lord, thou only art our King: help me that am
desolate and have no other helper but thee: '*for my danger is at hand.
1From my youth up I have heard in the tribe of my family, that thou, O
Lord, tookest Israel from among all the nations, and our fathers from all
their progenitors, for a perpetual inheritance, and didst perform for them
whatsoever thou didst promise. '7And now we have sinned before thee,
and thou hast given us into the hands of our enemies, !*because we glori-
fied their gods: O Lord, thou art righteous. '*Nevertheless it satisfies
them not that we are in bitter captivity: but they have joined hands with
their idols, 2°that they will abolish that which thou with thy mouth hast
ordained, and destroy thine inheritance, and stop the mouth of them that
praise thee, and quench the glory of thy house, and thine altar, *tand open
the mouths of the heathen to celebrate the virtues of idols, and that a
fleshly king shall be magnified forever. 30 Lord, give not thy sceptre
unto those that do not exist, and let them not laugh at our fall: but turn
their device upon themselves, and make him an example that has begun
this against us. *3Remember, O Lord, make thyself known in the time
of our affliction, and give me boldness, O King of the gods, and holder
of all dominion. “Give me eloquent speech in my mouth before the
lion: and turn his heart to hate him that fights against us, that there may
THE PRAYER’ OF ESTHER 229
be an end of him, and of those that are like-minded with him: *but de-
liver us with thine hand, and help me who am desolate and have no one
but thee, Ὁ Lord. **Thou hast knowledge of all things; and thou
knowest that I hate the glory of him who does not keep the Law and
abhor the bed of the uncircumcised, and of every alien. ?7Thou knowest
my necessity: that I abhor the sign of my high estate, which is upon
mine head in the days when I shew myself. I abhor it as a menstruous
rag, and I do not wear it when I am quietly by myself. ™And thine
handmaid has not eaten at Haman’s table, neither have I honoured the
King’s feast, nor drunk the wine of the drink-offerings. ?*Neither has
thy handmaid had any joy from the day that I was brought hither to
the present, but in thee, O Lord, thou God of Abraham. 300 God, that
art mighty above all, hear the voice of the despairing and deliver us out
of the hands of the wicked, and deliver me out of my fear.
15, 7oNny] καὶ (ἐξγ)απέστειλεν G L.— ἼΠΟΝ] ἡ βασίλισσα L.— awn]
rursum JY: τὸν ἥκοντα πρὸς αὐτὴν G (om. πρὸς αὐτὴν A): denuo cum
misisset qui ad eam venerat G: om. L.— 3970 ὍΝ] a Mardocheo ©: om. L:
+ λέγουσα G&L.
16. 15] οπι. 1, 35.-- Οὐ ΠῚ -- Ὁ0)2] παραγγείλατε θεραπεῖαν L: predica
igitur sanitatem £&.— "3] om. G (exc. δὶ ©: 5, 93b * μοι πάντα) ---- ONyDI7]
duly 55: 0m. GF L.— wwa] om. LE.— ow - ws)] καὶ δεήθητε τοῦ θεοῦ
ἐκτενῶς L.— vos] et orate J.— xy] om.1 57 codd. R, Ν' © 3,.-ττ- Ὁ] on
72 codd. R, @ ISGL: om. H.— ov] ποιήσομεν L.— 15] om. £ (ὁ (exc.
Ν & 8,935 *).— 122)] om. 1: καὶ τότε GZ: καὶ L: according to Bert., Wild.,
with so-called Beth essentie, which is used either with the primary or
secondary predicate to express an essential state of the subj.; ‘as such,’
1.6., ‘as one who has fasted three days’ (cf. Lv. 17!4 Ez. 1319 Ec. 810.
Kau. § r19ii; BDB. p. 88, 1.7). According to others, 3 has the ordinary
meaning, and the phrase means simply ‘in such a state.’— 1wx] the ante-
cedent is the previous clause I will go tothe King. Others regard xb swe
as equivalent to Syr. [15 ‘without.’—n>—- Ws] παρὰ τὸν νόμον G: ἄκλη-
τος L:+ non vocata 9: om. G.— ΣΝ 2-- Wwe] ἐὰν καὶ ἀπολέσθαι με ἢ
(δέῃ) G: εἰ δέοι καὶ ἀποθανεῖν με L: habens in manu animam meam + exiit
spado et dixit verba ejus L: tradensque me morti et periculo J.
17, 73y%)] om. 739° L.
230 ESTHER
THE DELIVERANCE OF THE JEWS (5'-9'*)
ADDITION D.
ESTHER GOES TO THE KING AND IS GRACIOUSLY RECEIVED
(51-2 = D116),
These verses are expanded in ( & L into Addition D = Chap. 15
in J and AV. For the Gr. text and variants, see Paton, HM.
ii. pp. 27-29. Mid. has a similar passage.
1(= D's =15'-). Afterward, on the third day [© + of the
Passover,][@ & L + when she had ceased praying, she put off her
garments of worship,] [© + after she had fasted three days in
succession, and she arose from the dust and ashes where she had
bowed herself without ceasing,] [& + and washed her body with
water, and anointed herself with ointment;] then Esther clothed
herself [Vrss. + in garments of] royalty, [53 + adorned with pure
gold of Ophir, made of fine Frankish silk, ornamented with
precious stones and pearls brought from the province of Africa.
And she put on her head a crown of pure gold, and shod her feet
with sandals of fine gold,] [& + and adorned herself with orna-
ments,] [ὦ + and the Holy Spirit rested upon her (cf. Meg. 152).]
Although Esther has besought the favour of God through fasting,
she does not fail to make use of her own charms. On the third
day, cf. 4.5.
[Ὁ 271, + *And being majestically adorned, after she had called upon
the all-seeing God and saviour, she took her two maids with her: ‘and
upon the one she leaned, as though she were delicate; ‘and the other
followed bearing her train. ®And she gleamed in the perfection of her
beauty, and her countenance was cheerful, as though ‘she knew that
she was lovable, but her heart was in anguish for fear. *Then she passed
through all the doors.]
And she stopped [© + and prayed] in the inner court of the
King’s house [© + which was built] over against the King’s house
(G: + that was in Jerusalem.] On inner court, cf. 4%. Over
against refers to Esther, not to court or house. ἴθι refers it to
ESTHER GOES TO THE KING 231
house, and understands it to mean that the palace in Susa was the
counterpart of the palace (or temple) in Jerusalem. On King’s
house, see 25: 9. 13 413,
[.eg. τοῦ + And as she passed by the house of idols the divine pres-
ence left her. ‘Then she said, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me? Dost thou judge a sin committed accidentally as one done in-
tentionally, and one committed under compulsion as one done willingly ?
Or is it perhaps because I have called him a dog ?]
And the King was sitting upon his royal throne in the royal
house, [ζϑι + and he saw everything] over against the door of the
house.| From the inner court Esther can look through the open
door and see the King seated on his throne at the farther end of
the throne-room. He can look out and see her standing in the
court. Here she pauses to see what the King will do. She has
already violated the law in coming as far as the inner court (4").
On royal throne, see τ. The royal house is regarded by Dieulafoy
as the throne-room in distinction from the King’s house, or royal
residence, but in 1° 215- 156 the two are identified. Probably the
expression is chosen merely for variety.
[ὦ 31, + *And he was clothed with all his robes of majesty, all covered
with gold and precious stones; and he was very terrible. 7Then he
lifted up his countenance that was flushed with glory in fierce anger.]
[€' + Then Esther answered and spoke thus: Lord of the world, do not
deliver me into the hands of this uncircumcised one, nor accomplish the
desire of the wicked Haman upon me, as he accomplished it upon Vashti,
whom he persuaded the King to put to death, because he wished him to
marry his daughter. But it was the will of Heaven that she should be
afflicted with a loathsome disease so that her mouth stank exceedingly,
and they led her forth as quickly as possible. So she was excluded in
order that I might be married to him. Now, then, render me acceptable
in his sight, that he may not slay me, but may grant my desire and my
petition which I am about to ask of him. Thou also in the multitude
of thy mercies be favourable to my people, and do not deliver the chil-
dren of Jacob into the hands of Haman, son of Hammedatha, son of
‘Ada, son of Biznai, son of Aphlitus, son of Deiosos, son of Peros, son
of Hamdan, son of Talyon, son of Atnisomus, son of Harum, son of
Harsum, son of Shégar, son of Négar, son of Parmashta, son of Way-
zatha, son of ’Agag, son of SGmqar, son of ‘Amalék, son of ’Eliphaz,
son of the wicked Esau (cf. T? on 3').]
232 ESTHER
2 (=D7-6 =157-*). Presently, as soon as the King saw Queen
Esther standing [© + sorrowfully] in the court [τ + with both
her eyes streaming with tears, and looking up toward heaven,]
[Ὦ + he was enraged and determined to destroy her, and he shouted
uncertainly, and said, Who has dared to enter the court un-
called ?]
(G?+ And Haman, the bodyguard of the King, wished to slay
Esther.] [6% L+ 7And the Queen fell down, and turned pale, and
fainted, and she bowed herself upon the head of the maid that went be-
fore.] [Meg. τοῦ + And three angels came to her aid in that hour. One
lifted up her head, the second endued her with grace, the third lengthened
the King’s sceptre. How much? According to R. Jeremiah it was
2 cubits long, and he extended it to 12 cubits; others say 16, others 24,
a Baraitha says 60. R. b. Uphran said in the name of R. Eliezer,
who had heard it from his teacher, and he from his, that it became 200
cubits long; and] (6 151, + 8God changed the spirit of the King to mild-
ness, and in an agony he leaped from his throne, and took her in his
arms, till she came to herself again, and he comforted her with soothing
words, %and said unto ‘her, Esther, what is the matter? I am thy
brother, be of good cheer: !thou shalt not die, for our commandment is
for the common crowd only: come near.]
And she won his favour, and the King extended to Esther the
golden sceptre that was in his hand, [Jos. + and laid his staff upon
her neck, thus legally delivering her from alarm.] And Esther
approached and [© + grasped his hand and] touched the head of
the sceptre.
(6% L+ "And he kissed her, and said, Speak unto me. Then she
said unto him, I saw thee, my lord, as an angel of God, and my heart was
troubled for fear of thy glory. ‘For wonderful art thou, my lord, and
thy countenance is full of grace. And as she was speaking, she fell
down for faintness. ‘Then the King was troubled, and all his servants
comforted her.]
The simple statement of 4 that Esther succeeded in her venture
is not enough for the Vrss. which find here a rare opportunity
for embellishment. Instead of the colourless expression she won
his favour, (ὦ G&L say that God changed the spirit of the King.
ESTHER’S REQUEST 233
1 (=D!) Ay] om. 17) JH.— wad] καὶ περιεβάλετο (21, 2Π.- >-08]
+ vestimentis J: om. 6: + beans &: τὰ ἱμάτια L: vestimento L—
min] τὴν δόξην αὐτῆς G: τῆς δόξης L: glorie sue BD: so also 6 8:5.
Possibly, with Bert., Rys., Wild., we should follow the Vrss. in inserting
va. Others think that n13?2 may be an adverbial acc. = ‘royally,’ or
that it may mean ‘regalia.’—1 (=D®). ΡΠ] κατέστη G: ἔστη L: in
the sense of ‘came toa stand’ (cf. Jos. 10! Ju. 9%).— Jonn 2—snyny] om.
£.— nyn3p7 — ἼΣΠ2] om. G L.— 93] ἐνώπιον G L: κατενώπιον g3b x “- 5.
—n3}] om. 6 L.— ybna] et ille I: καὶ αὐτὸς G: et invenit Artarxerxem
regem &: οὗ αὐτὸς 93b.— 199] om. M1999 3, το: glorie sue H.— m3an— 723]
om. 6 L G.— [023 -- ΓΊΣ 9 Π] ΟΠ]. S.
2 (=D’). 7] om. 1 JS: om. 6 LF L.— 83] so Ben Asher (Gins-
burg): ™ > Ben Naphtali, B?: ἔβλεψεν GL: ἐνέβλεψεν L (aft. D7):
om. 8 * A.— p97] om. JG L&.— “γον ΓΝ] om. G: αὐτῇ L: eam L—
sna —72>p7] om. 6 LZ.— »sn3] om J.— jn axwy] cf. 217.— yyya—aRwy]
kal μετέβαλεν 6 θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ βασιλέως εἰς πραύτητα G: καὶ μετέβαλεν
ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ μετέθηκε τὸν θυμὸν αὐτοῦ εἰς πραότητα
L: Deus autem tram convertit in miserationem et furorem ipsius in tran-
quillitatem £&.—2 (=D). vey] καὶ dpas GLE: see 411.---- y5na] om.
56 L&— ΤΟΝ" contra eam 3: om. 6 L.—we-sweysa .~ —3V ΟΠῚ.
L.— 113 Wws] om. G L: οὐ extendit in manu ipsius L.— ὙΓῸΝ 34pN)] que
accedens 31: om. 6 L&.— y17] osculata est 9: Lywlo BS: ἐπέθηκεν GL:
om. &.— 23929 wsr3] ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτῆς GL: om. H:+ Lon 5.
THE KING OFFERS TO GRANT ANY REQUEST, BUT ESTHER ASKS
ONLY THAT HE AND HAMAN WILL COME THAT
DAY TO A BANQUET (53-5).
3. And the King said to her, Whatever thou dost wish, Queen
Esther]. Lit. whatever is to thee. In Jos. 1518 this is used of a
desire and is so understood here by the Vrss.—And whatever thy
petition is]. A clearer statement of the thought of the preceding
clause. The King recognizes that only a pressing need can have
led Esther to run the risk of coming unsummoned. [@' + Even
if thou dost ask] as much as half of the kingdom, it shall be given
thee.| Cf. 5° 72.9% This is a polite formula, like the Oriental
“take it for nothing,” that is not meant to be understood too lit-
erally, cf. Her. ix. tog, where Xerxes offers to give Artaynte what-
ever she asks, and is much distressed when she takes him at his
word; also Salome’s request of Herod (Mk. 6%). The construc-
tion is elliptical to express the King’s haste in reassuring Esther,
234 ESTHER
[Φ᾿ + Except the rebuilding of the House of the Sanctuary, which
stands in the border of half of my kingdom, I cannot grant, for so I have
promised with an oath to Geshem the Arabian, Sanballat the Horonite,
and Tobiah the Ammonite, the slave, that I would not permit it to be re-
built; for I am afraid of the Jews, lest they rebel against me. This re-
quest then I cannot grant thee, but whatever else thou shalt ask of me, I
will decree that it shall be done for thee immediately, and that thy de-
sire shall be granted.]
4. And Esther said, [6 L + To-day (to-morrow) is a notable day
for me.] 17 it seems good to the King, let the King and Haman
[L & + his friend] come to-day to the banquet which I have prepared
for him.] That Esther should thus postpone her request, when
the King was in good humour, is psychologically most improbable.
Instead of asking for the life of the Jews, she asks only that he
will come to a banquet. At the banquet she still refuses to pre-
sent her petition (57). Not until a second banquet does she speak
out (γ 1). The older comm. suppose that she wished to make
the King merry with wine before she offered her request, or that
she desired greater privacy, or that Haman was not present, and
that she needed him for the dénotiment. ‘These explanations are
all unsatisfactory. The true reason for Esther’s delay is purely
literary ; the author needs time for the humiliation of Haman and
the exaltation of Mordecai before the final blow falls. Why
Haman should be invited with the King is hard to see. Such an
invitation would only rouse suspicion, and his presence might
counteract all of Esther’s influence. Lyr. thinks that it was to
rouse the jealousy of the other princes of Persia who were not in-
vited. Meg. τοῦ gives twelve explanations offered by the rabbis.
No one of them commanded general assent. Even the prophet
Elijah could not tell Rabba b. Abuhu the reason. Here again
the motive is purely literary. The author wishes to heap honours
upon Haman in order to heighten the contrast with his impending
fall.
[G2 (v. 8) + There were three reasons why Esther invited Haman to
supper. The first was that Esther knew that Haman had seen how
Hathakh had been a messenger between Esther and Mordecai; so Esther
said, I will invite Haman to supper. The second reason was, that she
might uproot hatred from his heart; and then, said she, I will provoke
a σὺ 3...
ESTHER’S REQUEST 235
jealousy between Xerxes and Haman, since the King will say, How
comes it that of all my princes Esther has invited no one but Haman to
supper? The third reason was that Esther said, The eyes of all the
house of Israel are turned upon me, that I may ask King Xerxes to kill
Haman. I will surely invite him to supper, that the hearts of the chil-
dren of Israel may be changed, and that they may turn to their Heavenly
Father and may implore his pity.]
The initial letters of the words Jet the King and Haman come
to-day spell the divine name 7". In a few codd. they are written
large to call attention to this fact. Jehring, Bullinger, Cumming,
al. assume that this is intentional, and is designed by the author
to offset his usual avoidance of the name of God! (see Introduction,
ὃ 29). On prepare a banquet, see 1°- *- 9 2!8.
δ. And the King said [J + at once], Fetch Haman quickly that
Esther’s wish may be gratified.| Lit. for the doing of the word of
Esther (cf. Dn. 85). And the King and Haman came to the ban-
quet which Esther had prepared, [lL + a costly repast].
3. 25] om. 6 LG (exc. 8 © 4m A 44, 71, 930, 106).— Poor] om. L.—
9 πο] rigor L 71: τί θέλεις G: que est postulatio tua G: τι is indefinite =
‘whatever’ (cf. Kau. ὃ 137¢; BDB. 553, 1e).— ἼΠΟΝ] succedanea et consors
regni mei &.—rDn7] om. 6 L| (exc. & © 4, 93d under *).— Nwpa Any]
ἀνάγγειλόν wor L.— wpa] cf. 58 7 8739! Only in Est. and Ezr. 7§.—
73] καὶ ἔσται G: καὶ ποιήσω L: et faciam GB.
4, \nox] illa J: regina D: + ἡμέρα μου ἐπίσημος σήμερόν ἐστιν (Ὁ: ἡμέρα
ἐπίσημός μοι αὔριον 1, (1 οτη.).--- 210 -- ὈΝῚ postulatio mea rex &:-+ οὐ-
secro §.—s)1)] in agreement with the nearest subj. bec. preceding,
of. v.8.— dv yor) tSn7 ΝΊ2 Ἵ a few codd.— bon om. J: καὶ αὐτὸς G: ὁ
βασιλεὺς 8% ame A 52, 108d, 243, C, Ald., 64, 93b: σὺ L &.— yon] - ὁ φίλος
σου L:-+ amicus tuus &.—odv7] om. K ror, 158, 180, R 562, 593, 667,
850, $: αὔριον L: cras L.— 15] ad me J: om. GL: apud me 17: p> T.
5-8. Winck. (36) deletes as an erroneous repetition of 71.
δ. 1970) Opa» δ“. $:om. 15: Pi. ‘hasten,’ in the sense of ‘bring in
haste,’ as Gn. 185 r K. 2292 Ch. 188 Est. 6!°.— yon nx] om. G.— 135 ny]
leche ye] $— 708] regine L—x2-end of v.*] om. L.— yo nr]
ἀμφότεροι & L.— ΓΝ — Ws] om. $.— Anwy] εἶπεν G.— ΠΝ] ets regina
3: + δεῖπνον πολυτελές L (93h under +): om. 240.
236 ESTHER
AT THE BANQUET THE KING AGAIN OFFERS TO GRANT ANY RE-
QUEST, BUT ESTHER ASKS ONLY THAT HE AND HAMAN
WILL COME TO ANOTHER BANQUET ON THE
FOLLOWING DAY (55-5).
6. And the King said to Esther during the wine-drinking, What-
ever thy request is, [Ὁ ©: + Queen Esther,] it shall be granted thee;
and whatever thy petition is, [τ + Even if thou dost ask] as much
as half of the kingdom, it shall be done.| After the meal wine-
drinking began (¢/..Her..1. 122; Est. 75. 1 Dn. το *), “Tins put the
King in good humour, and he repeated his offer. The language
is almost identical with that of v. ", q.v.
[G' + Except the building of the House of the Sanctuary, which stands
in the border of half my kingdom, I cannot grant thee, because I have
promised with an oath to Geshem the Arabian, Sanballat the Horonite,
and Tobiah the Ammonite, the slave, that I would not permit it to be
rebuilt, lest the Jews may revolt against me.] [Jos. + But she put off
the stating of her petition to the next day.]
7. And Esther said [G1 + 1 do not ask for half of the kingdom
as] my request and [@: + I do not ask for the building of the House
of the Sanctuary as] my petition; [3] + they are these.] Esther
starts to tell the King what is in her heart, My request and my
petition—then suddenly recollecting herself, or changing her mind,
she resolves to put the matter off to another day.
8. [G2 + And Esther answered, O King,] if I have obtained the
King’s favour, and if it seems good to the King to grant my request
and to accede to my petition]. ‘The usual formula for presenting a
matter to the monarch (cf. 1'° 3° 54 γ᾽ 8°).—Let [6 codd. + my
lord] the King and Haman come [(Ὁ 1, + to-morrow also] to the
banquet which I will prepare for them, and to-morrow T will do as
the King wishes]. This delay in presenting her petition is even
more unlikely than her previous unwillingness to tell the King
what she wanted (v. 4). Whatever reasons may then have caused
her to wait, existed now no longer, and a second banquet could
be no more favourable occasion than the first. The reason for
the delay is that the author needs time for the disgrace of Haman,
HAMAN PLANS TO HANG MORDECAI 237
6. om. 32.---- σον "] ei J: om. 44, 106.— ANwn3] postquam biberat abun-
danter 9: om. L.—} 7] om. GL (exc. 8 & ἃ ™£, 93b under *).— An] +
ἐστιν βασίλισσα ᾿Εσθήρ G: + ἔστι σοι βασίλισσα ᾿Εσθήρ 52, 64, 74, τοῦ,
120, 243, 248, C, Ald.: + ἡ βασίλισσα 1.: + σοι ᾿Εσθήρ 44.--- ἼΓ͵ΝΦ7 om.
Ὁ (exc. δὶ & ἃ πιξ g3b under *): τὸ θέλημά gov L.— ΓὙ9 7 -- ἸΓ)] om. G
(exc. δ' & 3 πιξ' g3b under Ἔ).-- 15 1.2)}} om. L: om. + 85.--- ἼΓΦΡ3 ΠῚ]
αἴτησαι 1, (καὶ τί τὸ ἀξίωμά σου g3a).— wvyr)] καὶ ἔσται (σοι) ὅσα ἀξιοῖς
GL: ws woud 5. Niph. impf. of the jussive form in pause (cf.
Kau. ὃ rogf.). So also 7? 9”.
7. om. 3.--- 770y] om. (ὁ (exc. A 44, 93), 106).— ΣΝ ΤΥ] om. IG L.—
nwpai] καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα G (+ wous AN L 71, 74, 76, 93, 243, 248, C, Ald.):
om. 44, τοῦ.
8. om. £.— nya] φασι 55: ἐνώπιον G: évavriovA L.— 07] cov βασι-
λεῦ L.— ὙΠ ΦΡ3 -- ox] om. G (exc. 8&8 τὲ inf, 93 *)— 43] yas $.—775]
N22Z9 os §.—owyd] we podZo $—w12]+ ὁ κύριός μου 44,71, 74,
76, 106, 120, 236.— joy] + ἔτι τὴν αὔριον G: + ἐπὶ τὴν αὔριον Α 52, 64,
248, C, Ald.: + καὶ τῇ αὔριον 1, .-- n2)] om. 1) $.— Awys] om. $.— 3373]
τὰ αὐτά G: κατὰ τὰ αὐτά L: κατὰ ταῦτα 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120, 236.—
y2nn ἢ om. GL.
HAMAN PLANS TO HANG MORDECAI (559-13).
9. [L + And the King said, It shall be done as thou willest.]
And Haman went out that day [(6 @: + from the King] glad and
good-natured, [Jos. + because he alone was asked to sup with the
King at Esther’s banquet, and because no one else received such
honour at the hands of kings.] The reason for Haman’s joy is well
stated by Jos. (cf. ν. 1). On good-natured, cf. τι. 1 S. 25°%*.— [@ +
And there were 300 men with him and they all worshipped him,
but Mordecai would not worship him.] And as soon as Haman
saw Mordecai [6 + the Jew] [SJ + sitting] [ζ 1 + and the chil-
dren busying themselves with the precepts of the Law in the san-
hedrin, which Esther had made for them] in the King’s gate].
Mordecai has returned to his old place (cf. 21% 32f 513 619. 12),
This means that he has heard of Esther’s successful entry to the
King, and has put off his sackcloth in confidence that all is going
well.—While he [(€: + Mordecai] neither rose up [(G + before his
idol] nor trembled before him, (©: + but, with the palm of his right
hand extended, showed him the deed of sale by which he had sold
himself to him for a loaf of bread, wherein was written on leather
238 ESTHER
the defect that he had in his knee; immediately his wrath waxed
great,] and Haman was full of fury against Mordecai.] In spite
of all the trouble that it has brought upon the Jews, Mordecai
still persists in his insolent behaviour toward Haman (cf. 32).
No wonder that Haman is angry, since even his edict of destruc-
tion has failed to humble this man.
10. And Haman restrained himself and went to his house
[ἢ + sad]. This delay in taking vengeance upon Mordecai is just
as unnatural as is Esther’s delay in taking vengeance upon Haman.
The author wishes to keep the reader in suspense as long as possi-
ble, and to give Haman time to devise an exceptional penalty for
Mordecai.—And he sent and brought his friends [(& + and his sons]
and Zeresh his [© + wicked] wife, [τ + the daughter of Tatnai,
the prince of the region beyond the river.] [Mzd. + He had 365
counsellors, one for each day of the solar year, but nce one could
give such good advice as Zeresh his wife.] The guests are prob-
ably brought to a banquet (cf. 61). The friends are the same as
the wise of 61. Like the King, Haman has his council of ad-
visers (cf. 11%). Neither Esther nor Haman dares to make a move
in the game of state without consulting experts. On Zeresh,
see pp. 70, 89.
11. And Haman recounted to them the greatness of his wealth,
and [@: + how he was reckoned among the King’s princes, and
how there ran before him] the multitude of his sons [τ + 208 in
number, besides τὸ others who were polemarchs over the prov-
inces, and Shammashé who was the King’s scribe (cf. Meg. 156);]
and all the ways in which the King had honoured him, [Jos. + and
the Queen as well;] and how he had exalted him above [Vrss. + all]
the officials and the King’s courtiers.| Cf. 31 * where the elevation
of Haman is first described. On his wealth, cf. 3%,.where he is
able to offer 10,000 talents for the destruction of the Jews. Ac-
cording to Her. i. 136, those Persians were held in highest honour
who had the largest number of sons. According to 9!°, Haman
had ten, but see the addition of @. On officials and courtiers,
see 71
12. And Haman [L & + boasted and] said: Queen Esther
brought no one with the King to the banquet which she had pre-
HAMAN PLANS TO HANG MORDECAI 239
pared except me, [(& + and the Queen mentioned nobody but me,
and I am his favourite among all his friends, and my seat he has
placed above all others and it is honoured by all;] and to-morrow
also I am invited by her [© + to feast] along with the King.) It
is most surprising that, in spite of all Esther’s dealings with Morde-
cai (2"!- » 4*-*), Haman has no suspicion that she is a Jewess, but
regards her invitations as tokens of signal favour. Esther must
have dissembled with consummate skill at the first banquet.
The first half of the v. refers, not to the coming banquet (Sieg.),
but to the one just finished. Brought refers to the custom of send-
ing slaves to escort a guest to a feast (51° 61: Lu. 141),
13. But all this fails to satisfy me all the time that I see Mordecai
the Jew sitting [© + in the sanhedrin with the young men] in the
King’s gate [L ἸΏ $ + and he does not bow down to me.] One
wish ungratified poisons the whole cup of life for Haman. With
all that he has, he cannot be happy until Mordecai is punished
(cf. 3? 5°). ails to satisfy me, i.e., lit. is not adequate for me.
Mordecai’s race is here well known to Haman (cf. 2" 615 87). This
makes it all the more surprising that he does not know that Esther
is a Jewess. On King’s gate, cf. 21% 2 33 59 610. 12,
14. And Zeresh his wife and all his friends said to him:
[L + He belongs to the Jewish race. The King has permitted thee
to destroy the Jews, and the gods have granted thee a day of destruction
in order to punish them.) [@!+ If it please thee, let us speak one word
in thy presence. What are we to do to this Mordecai the Jew? If he
be one of the righteous who are created in the world, and we try to kill
him with the sword, the sword will perhaps turn and fall upon us. If
we seek to stone him, once with a stone David slew Goliath the Philis-
tine. If we cast him into a chain of bronze, Manasseh once broke it and
escaped from it. If we throw him into the great sea, the children of
Israel once divided it and passed through its midst. If we cast him into
a furnace of flaming fire, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah once ex-
tinguished it and went forth from it. If we fling him into a lion’s den,
the lions once did Daniel no harm. If we cast him alive to dogs, the
mouth of dogs was once shut in the land of Egypt on account of the chil-
dren of Israel. If we send him into captivity, they were once carried
into captivity and multiplied there. By what penalty then can we kill
him, or what sort of death can be inflicted upon him? If we cast him
into prison, Joseph was once brought from prison to royal dignity. If
240 ESTHER
a knife be thrust at his throat, the knife was once turned away from
Isaac. If we put out his eyes and let him go, he will kill some of us as
Samson killed the Philistines. We do not know what punishment we
can inflict upon this man unless this: (similarly ©?, Wid., Mid. A. G.).]
Let them prepare a gallows fifty cubits in height [L + and let
it be set up.] They are so sure that the King will give Haman
whatever he wishes that they advise that all be made ready for the
execution of Mordecai. The word éree does not signify stake or
cross but gallows, as is evident from its height (cf. 233). Its enor-
mous size, over 83 feet, is one of the characteristic exaggerations
of the book (cf. 11: 4-8 212 39- 12)—And in the morning speak to the
King [L + about him,] [τ + and let his blood be poured out at
the door of his house,] avd let them hang Mordecai upon it, (© +
that all the Jews and all his companions and friends may see him,
while heaven and earth together behold the gallows which Haman
has prepared for Mordecai.] So Amestris asks Xerxes to kill the
wife of Masistes (Her. ix. 110). See also Plutarch, Artax. 14 f,,
17, 23. Is it possible that the grand vizier could not put an ob-
scure Jew to death without first obtaining permission from the
King ?—Then go merrily with the King to the banquet.] Having
destroyed his enemy, there will be no barrier to Haman’s perfect
enjoyment of Esther’s feast—And the advice seemed good to Ha-
man and he prepared the gallows [Jos. + and gave orders to his
servants to place it in the court for the execution of Mordecai.]
Cf. 1% 24, Mid. here appends a long discussion of God with the
trees as to which one should furnish wood for the gallows.
[Φ! + Haman waited impatiently for the morning to go before the
King and ask for the gallows. At this time Haman son of Hammedatha
did not put off his garments, nor did he lie down until he had gone and
brought carpenters and smiths; the carpenters to make the gallows, and
the smiths to forge an iron knife. And the sons of Haman exulted and
rejoiced, and Zeresh his wife played on the lyre with the wicked Haman.
He said also, I will pay wages to the carpenters and I will prepare a feast
for the smiths on account of this gallows. That same hour, when
Haman arose to try the gallows with his own length, there went forth a
daughter-voice from the highest heaven and said to him, It is good,
wicked Haman; and fits thee, son of Hammedatha.] [Jos. + And God
laughed to scorn the hope of the wicked Haman; and knowing what was
i i χ΄..
HAMAN PLANS TO HANG MORDECAI 241
about to happen, he was delighted that it would be 5.0.1] [@! + And from
the day in which Esther invited Haman to the banquet the children of
Israel were distressed, saying thus among themselves: We expect daily
that Esther will ask the King to put Haman to death, but instead of this
she invites him to a banquet. At this same time the whole family of
Jacob poured out their soul, and had faith in their Heavenly Father,
speaking thus: Answer us! Answer all the afflicted! As the eyes of
servants wait upon their masters, and as the eyes of a handmaid wait upon
her mistress, so our eyes wait upon thee until thou wilt appear and de-
liver us. For, behold, an enemy and a foe pursues us and says, Who are
these Jews? Then He hearkened unto the voice of their prayer and
answered their petitions, for every time that He rescued them from their
enemies He rescued them at night, from Pharaoh, and from Sennacherib,
and from all that rose up against them.]
[Φ᾿ G+ “In that night”? went forth deliverance to the Jews. “In
that night’? Sarah was taken to the house of Abimelech. “In that
night”’ all the first born of the Egyptians were slain. ‘In that night’’
their oracles were revealed to the Prophets and visions to the dreamers
of dreams. That same night the whole world was shaken, cities and
all their inhabitants; and there was great mourning in all cities, lamenta-
tion and crying in all provinces, young men girding themselves with sack-
cloth, old men and women beating upon their breasts, and all weeping
bitterly and crying with a loud voice: Alas! because we see destruction
upon destruction and breach upon breach. From our first breach we
have not yet recovered, nor is healing restored from our wound, nor have
we received consolation from our sorrow, nor have the afflictions of our
heart departed from us. The city of our fathers lies upon the ground,
and the enemy has closed our Sanctuary, and our foes have trampled our
Temple-courts. Neither Pharaoh nor the Egyptians took counsel against
us after this manner, nor did the kings of the heathen devise plans against
us in this way, that they should be ready against that day to cut us off
from the face of the earth (He who reveals secrets has revealed this
secret to Mordecai that a decree of death has been issued against us,
the house of Israel), nor did they sell us as man servants or as maid
servants.
In that night the sleep of the Holy One, the Supremely Blessed, forsook
him; but if the following Scripture were not written, it would be impossi-
ble to say this, for it is written, ““Awake! why sleepest thou, Lord?”
Do not say that, for sleep is never present with Him; but when the house
of Israel sins, He acts as if He were asleep; but when they do His will,
“He who keepeth Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.” In that night
the sleep of Mordecai the just also forsook him; for he was awake and
did not lie down; or if he lay down, he did not sleep, because the house
of Israel were gathered and sat before him, saying: Thou thyself hast been
16
242
ESTHER
the cause of all this evil that has come upon us. If thou hadst risen up
before the wicked Haman and hadst done obeisance and hadst paid
homage to him, all this distress would not have come upon us. Mordecai
answered and said to them: The outer garment which Haman wears has
two idols depicted upon it, the one on the front, the other on the back.
If then I should rise up and do obeisance to him, I should be found to
have worshipped idols; but you yourselves know that he who worships
idols shall perish from this world and shall be excluded from the world
to come. Then they all kept silence before him. In that night sleep
forsook the wicked Haman, for when he was awake, he did not lie down;
and when he lay down, he could not sleep, from the time when he pre-
pared the gallows on which to hang Mordecai, without knowing that he
was preparing it for himself. In that night sleep forsook the righteous
Esther, because she had prepared food to invite Haman to a feast with
King Xerxes. In that night sleep forsook the foolish Xerxes, for when he
was awake he did not lie down; and when he lay down, he could not
sleep, because a spirit possessed him which possesses kings and disturbed
him the whole night. At length he spoke and addressed his nobles thus:
Whatever I eat does not agree with me, whatever I drink I cannot retain.
The heavens have thundered against me and the heaven of heavens lifts
up its voice. Is it because I have not remitted the tribute which I prom-
ised to remit to the provinces? Or have Esther and Haman planned to
kill me, because Esther invites no one to the feast with me except
Haman? In that night the memory of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
came before their Heavenly Father, so that an angel was sent from
the height, Michael himself, the commander of the army of Israel,
who, sitting at the head of the King, drove sleep away from him the
whole night long.]
9, OA NYY] Kal ἀπηγγέλη τῷ ᾿Αμάν L, 93b +.— NINA OVI] κατὰ τὰ αὐτά
L 93) +: om. GF (exc. δὶ ὁ ἃ πρὶ 3b under *).— nnw] ὑπερχαρὴς G: καὶ
ἐθαύμασεν L, 93b +: om. 17: + ἀπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως G (exc. 936): + a cena
B:+ καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἀναλύσας L, 93b +.— 119] εὐφραινόμενος (ὁ: ἡσύχασεν
L: om. 3ῆ.---- 35] om. (6 25 L (exc. δὶ © 4, οϑῦ under *).— ΓΥΝ 5 -- end of
v.] et trecenti viri cum eo, et omnes adoraverunt eum: Mardocheus autem
non adoravit eam &: om. L.— 1x73] inf. with 5 introducing the precise
moment of time. See on 1292¥).— yea] ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ G.— 39D -- PNA] om.
G (exc. 8 δ: ἃ ™mssuP, g3b under *).— dn] palatii J—y1-op] Pf. be-
cause a parenthetical circumstantial clause (Kau. § τοῦ ὦ. e.). Accord-
ing to Haupt the two forms are participles in the acc. as N33 (5?).— 1327]
de loco sessionis sue J.— 2770 Sy yor] om. G (exc. δὶ © *™, 936 under *:
A has ᾿Αμάνν): Haupt deletes }o7.— by ann] here only in OT.
10. ppxn] om. 6 1, & (exc. δὶ © *™s, 93b under *).— 5] om. (
(exc, © #™, 93h under *): Haupt deletes——n>v] om. 6 L (exc.
HAMAN PLANS TO HANG MORDECAI 243
Ν cams o3h under *).—xa]}+ad se J—vane] τοὺς φίλους G
(+ αὐτοῦ L@).
11. om. L.— yn] om. J (6 (exc. δὶ © 3) H.— Ἴ29 ΓΝ] om. G (exc. 93).—
wy 32] in 1 in reverse order.— 133 3] om. GG (exc. δὶ ὁ *™, 936
under *).—123 2] Hitzig in Bert. finds this expression peculiar and
proposes to read 3p 39), ‘and his abundant dignity.’ This is very un-
likely.— nx)] introducing clauses that are objects to 12D») (Kau. § 157 ¢.).
—rws)-end of v.]om. £.—$3 nx] om. $.— 53] δόξαν (5: πάντα 936: Haupt
regards 52 as impossible in this connection and transposes to a
position before o..w7.— γ5 αὐτῷ περιέθηκεν G: om. J.— ΡΝ O82] om.
3S — ow by] om. 6.— dy] + 52 K 117, 252, R 379, © G? I.— 729]
wpas Ns Ἂχ. §.— F507 3y)] καὶ ἡγεῖσθαι τῆς βασιλείας G.— 1055]
suos J.
12. γ5π| ὍΝ] Kal ἐκαυχᾶτο λέγων L: et gloriabatur dicens L.— }27]om.
3: Haupt deletes.— x] post hec J: ὡς L: om. 6L.— ἼΣΟΝ] om. GLLZ
(x 5. Κα 93b have).— 73907] rex DZ: om. $.— anwy -- oy] om. L.— oy] εἰ μὴ
L.—anwy —ox] ἐν ἐπισήμῳ ἡμέρᾳ αὐτῆς L: om. $.—anwy wr] om. IG
(exc. 8 © 8): αὐτῆς 74, 76.— MIN ON 3] Kal ἐμὲ μόνον L.— 509-2] regina
autem nullius mentionem fecit, nisi mei: et ego sum necessarius tuus inter
omnes amicos ejus, sedile autem meum supra omnes, et ab omnibus adora-
tur £&.—>2] om. & L.— 7527 ay 15] om. G L (exc. δὶ © * me, g3b under *).
—] > in the meaning of ‘by,’ after a passive (cf. 43 Ru. 410).
13, 52] om. (51, (ΤΠ has).— 4-1] τοῦτο δὲ λυπεῖ με μόνον 1 L.— 533
τῶν ny]éravG LU: ἐν παντὶ χρόνῳ ὅταν © 4, 93b under*: Jase Nas
$: quamdiu J: Bert., following (6 L @, regards ny as indefinite on
account of the absence of the art. and translates ‘every time that,’ but
this is not necessary, since My is cstr. before che following relative clause
(cf. X28 D\pD 43 811), and, therefore, may be definite even without the art.
The phrase means, accordingly, ‘all the time that,’ ‘so long as’ (so $ J
AV. RV. Sieg., Rys.).— avr] om. 6 LE (exc. & © 5, 93b under *).— wa]
ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ GL: om. L.— N97] om. G (exc. δὶ © 5, 93b under *) GB: +
wee — Sty Ls $:+ καὶ μὴ προσκυνεῖ we L: + non adorantem me &.
14, wr] cf. 510.--- 537] om. 93 6 LE (exc. δὶ © 5, 93b under *): ceteri J.
—panx] of φίλοι (5 (+ αὐτοῦ x © *, 93b under *): om. L.— wy] κοπήτω
σοι GLE (om. σοι A 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 236).— 721] om. GL (exc.
x δ. #mg),— ADK] pedum L.— yond —>p33] tr. aft. voy L.—yb05 ὍΝ] om. B.
— bn] ut appendatur 31: καὶ κρεμασθήτω GL: καὶ κρέμασον L.— 13172 ΓΝ]
αὐτὸν L.— wy] ἐπὶ τὸν ξύλον G L: in co L.— jon- xa] om. L.— ay] πρὸς
L.—anwnn >xJom. L.— nnw] καὶ εὐφραίνου & (om. καὶ L).—1377] om. L.
— 25] »»y3 some codd., $.— 107] ei I: + 2g H—yyn wy] καὶ ἐποί-
noev οὕτως L: the idea, of course, is not that Haman constructed the
gallows with his own hands. ‘Made’ may equal ‘had made,’ or ’y) may
be regarded as impersonal, as 9.97 (37).
244 ESTHER
THE KING IS REMINDED THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO
REWARD MORDECAI (6!*),
1. That night the King’s sleep fled.| Here, as everywhere, the
author goes out of his way to avoid mentioning God. G6LL
@: Ὁ: correct the defect and say that God took away his sleep.—
[Jos. + Now he was not willing to pass the sleepless time idly, but
chose to devote it to something that was profitable for the king-
dom,] so he ordered [G G: + his secretary] to bring the book of
memorable events, namely, the chronicles [Jos. ©: + of the kings
that had reigned before him and of his own deeds.] This is not a
natural way of passing a sleepless night—with his numerous wives
the King might have found something livelier, but the author
chooses it because this was the book in which Mordecai’s service
in discovering the plot against the King was recorded (see 2%).
According to this passage the book was kept in the King’s room.
—And they kept on reading before the King [© + the decrees of
the kings that had reigned before him.] The periphrastic form
of the verb expresses the duration of the action. Since the King
could not sleep, the reading lasted all night.
[5] 5: + And Michael sat over against him, and the King looked and
saw as it were the form of a man, who addressed the King thus: Haman
desires to slay thee and to make himself king in thy stead. Behold, he
will present himself in the morning and will wish to ask thee to give him
the man who saved thee from death in order that he may kill him; but
say thou to Haman, What shall be done for the man whom the King
wishes to honour ? and thou wilt see that he will ask for nothing else from
thee but royal garments, the crown of the kingdom, and the horse on
which the King rides. And the man who was reading was one of the
scribes.] [Jos.-+ And when he had brought the book and was reading
it, it was found that one, on account of his virtue on a certain occasion,
had received a country, and its name was stated; and another was re-
corded to have received a present on account of his fidelity.]
2. [Ὦ + And the God of the Jews and Lord of all creation
guided the hand of the reader to the book which the King had
written to remind him of Mordecai,] and it was found written
[ὦ δ' + in the book] how Mordecai had informed [Ὁ L + the King]
concerning Bigthan and Teresh, the two eunuchs of the King who
one Oe Bee fs GP ὦ ἃ
XERXES REMEMBERS MORDECAI 245
guarded the threshold, who had sought to lay hands on King Xerxes
(@: + to kill him in his bedroom.] [Meg. 16a + And the secre-
tary blotted it out, but the angel Gabriel wrote it again a second
time (similarly Mid. A.G.).] See 2%. At the very moment when
Haman is planning to hang Mordecai the King’s attention is un-
expectedly directed to Mordecai’s service and he determines to
heap honours upon him. This is the way that things happen in
story-books, but not in real life.
3. [Jos. + And when the record stated no more than this and
passed on to another matter,] then the King said, [6 codd. + to
his servants,] What honour or dignity has been conferred upon
Mordecai because of this? and the King’s pages who served him said,
[G: + As yet] nothing has been conferred upon him. [Meg. 16a +
This they said, not because they loved Mordecai, but because they
hated Haman.] Improbable as it is that Mordecai’s service
should be merely recorded, instead of being at once rewarded
(235); it is much more improbable that Xerxes should utterly
forget the man who saved his life, particularly when he was a
friend of his beloved Esther (2). It was a point of honour with
the Persian kings to reward promptly and magnificently those who
conferred benefits upon them (cf. Her. iii. 138, 140; ν. 11; vill. 85;
ix. 107; Lhuc. i138; Xen. Hell. tii. 1,6). According to Her.
vili. 85, the Persians had a special class of men known as
Orosangai, or ‘benefactors of the King.’ See on 2%. On pages,
see 23.
[Jos. + And he commanded to stop reading.] [L-+ and the King
gave close attention, saying: That faithful man Mordecai, the protector
of my life! He it is that has kept me alive until now, so that I sit to-day
upon my throne, yet I have done nothing for him! I have not done
right. And the King said to his pages, What shall we do for Mordecai
the saviour of the situation? And, reflecting, the young men were
envious of him, because Haman had put fear in their hearts; and the
King perceived. Then day broke.] [Jos.-+ And he inquired of those
appointed for the purpose, what hour of the night it was; and when he
was informed that it was dawn, he commanded that, if they found any
of his friends who had come already before the court, they should tell
him.] [ὦ - And, at the moment when the King learned about the kind-
ness of Mordecai, behold, Haman arrived in the court,] [G@ + for Haman
watched in the royal palace and 300 men with him.]
246 ESTHER
1. Joon naw av] ὁ δὲ Κύριος ἀπέστησεν τὸν ὕπνον ἀπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως G:
ὁ δὲ δυνατὸς ἀπέστησε τὸν ὕπνον τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ἣν ἀγρυπνῶν 1,: Jude-
orum autem Deus et universe creature Doniunus percussit regem vigi-
lantia GP (LE om. 6!).— 7x] καὶ εἶπεν τῷ διδασκάλῳ αὐτοῦ G: καὶ ἐκλή-
θησαν οἱ ἀναγνῶσται L: et dixit rex L.—s3n>]+ sibi J: εἰσφέρειν G:
εἰσφέρων A: legite mihi ἸΏ : om. L.—x205 ἜΝΙ inf. w. 9 after ἼΩΝ, as
4'3 1 Ch. 22? 2 Ch. 1!8 Ne. 9!5>.— 7pD nx] γράμματα G: καὶ τὸ βιβλίον L:
librum &.— 7229-3937] et oculi mei somnum capiant et extendit lector
manum suam in bibliotheca HP.— 7375] om. (Ὁ L (exc. δὶ ©: 5, 93b under *).
—onn7jom. L. Haupt, in defense of his singular emendation of 2”,
arbitrarily rejects 092.7 9727 as a gloss derived from 2% and 102— ya
DN] ἀναγινώσκειν G: ἀνεγινώσκετο L.— 01 3b] αὐτῷ GL: αὐτὰ
ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασιλέως 8 © #, 030 under *.
2. 292 NID] ventum est ad illum locum ubi scriptum est B: εὗρεν δὲ
τὰ γράμματα τὰ γραφέντα G: καὶ ἢν ὑπόθεσις 1,: Judeorum autem Deus
gubernavit manum lectoris ad librum quem scripserat rex memoriam facere
Mardocheo &.— vn] ἐποίησε εὐεργέτημα L: liberavit eum Z.— 3577] de
periculis &.—y] insidias J: om. L.—1v] om. JL.— ydn7] αὐτοῦ A:
om. ILE 44, 106.— ADA own] ἐν τῷ φυλάσσειν αὐτοὺς G: om. ILE:
Haupt deletes, as in 2?!,¢g.v— D7] [832 $.— wx-end of v.]om. L.—
wpa ἼΦΝ] καὶ ζητῆσαι G.— 1553] om. LZ G (exc. 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120,
236).— ΦΥΙΨΙΝΊ + quod cum audisset I: eum + et legit lector benefactum
Mardochei et commemoratus &: Haupt deletes.
3. om. L.— dna] - τοῖς διακόνοις αὐτοῦ 44, 71, 74, 76, 930, 120, 236.
—n72] dic nondum L.— ney] ἐποιήσαμεν &, as if nya. Here followed
by Sand Ὁ», in 2" by 3, all in substantially the same meaning.— 7p»
79192)] 0m. &: both words are genitives depending on 42. So J, quid, pro
hac fide, honoris ac premii (Haupt).— 7p] ‘honour,’ as 14: 2° 66.— 37905]
huic homini &.— τὶ Sy] om. G (exc. δὶ ©: 5, 93b under *): secundum quod
fecit nobis G.— Worx] + οἱ I: + aX $.— nox- end of v.] om. L.—
ΓΦ] om. & (exc. 93b): pr. ac JB.— rw] ἐποίησας G.
THE KING COMMANDS HAMAN TO CONFER ROYAL HONOURS UPON
MORDECAI (6!-!°).
4, And[J + straightway] the King said, Who is [© + the man
who stands] in the court? just after Haman had entered the outer
court of the King’s house [Jos. + earlier than the customary hour]
to speak to the King about hanging Mordecai on the gallows which
he had erected for him, [1 + but the Lord did not permit him to
speak.] Haman apparently cannot wait until] morning to ask
permission to hang Mordecai on his high gallows, but comes in
απο «(ἫΝ .
el ee
πρίνου στ She
he
ee ee .
pe Fer te
iro nota
et eee
45? pee,
“
“eas
4 Seti « ες, Ry tt
SRS oe oye ee
HAMAN ADVISES XERXES 247
the middle of the night to the palace, although there is no reason to
expect asummons from the King at that hour (cf. v. 5). His
coming coincides with the moment when the King learns of Mor-
decai’s service and wishes to find a courtier to execute his com-
mands. This sounds more like fiction than history. The
improbability is somewhat relieved by the Vrss. which represent
Haman as coming the next morning; still, even on this hypothesis,
the coincidence is too lucky to be natural. Haman waits in the
outer court because he dares not enter the inner court without a
summons (see 4:1). He hopes that, if he is on hand, the King
may soon call for him. To speak to the King, as in 5'*. On the
erection of the gallows, cf. 5".
δ. And the King’s pages said unto him, Behold, Haman ἐδ
waiting in the court; and the King said, Let him enter.| ‘The fact
that Haman alone is found in the court suggests that it is an un-
usual hour, when none of the other courtiers are present (cf. v. 5).
Enter, i.e., into the King’s bedchamber.
6. And Haman entered; and the King said to him, [Jos. + Be-
cause I know that thou alone art a faithful friend to me, I beseech
thee to advise me,] what is to be done with the man [L & + who
honours the King,] whom the King longs to honour [Jos. + in a
manner worthy of his generosity ?] It is a fine stroke of literary
art by which Haman himself is made to decide what honours shall
be paid to the man whom he has decided to hang. The King does
not give him time to present his petition, but immediately asks him
the question, What is to be done? lit. What to do? asin 1'*. In 24
the same verb, longed, is used of the King’s craving for one of his
wives.—And Haman said to himself, [Jos. + Whatever advice I
give will be on my own behalf, for] on whom besides me does the
King long to bestow honour?| Haman’s total lack of suspicion
makes the blow that falls in v. 10 all the more crushing. To him-
self, lit. in his heart. ‘This is one of the passages from which
Meg. 7a infers the inspiration of the Book of Est. How could
the author know what Haman said in his heart, if he were not
inspired ?
7. And Haman said to the King, [Jos. + If thou wishest to
cover with glory] the man [& + who honours the King] whom the
248 ESTHER
King longs to honour]. The sentence thus begun is not com-
pleted in the next vv., but Haman constructs a new sentence in
which the man is object. For similar anacolutha, see 4" 57.
The insertion of Jos. removes the anacoluthon.
8. [G: + Let the King make a decree, and] Jet them bring a
royal garment which the King has worn [€: + on the day of his
accession to the throne,] [& + and a golden crown]. Haman
proceeds to enumerate the things that were counted tokens of
highest honour among the Persians. The garment is not merely
such a one as the King is accustomed to wear (AV., RV.), but,
as the perf. indicates, and as @ understands, one that he has
actually worn. Plutarch (Artax. 24) relates that a certain Tiri-
bazos asked the King to take off his mantle and give it to him.
The King acceded, but forbade him to wear the mantle. From
this it appears that to wear the King’s own robe was accounted one
of the greatest favours (cf. 1 S. 18').—And [& I + place him upon]
α [1| 12 + royal] horse on which the King has ridden [© + on the
day of his accession to the throne]. There is no ancient record of
this method of rewarding service to the King of Persia, but it is
analogous to the wearing of the royal garment. Cf. 1 K. 153, where
Solomon is seated on David’s horse; and Gn. 414%, where Joseph
rides in the second chariot.—And on whose head a royal turban
has been placed]. ‘This clause has given great trouble to the older
comm. because they have supposed it impossible that a royal
turban should be placed on the horse’s head, and because in 8'°
such a turban is placed on Mordecai’s head. © L Jos. omit. @
substitutes clad as I have said above. HJrenders he ought . . . to
receive a royal crown upon his head; Miin., Tig., Cler., Ramb.,
and let a royal crown be placed upon his head; Jun. & Trem., Pisc.,
and when a royal crown is placed upon his head, then let them give
the garment, etc.; Pag., RV. mg., and the crown royal which is set
upon his head. All these renderings are grammatically impossi-
ble. On whose head can only refer to the horse. In the follow-
ing narrative the crown does not appear as part of Mordecai’s
attire, which shows that it belongs to the horse’s outfit. So ©, @,
IE., and Jewish interpreters generally, Dieu., Caj., Vat., and most
modern comm. There is no real difficulty in this idea. The
ee ee ee
——— ee ee πώ“ κλὰ
|
|
HAMAN ADVISES XERXES 249
As. reliefs depict the King’s horses with tall, pointed ornaments
like a royal turban on their heads (see Layard, Nineveh, vol. ii.
pl. 9). It is likely that a similar custom prevailed in Persia. On
royal turban, see 1".
9. And let them give the garment [©: + of purple] and the horse
into the charge of one of the King’s noble officials], to see that the
ceremony is carried out properly, and to add dignity to it by his
presence.—And let them clothe the man whom the King longs to
honour, [Jos. + and put a gold chain about his neck,] and make
him ride on the horse [L$ + and lead him about] in the city-square.]
The subject may still be impersonal, as in the preceding clauses,
or it may be the noble officials of the last clause. The account of
Joseph’s elevation (Gn. 41%*-**) is in the author’s mind. From
this source Jos. derives his addition (Gn. 41:2. See Rosenthal,
“Der Vergleich Ester-Joseph-Daniel,” ZATW. xv. (1895),
pp. 278 ff.; xvil. (1897), pp. 125 ff. The purpose of the riding is
to display the man’s honour to all the inhabitants of Susa. On
city-square, see 4°—And [Jos. + let one of the King’s most inti-
mate friends precede him and] proclaim before him, This is what
is done for the man {L & + who honours the King] whom the King
longs to honour.| A crier explains the meaning of the procession
as it advances (cf. Gn. 41,3). From this advice of Haman @:, @:,
and the Midrashim infer that he was plotting to seize the throne
(cf. © G on 6").
10. [Jos. + Thus Haman advised, supposing that the reward
would come to him.] [@2 + And the King regarded Haman
closely, and thought in his heart and said to himself, Haman wishes
to kill me and to make himself King in my stead: I see it in his
face.] Then the King, [Jos. + being pleased with the advice,]
said to Haman, [3 + Haman! Haman!] make haste, [3 + Go to
the King’s treasury and fetch thence one of the fine purple cover-
ings and] take the garment [3 + of fine Frankish silk adorned
with precious stones and pearls, from all four of whose sides hang
golden bells and pomegranates; and take thence the great crown
of Macedonian gold which was brought me from the cities of the
provinces on the first day that I was established in the kingdom;
and take thence the fine sword and armour that were brought me
250 ESTHER
from the province of Kush, and the two fasces covered in royal
fashion with pearls which were brought me from the province of
Africa. Then go to the royal stable] and [3 + lead out] the
horse [3 + that stands in the chief stall, whose name is Shifregaz,
upon which I rode on the first day that I was established in the
kingdom ;] [Jos. + and take the neck-chain] as thou hast said, and
do thus unto Mordecai [Meg. 16a, ©',C: + Haman answered,
Which Mordecai? The King replied] the Jew. [Meg., ©, G2 +
But, said Haman, There are many of that name among the Jews.
I mean, said the King, the one] who sits in the King’s gate [©' + in
the sanhedrin which Queen Esther has established.] [Meg. +
Give him, said Haman, a town or (the toll of) a river. Give him
that also, said the King.] [τ + Haman answered, I ask thee to
slay me rather than to impose this duty upon me. Make haste,
said the King,] omit nothing of all that thou hast said, [Jos. + for
thou art my intimate friend; be, therefore, the executor of those
things which thou hast so well advised. This shall be our reward
to him for having saved my life.] Thus with a word the King
blights Haman’s hope. The sudden climax is very artistic and
is not improved by the additions of the Vrss. The King is aware
that Mordecai is a Jew. Perhaps we may suppose that this was
recorded in the royal annals that were read before him (6'). He
is also aware that Mordecai habitually sits in the gate of the King
(215. #1 32 5%. 18), although this fact would not naturally be men-
tioned in the annals. This lends some support to the theory of
the Vrss. that Mordecai was a royal official (cf. 2": 19), or we may
suppose that the King had noticed him as he passed to and fro
through the gate. How the King knows so much about Mordecai
without suspecting that his friend Esther (233) is a Jewess, is hard
to understand. It is also difficult to explain how he can honour
Mordecai the Jew in this signal fashion, when he has just con-
demned all the Jews to destruction (3''-!%); or, at least, how he
can avoid making some provision to exempt Mordecai from the
edict of death. All these honours would be of little use to him, if he
were to be executed a few months later. Perhaps the author sup-
poses that Xerxes had a short memory; and had forgotten his edict
against the Jews, as he had forgotten Mordecai’s service (233 68).
HAMAN ADVISES XERXES 251
4, xxna] ἐστιν ἔξω L.—j20.-end of ν.] aft. 65 G—xa2 yn] paren-
thetical subordinate clause giving the time of the previous vb.— 83] ἦν L.
Instead of >xnb x2 Haupt reads 737 OS 82.— ΠΝ ΓΙ -- SN] om. (5: ᾿Αμὰν
δὲ ὠρθρίκει L: ad regem et cogitabat L—axsn7] interius J.— 25] +
et juberet J.— nvr5] inf. with 9 giving the contents of the conversation
with the King (cf. 34; Kau. ὃ 114 g).— 19-53] om. L_— 5] om. (ἢ (exc.
x ¢ amg, 93b under *).
δ. 7302 -- ΥΝ] om. L.— vx] om. JG (exc. 8 © *™, 93d under *).—
ma] om. JLZ.— rsna Ἴ2}] om. L.
6. jon Na] om. ZG (exc. 8 & 8 ™z, 93b).— yor] om. JL.— 27]
yond qbon R 593: ὁ βασιλεὺς τῷ ‘Andy GG.— p07] om. J.—7-] bls
Po $.—nwy>] ποιήσω G: ποιήσομεν L: fiet L— v2] + τῷ τὸν βασιλέα
τιμῶντι L:-+ qui regem honorificat ἸΏ. The 3 in en is 3 of the instru-
ment after nwy (BDB. p. 89, 111. 2). In 115 ‘what to do with’ means
‘how to punish,’ here it means ‘how to reward.’— 197)3 — ws] om. £.—
son ?] ἐγὼ G.— yor] ‘long,’ ‘desire,’ as 1 K. 1353 215 Est. 24.— 1353] +
et reputans 9: λέγων L: cum cogitatione sua L— >] neminem L.—
ap) —yom] habet rex necessarium &.— ὍΤΙ] ‘excess’ is a late Heb. word
found only in Ec. and Est. 19 1m ‘excess from’ (Ec. 12" and here)
does not mean ‘more than’ (Wild., Sieg., BDB.) but ‘other than,’ ‘be-
sides’ (so Haupt); G, εἰ μὴ ἐμὲ; B, nullum alium nisi.
7. yonjom. JL G (exc. δὶ © 5, 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120, 236, 936): Haupt
deletes.— 7507 $x] domine rex DZ: om. IL 44, 106.— wn] i ®:
honorificanti regem &.—p2- ws] om. 35: for the construction, cf.
Kau. ὃ 143 ¢, note.
8. wna] ἐνεγκάτωσαν ol παῖδες τοῦ βασιλέως G (ἐνεγκάτω A): ληφθήτω L:
accipiatur &.— Τ25] βυσσίνην (ῦ.--- 5 Π1-- τῶν ἢ om. 311, 15.--- 13] om.
(ὁ (exc. δὶ ὁ: *™, 93b under *). Here only construed w. 2 instead of the
acc.— Didi] et imponi super equum J: et equo regali vehatur G&: καὶ ἵππος Ba-
σιλικὸς L.— yon 2-722] om. 37: qui de sella regis est J.— vy] om. LG
(exc. δὶ & #™g, 93b under *).— wWNI2- WRI] om. LG (exc. & & #™, 93d
under *): indutus que supra dixi &: et accipere regium diadema super
caput suum J: Haupt deletes as a tertiary gloss based upon a secondary
gloss in 8!5.— 13] Maur. regards as (αἱ, impf. τ pl. for 15) (cf. Ju. 16°);
but there is no Magqgeph here, and therefore no reason for shortening the
vowel. The 1 p. would also be inappropriate in the mouth of Haman.
The form is Niph. pret. 3 sg.
9. )72)] kal λαβέτω ταῦτα L: om. 110) D: inf. abs. instead of finite
vb. in lively discourse (cf. 28). Here preceded by jussive and followed
by perf. with 1 cons. (Kau. § 113 2) — »- 1297] om. & LG (exc. 8% ὅταν,
936 under *).—wrada] om. 9.— + Sy] ‘into the charge’, cf. 2% δι "4 3°.—
won] primus 3}: ἑνὶ G: els L: unus L.— don ΡΠ] see on 1°,— dA -- DNA]
om. &.— wary] Oort, Haupt, read the sg.— pra -- wadm] om. I.—
ΥἹΡ.2 -- Ww] om. L 44, 106.— Dwr Sp ὙΠ2 5 ΠῚ] et incedens J.—32073]
252 ESTHER
bodes Ici pmo H: διὰ τῆς πλατείας G: in tota DG: καὶ περιελθέτω L.—
ya] om. $.— N7p)] κηρυσσέτω G (κηρυσσέτωσαν & © 3) κηρύσσων L: pre-
dicet 15: Oort, Haupt, read the sg.— v3p>] λέγων G: et dicat I.— vs ἢ
παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ G: omni + honorificanti regem &: τῷ τὸν βασιλέα τιμῶντὶ
L: in 65 wsx3.— 99932 -- ἽΦΨΝ] om. 3.
10. yond] οἱ J: om. 44, 71, 106.— dw7— ὙΠ] om. G (exc. & & ame inf,
930 under *).— np 170) ‘take swiftly,’ cf. 55.— ΟΠ -- ΠΡ] om. G.— D107 ny]
pr. 290 H.— ws] καλῶς G: bene L.— awyy]om. 1G L.— }3] sicut dixisti
L.—rnw7] om. Z.—rapwr awa] τῷ θεραπεύοντι ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ GL: ὃν
δοξάζει 106.— rywa] ἐν τῇ βουλῇ 240: ὃν εἶπεν Α.--- pon] palatit 3: om.
LG (exc. A 106).— 9pn 5x] ‘do not let fall,’ 1.6., ‘do not omit’ (cf. Jos. 2145
Ju. 2!°)— 375] + cov G LY|.— 535] om. L G (exc. & © 5, 93b under *).—
ΓΔ ἼΦΝ] om. L.
HAMAN EXECUTES THE KING’S COMMAND AND GOES HOME IN
DESPAIR (6::-13).
11. [L + Now, when Haman perceived that he was not the one who
was to be honoured, but Mordecai, his heart was completely crushed
and his courage was changed into faintness.]} [1- And Haman
mourned at these words.] [@2-+ And when the wicked Haman saw
that his arguments availed nothing with the King, and that his words
were not heeded, he went to the King’s treasury with bowed head, with-
out looking up, mourning, and with his head covered, with stopped ears,
and closed eyes, and pouting mouth, and an agonized heart, and wounded
feelings, and loosened girdle, and knees knocking against each other ]
And Haman took the [δ᾿ + purple] garment [2 + of royalty
that was brought King Xerxes on the first day that he was estab-
lished in the kingdom; and he took thence all the rest of the royal
apparel, as he had been commanded; and he went out in haste to
the royal stable] and [G2 + took thence] the horse [G2 + that stood
in the chief stall, from which golden stirrups hung down; and he
laid hold of the horse’s bridle, and all the royal apparel he carried
upon his shoulders; and they put on the harness and adjusted the
saddle. ]
[Jos. + And he took the golden neck-chain][L, Jos., Meg. + And he
found Mordecai] [L + on the very day on which he had determined to
impale him] [Jos. + clothed in sackcloth before the court,] [Meg. 16a
+ with the Rabbis seated before him, while he taught them halachoth
as to how the handful of meal of the meal-offering of firstlings ought
HAMAN HONOURS MORDECAI 253
to be offered at Passover. When Mordecai saw that he came toward
him leading a splendid horse, he was frightened and said to the Rabbis,
This wretch comes, no doubt, to kill me. Avoid him, that you may not
be harmed also. Thereupon Mordecai wrapped himself in his prayer-
mantle and stood up to pray. And Haman entered, and sat down be-
fore him, and waited until Mordecai had finished praying. Then he
said to him, What were you doing just now? Mordecai answered,
We were learning that, so long as the Temple stood, every one who had
vowed a meal-offering brought a handful of meal and obtained atone-
ment thereby. Then said Haman, your handful of meal has outweighed
my 10,000 talents of silver. Wretch, said Mordecai, When a slave ac-
quires wealth, to whom do he and his wealth belong Ὁ] [L, Jos. -+- Then he
said to Mordecai, Take off thy sackcloth,] [Jos., Weg. + and put on the
royal apparel.] [%-+ Arise, servant of God, and be honoured.] [L+
and Mordecai was dismayed as one about to die, and was pained to lay
aside his sackcloth.] [Jos. + And not knowing the truth, but uppos-
ing that he was mocked, he said, O basest of all men, dost thou thus
laugh at our misfortunes? But when he was convinced that the King
bestowed this honour upon him as a reward jor the deliverance which
he had wrought for him by convicting the eunuchs who had plotted
against him,] Meg.-+ Mordecai said, I cannot put on the royal gar-
ments until I have gone to the bath and have had my hair cut, for in this
condition it is not proper for me to put on royal garments. Esther
meanwhile had sent and had forbidden all baths and all barbers (to
serve Mordecai). So Haman himself went into he bath-house and
bathed him. ‘Then he brought a pair of scissors from his home and cut
his hair, groaning and sighing all the time. Why sighest thou? said
Mordecai. Alas! said Haman, to think that the man who was hon-
oured by the people more than all the nobles has now becomea bath-
attendant and barber! Wretch, answered Mordecai, Wast thou not
a barber in the village of Karcum for 22 years ?]
And he clothed Mordecai, [L + and it seemed to Mordecai that
he saw a miracle, and his heart was toward the Lord, and he was
speechless from astonishment.] [Meg. + Then Haman said to
him, Mount the horse and ride! But Mordecai replied, I cannot, I
am too weak from long fasting. So Haman crouched down, and
Mordecai mounted on his back, giving him a kick as he went.
Then said Haman, Is it not written, ‘“‘Rejoice not when thine
enemy falleth?”? That, said Mordecai, holds good only of an
Israelite. Of you it is written, ‘‘Thou shalt tread upon their
high places.”"] [1, + And Haman hastened] and he made Mordecai
254 ESTHER
ride [Vrss. + upon the horse, and led him about] im the city-square.
[L, Jos. + And Haman went before him] and he proclaimed before
him, This is what 15 done to the man [L + who honours the King]
whom the King [Jos. + loves and] longs to honour.
(G2 + And there were sent him from the King’s house 27,000 choice
youths, with golden cups in their right hands and golden pitchers in their
left hands, and they marched before the righteous Mordecai crying,
This is what is done for the man whom the K ng, the creator of heaven
and earth, longs to honour. And when the Israelites saw, they walked
on the right and on the left crying, This is what is done for the man
whom the King, the creator of heaven and earth, longs to honour. And
when Esther looked and saw Mordecai, her cousin, clothed in the royal
garment, with the royal crown upon his head, riding upon the King’s
horse, she gave thanks and praised the God of heaven for their deliver-
ance, because Mordecai had put on sackcloth and had placed ashes upon
his head in the sight of the oppressors. And when she saw Mordecai, her
cousin, she answered and said unto him, In thee is fulfilled the word of
Scripture by the holy prophets: ‘‘He raiseth up the poor out of the dust,
and lifteth up the needy from the dunghill; that he may set him with
princes, even with the princes of his people.” Mordecai also gave
thanks, saying: ‘‘Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing;
thou hast loosed my sackcloth, and girded me with a royal garment. I
will praise thee, O Lord God, my redeemer, because thou hast not re-
joiced the heart of my enemies (similarly 6: on 8'5).] [Meg. 16a + And
as he passed by Haman’s house, Haman’s daughter looked down from
the roof, and supposed that her father was riding and that Mordecai
was accompanying him on foot; so she fetched a slop-jar and poured it
upon her father’s head. But when she perceived that it was her father,
she flung herself from the roof and killed herself.] [%& + And Haman
walked in his disgrace, but Mordecai was highly honoured; and God
broke the heart of Haman.]
12. And [Jos. + when he had traversed the city,] Mordecat re-
turned unto the King’s gate [δ᾿ + unto the sanhedrin that was
there, and he put off the purple raiment, and put on sackcloth,
and sat in ashes, confessing and praying until the evening.] After
this extraordinary and unexpected honour Mordecai is brought
back to his old haunt (21:5) from which he set out (6!°).—And
Haman hurried to his house, mourning [© + for his daughter,]
and with his head covered [© + like one mourning for his daughter
and his disgrace (cf. Meg. 16a).] Haman feels the need of getting
HAMAN TELLS HIS FRIENDS 255
home at once to hide his shame and to pour out his sorrows to
sympathetic ears. The covered head was a sign of mourning
among the Hebrews (7% 2 5. 153° Je. 14); so also among the
Persians, according to Curt. iv. to, x. 5.
13. And Haman recounted [Jos. + with weeping] to Zeresh his
wife and to all his friends all that had happened to him.] The
friends (cf. 515. *) are in the next clause called his wise men, from
which, says Meg. 16a, we may infer that even a heathen may be
wise.—And his wise men [J + that he had in council] and Zeresh
his wife said to him, [Meg. 16a + If Mordecai be descended from
other tribes, thou canst overcome him; but] if Mordecaz be of the
seed of the Judeans [Meg. + Benjamin, Ephraim, or Manasseh]
before whom thou hast begun to fall [τ + as the kings fell before
Abraham in the Plain of the Field, as Abimelech fell before Isaac,
as the angel was vanquished by Jacob, and as by the hands of
Moses and Aaron, Pharaoh and all his hosts sank in the Red Sea,
and as all kings and princes who did them harm were delivered
by God into their hand, so also] thow wilt accomplish nothing
(©: + harmful] against him, but wilt fall completely before him,
[Ὁ + for the living God is with him.]
[σ! + For of Judah it is written, ‘‘ Thy hand is upon the neck of thine
enemies”; and of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh it is written,
‘Before Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh stir up thy might.”’]_ (@? +
Thou hast heard long ago that there were three Judzans in the province
of Babylon, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and because they did not
obey the commands of Nebuchadnezzar, he cast them into a fiery
furnace, yet they went forth from the midst of the flame unharmed;
and a tongue of flame came out from the furnace and devoured those
who had eaten their bread. If now Mordecai is one of the descendants
of those men, his deeds will be like theirs.]
The wise men are counsellors, like those of the King (1:3), not
necessarily astrologers in either case, or identical with those who
cast lots 37 (Grot.). Here as in 25 Judean, Jew, has become a
national name. It is hard to see how there could be any doubt
at this late date whether or not Mordecai were a Jew (cf. 25 3". 5).
In 5'* Haman himself says that this is the case. Perhaps the
author’s idea is, that Mordecai’s being a Jew made no impression
256 ESTHER
upon the counsellors until Haman began to fall before him, and
then they bethought themselves of the significance of this fact.
It is also hard to see why Haman’s Persian advisers should find
anything alarming in his sustaining a temporary reverse before
a Jew. The Jews were a despised, subject race, whose destruc-
tion had been decreed by the King, and there were no indications
yet that he would change his mind. Lap. supposes that they had
a touch of genuine inspiration like the Sibyl and Caiaphas (Jn.
rr49-82); Mal., that they obtained the information from an evil
spirit; Lap., Bert., that shrewd human calculation showed them
that Mordecai’s star was in the ascendant; Mar., Men., Jun., that
they had learned from the Jews of God’s wonderful deeds in the
past; Grot., Wild., Sieg., Stre., that they knew the oracles con-
demning Amalek to fall before Israel (Ex. 171° Nu. 242° Dt. 2517-18
IS. 15 2S. 18 £-; see on 31). This is probably the author’s idea.
He knows the curses of Amalek in the Jewish Scriptures, and as-
sumes that they are equally well known to Haman, the descendant
of Agag, and his friends. At first they have disregarded these
predictions, but now they see that they have retained all their
ancient vitality. That they should really have known Jewish
literature so well is, of course, impossible. This advice of the
wise men is of one piece with the additions of the Targums, which
make them quote the OT. freely.
11, DiD7] pr. -o90 H— τὴ NN wad] καὶ ἐνεδύσατο τὰ ἱμάτια δόξης
L.— 17299) ovspslo $: + dw by K 118, 202; R 486: + ἐπὶ τὸν ἵππον
GL: + ἐφίππον L.— yn awa] καὶ ἐξήγαγεν ᾿Αμὰν τὸν ἵππον ἔξω +
καὶ προσήγαγεν αὐτὸν ἔξω 1,: pr. καὶ διήλθεν ( 2Π.---- 15>] λέγων GOL:
om. J L.— wd] παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ GL: τῷ ἀνδρὶ τῷ τὸν βασιλέα τιμῶντι
Ι, οὐ -:.
12. qoon- aw] aft. bax L— qsnn ayy dx] εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ L: εἰς
τὴν αὐλήν G (+ τοῦ βασιλέως X © δε, 93h under *, 2Π).--- 155] palatii J.
— 73] Niph. ‘urge oneself,’ 1.6., ‘hasten’; of. o:pn7 of the royal cou-
riers 315 814.— wx ypm)] κατὰ κεφαλῆς G (κατακεκαλυμμένος (τὴν) κεφαλήν
δὲ & 8, 93b *): δέ percusso corde &: om. L.
13, ἼΡΌ.] misit et narravit L— jon om. JL: Haupt deletes.— wv]
cf. 519: om. L.— wane $35y] om. 95 L: om. 59 IGL.— 533] om. G (exc.
93b).— 1979p] of misfortunes (cf. 47 Gn. 4439).---- Ὁ] so N? C B? G: Ὁ
S Br. Ba. (p. 75), om. L: + ‘Audv 8. When Daghesh is inserted, it is the
so-called Daghesh forte conjunctivum (Kau. ὃ 20¢).— sn] woreSeusd
|
4
HAMAN TELLS HIS FRIENDS 257
&: οἱ φίλοι GZ (+ αὐτοῦ x © 5", 93b under *).—_ vwjom. ΦῸ ILLG
(exc. 8 © 4™g, g3b under *).— ww] ἡ γυνή G (+ αὐτοῦ N& ams, g3b
under *).— 13790 — oNJom. L.— ἼΦΝ - end of v.] ἀφ᾽ ὅτε λαλεῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ
κακά, mpoomopeveral σοι τὰ κακά" ἡσύχαζε L.— wx] om. 6 1}.--- 5]
ἢ] σι... 8: αὐτὸν ἀμύνασθαι (ᾧ L.— 5151) 2152] om. 3Π.---- "15}} 58) N'a
few codd.: 202 99.-- υ)5Ὁ] om. GLY + ὅτι θεὸς ζῶν per’ αὐτοῦ G
(930 +): + ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἐν αὐτοῖς L: + quia jam propheta est L.
ESTHER DENOUNCES HAMAN TO THE KING (6'"-75).
14. While they were still talking with him, the King’s eunuchs
appeared, and brought Haman with speed to the banquet that
Esther had prepared.| Lit. hastened to bring Haman. ‘There is
no suggestion here that Haman in his grief had forgotten his ap-
pointment with Esther, or, as Meg. 16a suggests, that he was afraid
to go, so that eunuchs had to be sent to fetch him. It was the cus-
tom to send servants to escort guests (cf. 119 519. Lu. 14'7), and
the expression hastened means no more than brought expeditiously.
With what different emotions Haman went from those that he
had anticipated (5'*)!
[Jos.26 + And one of the eunuchs named Sabouchadas saw the gal-
lows that was erected at Haman’s house, which Haman had prepared
for Mordecai, and he inquired of one of the domestics for whom they
were preparing this. And when he learned that it was for the Queen’s
uncle, since Haman was about to beg the King that he might be pun-
ished, he for the present held his peace.]
1. So the King and Haman came to banquet with Queen Esther.]
To banquet is lit. to drink. Here, as perhaps in 315, the verb is
used as a denominative from the noun banquet, lit. drinking (cf.
Jdoct tor εἰ: 2915):
2. And or the second day also the King said to Esther during the
wine-drinking]. The wine-drinking was the later part of the
meal after food had been served (see on 5°).—Whatever thy request
is, Queen Esther, it shall be granted thee; and whatever thy peti-
tion is, even as much as half of the kingdom, it shall be done.] See
5%. δ. where almost the same language is used. Esther has already
put the King off twice when he has offered to grant her request
(5* 5), but his good nature is unbounded.
17
258 ESTHER
[Φ! + Except the rebuilding vi ‘he House of the Sanctuary which
stands in half the border of my kingdom, I cannot grant thee, because so
I have promised with an oath to Geshem, and Tobiah, and Sanballat;
but wait until Darius thy son shall grow up and shall inherit the king-
dom; then it shall be done.] [L-+ And Esther was in an agony of fear
at the thought of telling him, because her enemy was before her.] [Ὁ +
And Esther raised her eyes toward Heaven.] [L-+ And God gave her
courage, when she called upon him.]
3. And Queen Esther answered, | Jos. 355 + lamenting the danger
of her people, and said:] [& + Neither silver nor gold do I seek.] Jf
I have obtained thy favour, O [τ + exalted] King, and if it seems
good to the King [©: + of the world]. See on 5%.—Let [G' + the
saving of] my life [τ + from the hand of those that hate me] be
given me as my request, and [© + the deliverance of] my people
(© + from the hands of their enemies] as my petition.| Now at
last the author allows Esther to speak the words for which she
risked her life (48). The only reason for the delay has been to give
an opportunity for Mordecai’s triumph over Haman (see on ς΄. 5).
The ellipses in Esther’s rapid utterance are accurately supplied
by @.
4. For I and my people {© + of the house of Israel] have been
sold (© + for naught] unto destruction, slaughter, and annihilation;
[Jos. 282 + and on this account I make my petition.] Lit. to de-
stroy, to slay, and to annihilate. ‘The same language is used in the
King’s edict (3:3). The expression sell into the hand for deliver
up to enemies is a favourite one with the editor of Judges (2" 4",
etc.). Here the author is thinking of Haman’s offer and the
King’s refusal (39: ").—And tf only we had been sold as slaves and
as maids, [8 + groaning] J should have kept silent, [1,4 + so as not
to trouble my lord,] [Jos. 2** J + for the evil would have been
bearable,] for the enemy is not sufficient for the injury of the King.]
This last clause is one of the most difficult in the book. No satis-
factory rendering has yet been proposed. For suggestions in
regard to its interpretation and emendation, see the following
critical note.
5. And King Xerxes said [G2 + to an interpreter,] and he said
to Queen Esther]. ‘The verse has two beginnings, due doubtless
to a combination of alternate readings. The Vrss. omit the second
ln
ESTHER DENOUNCES HAMAN 259
clause wholly or in part. @* and Meg. 16a help out the abnormal
construction by inserting an interpreter. The fact that the King
addresses himself to Esther gives Haman no opportunity to justify
himself.—Who is it, and where is he, [{€: + the shameless, guilty,
and rebellious man,] whose heart has impelled him to do thus?)
[L + to degrade the emblem of my sovereignty so as to cause thee
fear?] Impelled is lit. filled, cf. Acts 5%, ‘‘Why hath Satan filled
thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost ?”
[1,-Ὁ And when the Queen saw that it seemed dreadful to the King,
and that he hated the wrong-doer, she said, Be not angry, my lord! It
is enough if I have gained thy pity. Enjoy the feast! To-morrow I will
act in accordance with thy command. And the King adjured her to
tell him who had dared to do thus, and with an oath he promised to do
for her whatever she wished.]
6. And Esther said, An enemy and foe, this wicked Haman,
(G+ who wishes to slay thee this evening in thy bedchamber, and
who even to-day has asked to be clothed with a royal garment, and to
ride upon thy horse, and to place the golden crown upon his head, and
to rebel against thee, and to take away thy kingdom from thee. But
the heavenly voice brought to pass in that hour that honour was ren-
dered to the righteous Mordecai, my paternal uncle, the son of Jair, son
of Shimei, son of Shemida‘, son of Ba‘ana, son of Elah, son of Micha,
son of Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, son of King Saul, son of Kish,
son of Abiel, son of Zeror, son of Bekhorath, son of Aphiya, son of She-
harim, son of Uzziah, son of Sason, son of Michael, son of Eliel, son of
‘Ammihud, son of Shephatiah, son of Penuel, son of Pithah, son
of Melokh, son of Jerubba‘al, son of Jeruham, son of Hananiah, son of
Zibdi, son of Elpa‘al, son of Shimri, son of Zebadiah, son of Remuth,
son of Hashom, son of Shehorah, son of ‘Uzza, son of Guza, son of Gera,
son of Benjamin, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, whom the
wicked Haman ‘sought to hang (cf. 2 on 15);] [5 - therefore is his
name called Ha-man (this is the one), for this is the one who has wished
to lay hands upon the Jewish people, who are called children of the Lord
of all, and who has wished to slay them.] [Meg. 16a -+ All the time she
pointed at Xerxes, but an angel came and turned her hand toward
Haman.]
The two parts of Esther’s answer correspond to the two parts of
the King’s question. The fatal word is now spoken which will
decide whether Haman or Esther has the greater influence with
200 ESTHER
the King. The enemy is a standing title of Haman (cf. 74 and the
synonymous word 310 δ᾽ 910. *). As a descendant of Agag (3'),
he was characterized by an inveterate hostility to the Jews.—
Haman meanwhile was in terror [3] + straightway] before the King
and the Queen]. He might well be terrified, since he suddenly dis-
covered that he had affronted both the King and the Queen; the
King, by condemning his wife to death; the Queen, by attempt-
ing to destroy her and her people.
14, ‘\1) oy] a nominal clause at the beginning of a sentence (Kau.
ὃ 116); followed by pf.— ny] ,ontaS §: om. IL 1, G (exc. & & 8 ms,
249, 93 under *).— D101] Lynd ὅ5: τις L.— 77] regine BZ: om. LG
(exc. 8 © δ πε 93b under *, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120, 236, 249).— wn] παρῆν
L: ‘arrived,’ as 4%. 4 817 οἱ. 26— \5n3»)] Hiph. ‘hastened,’ as Qal 29 84.—
x75] om. S L 1 (ὁ (exc. Ν © # mz, 93b under *).— [2] eum J L.— νὰ --
ANDN] καὶ οὕτως ἱλαρώθη L.— 708] regina I: + ἡ βασίλισσα 71, 74, 76,
120, 236.
1. ninw> — xa] καὶ πορευθεὶς ἀνέπεσε ἐν ὥρᾳ L.— minw] LuduoSas
®: ad cenam G.— oy) 2,.2.} §.— "ΓΌΝ] om. ILLZG (exc. 8 & 5 πρὶ 93b
under Ἔ).--- ΠΡ ὉΠ] eo 17: αὐτῶν L.
2. ΟΝ ρτ. γαοίμνη 65, 1Π: σον Ὁ] οἱ I: + reginamB:om. A.—anwy2-d)]
ὡς δὲ προῆγεν ἡ πρόποσις L.— Ὁ Ov 02] Haupt deletes.— 2] om. HG
(exc. δὶ & 5, 936 under Ἔ).--- Ὁ}}3] om. 44 3ῆ.---- ὉΠ] on §.— anwva] post-
quam incaluerat 3: 9 for 2 ὅδ: in bona propinatione L.— 7] om. LZ G
(exc. & © 5, 93b under *): + τέ ἐστιν καὶ ( (τί ἐστί σοι καὶ 71, 74, 76, 106,
120: Tl ἔσται σοι καὶ 44: 93b om.).— JAONW] ὁ κίνδυνος L.— 75 = ἽΠΟΝ] om.
& LZ—a2dn7] om. J 44, 106.— > 1Γ).} om. G (exc. & & 9m, g3b
under *).— ΠῚ] om. 79 §.— Ἴ5Ψ 3] relatio L— mbna] + mei 3H GLE.
—vyn) + wads §:+ σοι G: - εἰδὴ L: om. L.
3. 1M] om. L 44, 106.— ΤΌΝ] ila J: om. G (exc. 8 ὁ: 5 mMEMUP, O3h
under *).— 725n7] om. IL LG (exc. & ὁ: δ ms sup, 93h under *).—0N- J
om. 3: + τῷ Bacrhe? 71, 74, 76, 120.— PY JT NNN] δοκεῖ L: εὗρον χάριν
ἐνώπιον &.— Jon pr. Tod κυρίου μου 44, 74, 76, 120, 236.— 2} -- ὈΝῚ] καὶ
ἀγαθὴ ἡ κρίσις ἐν καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ L: et si videtur anime tue 17: om. G (exc.
xe-ame, 93h under *).— 5] om. 51,1 (6 (exc. & © *, 93b under *).—
wpi—end of v.] desiderium meum, neque aurum, neque argentum ego peto
L.— ws] om. " G (exc. 8 © #™s, g3b under *): ὁ λαός μου L.— nbxw>]
2 essentia (cf. 47), according to Wild., Sieg., z.e., ‘life’ is identical with
‘request.’ According to Bert., Keil, Rys., it is 1 of the price; according
to Haupt, 3 of the instrument.— nypy] καὶ ὁ λόγος μου G (a few codd.
λαός): καὶ τὸ ἔθνος Τ͵ .-- nwpaa] τῆς ψυχῆς μου L.
4, yownd] νας, Θ: εἰς ἀπωλείαν 6 27: om. L.— 2195] Lopmso 5:
καὶ διαρπαγὴν GL: om. L A 44, 71, 106.—73N>] καὶ δουλείαν GL: els
ESTHER DENOUNCES HAMAN 201
δούλωσιν L.— yn] utinam J: this word, compounded of 55 (88) 7x, is
used only here and Ec. 6%. It is common in Aram. and late Heb. intro-
ducing a supposition that is regarded as desirable (Kau. § 1595). Fol-
lowed here by the perf. because the condition is contrary to fact (Kau.
ἡ τοῦ p).— Px] + LLeodas &: ἡμεῖς καὶ τὰ τέκνα ἡμῶν G: καὶ τὰ νήπια
αὐτῶν L: et filai nostri L.— 07395] om. 9 85: εἰς διαρπαγήν L: in captivita-
tem &.— nwnpw>)] om. Ὁ $: om. H 1,.--- 1) 222] om. 1, 15 G (exc. & © ame,
936 under *).— nw nT] καὶ παρήκουσα G: καὶ παρθένους 52: καὶ παρήκας
(4, Ald.: kat παροικοῦσα τοῦ: καὶ παρηκούσας 108a, 243, 248, 249, C: καὶ
οὐκ ἤθελον ἀπαγγεῖλαι L: om. H.— Ἴ 7 -- 5] nunc autem hostis noster est
cujus crudelitas redundat in regem J: οὐ γὰρ ἄξιος ὁ διάβολος τῆς αὐλῆς τοῦ
βασιλέως G: et non est dignum regie regis &- ἐγένετο γὰρ μεταπεσεῖν τὸν
ἄνθρωπον τὸν κακοποιήσαντα ἡμᾶς LL: 3oLd9 35.395 tLe τος U
Ledsso &: παρεκάλει τὲ τούτων ἀπαλλαγῆναι Jos.: Pow XP yn mo ὈΥῚΝ
Nooo NPN. AMD T!: ΝΟΟΘῪ ΝΣ yw pnw ΝΩΣῪ Sya mS ons G2.
These all presuppose the text of 4. The additions in L J Jos. look like
conflate readings containing a translation of # in which 7% is rendered
‘calamity’: ἵνα μὴ λυπήσω τὸν κύριόν μου L: esset tolerabile malum 3}:
μέτριον γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ κακόν Jos. In this passage most comm. assume that,
137 means ‘he enemy, as in 7° and everywhere else in Est. Their trans-
lations then vary according to the meaning that they put upon )%
‘equal’ and ΓΙ) ‘injury.’ Meg. 16a renders, for the enemy 15 not satis-
fied with the loss of the King; 1.6., he was jealous of Vashti and killed her,
now he is jealous of me and wishes to kill me. Similarly Mar., not con-
tent with plundering the King’s treasury, he must needs kill the King’s
subjects; Osi., for the enemy would not then cause loss to the King, 1.6., if
we were made slaves, I should still be kept alive; Jun. & Trem., since
the enemy proposes nothing for (averting) the loss of the king; Sol. b.
Melekh, Drus., Grot., Pisc., Vat., Cler.. Ramb., Ges., Will., AV., RV.,
most modern Vrss., although the enemy cannot compensate for the loss of
the King, i.e., cannot make up the tribute that will cease when the Jews
are killed; Bert., Keil, Haupt, for the enemy is not worth troubling the
King about; Schu., for (the punishing of) the enemy is less important than
(the averting of) the injury to the King. All of these translations are un-
satisfactory, since they give no reason for Esther’s keeping silence, asthe
context requires. Most of them demand the supplying before them of
the words but I cannot keep silence, which are not in the text. All as-
sume artificial meanings either for 13, for 7), or for p12. IE., Dieu.,
Pisc., Drus., Buhl., αἰ. suggest reading 7s ‘adversity,’ ‘calamity,’ in-
stead of x ‘enemy,’ and translate for the calamity is not so great as the
injury of the King, or, for the calamity would not be sufficiently great to
trouble the King about it; but this is just as unsatisfactory as the other
renderings. ὋΣ never has the meaning of ‘calamity’ in Est., and it is
very doubtful whether p12 agury, can be weakened into meaning an-
262 ESTHER
noyance to the King through mentioning the business, as several modern
comm. assume (but see Haupt, a. 1.).. The text is probably corrupt.
Oet., Wild., read τοῦ pra mye πη px 2, ‘for the deliverance is not
worth the injury of the King,’ but this does not relieve the difficulty.
There is an ancient corruption of the text at this point for which no satis-
factory emendation has yet been proposed.— 333] so B?: p723 Ba. G.
δ. ὍΝ] καὶ ἐθυμώθη L.—wvrnwns] om. 1, 3 (6 (exc. δὶ ὁ: 8m, gzb
under *): Haupt deletes.— 198) 2] om. 17 (ὁ (exc. & & 8 πρὶ 93b under *):
Haupt deletes.— a2$n7 snoN5] om. J L G (exc. 8 & τε. 93b under *).—
NIT ΠῚ ἽΝ] ef cujus potentie I: om. LEE (exc. δὶ ὁ: *™E, 93b under *).
— ΝΘ] Qal perf. of the transitive form of the vb. xbp (Kau. § 74 g) with
suf. Jahn, Haupt, read xdn.
6. ON] Kal θαρσήσασα εἶπεν L.— rs wx] ὁ ψευδὴς οὑτοσί Τ, ---- 37]
here pointed with Pathach; Ju. 74 7 (see Baer, a./.). Pred. put first
for emphasis.— 381] + noster J: regis LH: ὁ φίλος σου L: om. G (exc.
Ν ¢ amg, 93h *).— γ2 ΠῚ] quod ille audiens 34: Aman autem audiens vera
L.— yom - end of v.] om. L.— yo] tlle I.— $33] so N' S N? Br. C Β'
B? G: nya} Ba.— nya2] Niph. only in late books, e.g., 1 Ch. 2139 Dn. 817,
This clause and those that follow as far as DN») (80) are circumstantial
clauses with participles. 712927) — 202] vultum regis ac regine ferre non
sustinens B: et cecidit vultus suus D.
THE KING SENTENCES HAMAN TO DEATH (77-19).
7. (©: + And the King lifted his eyes and looked, and saw ten
angels like unto the sons of Haman cutting down the trees in the
inner garden.] Now the King was rising in his wrath from the
wine-drinking, [G& + flinging away his nevkin,] [Vrss. + to go]
into the palace-garden [© + to see what this thing was (similarly
Meg. 16a).] Rising into is a pregnant construction for rising to
go into. On wine-drinking, see 5° 72. On palace and garden,
see 15, As to the reason for the King’s going into the garden
opinions differ. @? supposes that it was to work off his anger
by cutting down trees; Men., that it was to avoid sight of the hated
Haman; Lyra, Haupt, to take time to think about his decision;
Drus., because he was still friendly to Haman and hesitated to
condemn him; Bon., Bert., Oet., Sieg., because he was uncomfort-
ably heated with wine and anger, and wished to cool off in the
outer air; Schu., Stre., because of the natural restlessness of anger.
The true reason is probably to give the author a chance to insert
XERXES SENTENCES’ HAMAN 263
the episode in v. *:—But Haman was staying to beg Queen Esther
[(G: + for mercy] upon his life, [705. 355 + and to entreat her
to pardon his offences,] for he saw that evil was determined against
him by the King.] On staying, cf. 5'. The ellipsis after beg is
rightly supplied by @: (cf. 48). Determined, lit. completed, is used
of something that is fully settled in a person’s mind (cf. 1 S. 207. §
2517 Ez. 513). It is clear to Haman, at least, that the King’s going
into the garden is not to devise means of saving him, but to think
out some terrible punishment to inflict upon him.
8. And as the King was returning [© + in his wrath] from the
palace-garden to the banquet-hall, [Meg. 16a, © + behold the
angel Gabriel gave the wicked Haman a push in sight of the King,
and] Haman [L + was dismayed and] was lying prostrate [L + at
the feet of Queen Esther] upon the couch on which Esther [L 3 +
was reclining.]| The King’s wrath is not abated by his visit to the
garden, but impels him to return in a few minutes to the banquet-
hall that he has just left. Meanwhile Haman, in an agony of fear,
has fallen at the feet of Esther as she reclines upon her couch, to
beg her to save him. Falling down and laying hold of the feet
was a common attitude of suppliants (cf. 8% 1 5. 25% 2 K. 4:7,
also frequently in the Assyrian inscriptions). It was impossible
under the circumstances for the King to misunderstand the gesture ;
but he had come back with the determination to kill Haman, and
was ready to put the worst construction on anything that he might
do. This interpretation seems more natural than that the author
means to represent the King as hitherto in doubt, but now decided
by Haman’s supposed assault upon the Queen. On couch, see 1°.
—And, [& Jos. + seeing him upon Esther’s couch,] the King [3 ©
+ was enraged and] said, [Meg. 16a + Woe within and woe with-
out!] [Jos. + O wickedest of all men!] [L & + Is not his crime
against the kingdom enough?] Is he also (going) to violate the
Queen while I am present in the house? [© + Now, all peoples,
nations, and tongues, judge what ought to be done with him?]
Also is used with reference to Haman’s first crime against Esther.
Not satisfied with attacking her life, he must a/so attack her honour.
Esther has now a chance to intercede for Haman, but she does not
take it, All his entreaties are in vain, and she looks on in silence
264 ESTHER
while he is condemned to death. The older commentators labour
hard to show that Haman deserved no mercy, and that Esther
would have done wrong to intercede for him; but it must be ad-
mitted that her character would have been more attractive if she
had shown pity toward a fallen foe. The author might have rep-
resented her as interceding for Haman, even if the King did not
grant her request; but such an idea is far from his mind. Here,
as everywhere, he gloats over the destruction of the heathen.—
Before the word left the King’s mouth they had covered Haman’s
face.| The watchful eunuchs need nothing more than the King’s
last remark to see that Haman is condemned to death, and they
cover his face preparatory to leading him out to execution. Cur-
tius (vi. 832) mentions this as a Greek custom; and Livy (1. 2655) as
a Roman custom. It is not attested among the Persians, but is
not improbable. Cf. 6, where Haman covers his head as a sign
of grief (see critical note).
9. Then said Harbénda, one of the eunuchs [§ + who stood] be-
fore the King]. This is the same person doubtless as Harb6ona
of 1'°, although the spelling is slightly different (see p. 67). Those
who have hitherto flattered Haman are now ready to give him a
shove when they see that he is falling —There is the gallows too
that Haman erected for [Vrss. + hanging] Mordecai who spoke a
good word on behalf of the King [€: + by whose means also he
was saved from being killed. That gallows is] standing in the
house of Haman. [Gcodd., [05.395 + This he knew, because he
had seen the gallows in the house of Haman when he was sent to
summon him to the royal banquet, and inquiring about it from
one of the servants, he learned for what it was intended (cf. 6").]
Too adds another reason to those already given by the King why
Haman should be executed, and incidentally suggests a method of
carrying out the sentence. On Mordecai’s service, see 253 62; on
the erection of the gallows, 5.#—{L ©: + Now, if it seems good to
the King, let the gallows be brought from his house, and let him
be lifted up and fastened upon it] fifty cubits high. [Meg. 16a +
The wicked Harbéna had been involved in Haman’s plans; but
when he saw that their scheme could not be carried out, he took
to flight (similarly @:).] (Jos.2*7 + When the King heard this, he
XERXES SENTENCES HAMAN 205
determined that Haman should be put to death in no other way
than that which he had devised for Mordecai.] And the King
said [G2 + to Mordecai] [τ + go] hang him upon it, [ΤΠ + and
his wife and his ten sons.] The King is easily influenced by the
suggestions of his courtiers (cf. 12! 24 31! 55 610 75), The author in-
tends to represent him as a weak character moved by the whim
of the moment. ‘The poetic justice of hanging Haman on the
gallows that he had reared for Mordecai naturally catches his
fancy.
[@?+ So the word of Holy Scripture was fulfilled for Mordecai,
“When the Lord is pleased with a man’s ways, even his enemies shall
depend upon him.” And the King answered and said to Mordecai,
O Mordecai, the Jew, who hast saved the King from being killed, rise,
go and take Haman, the wicked enemy, the oppressor of the Jews, and
hang him on the gallows which he prepared for himself. Inflict a terri-
ble penalty upon him, and do to him whatever seems good to thee. Then
Mordecai went out from before the King and took Haman from the gate
of the King’s house. And Mordecai spoke to Haman, saying, Come
with me, Haman, thou foe and wicked enemy and oppressor of the Jews,
that we may hang thee upon the gallows which thou hast erected for thy-
self. Then the wicked Haman answered the righteous Mordecai,
Before they bring me to the gallows, I beg thee, righteous Mordecai,
that thou wilt not hang me as they hang common criminals. I have
despised great men, and governors of provinces have waited upon me.
I have made kings to tremble at the word of my mouth, and with the
utterance of my lips I have frightened provinces. I am Haman; my
name was called Viceroy of the King, Father of the King. I beg thee,
righteous Mordecai, not to do to me as I thought to do to thee. Spare
my honour, and do not kill me or hew me in pieces like Agag my father.
Thou art good, Mordecai; deal with me according to thy goodness, and
do not take my life; do not kill me like a branch so that my life shall be
destroyed. Do not remember against me the hatred of Agag, nor the
jealousy of Amalek. Do not regard me as an enemy in thy heart and
do not cherish a grudge against me, as Esau my father cherished. Great
wonders have been wrought for thee as they were wrought for thy fathers
when they crossed the sea. My eyes are too dim to see thee, and my
mouth I am not able to open before thee, because I have taken the ad-
vice of my friends and of Zeresh my wife against thee. I beg thee to
spare my life, my lord Mordecai, the righteous, and do not blot out my
name suddenly like that of Amalek my ancestor, and do not hang my
gray head upon the gallows. But if thou art determined to kill me, cut
off my head with the King’s sword, with which they kill all the nobles
200 ESTHER
of the provinces. Then Haman began to cry and to weep, but Mordecai
did not give heed to him. And when Haman saw that no attention was
paid to his words, he set up a wail and a weeping in the midst of the
garden of the palace (followed by an address of Haman to the trees who
refuse in turn to furnish a gallows for him until the cedar is reached).]-
10. So they hanged Haman upon the gallows which he had erected
for Mordecai, [249 + who spoke on behalf of the King,] [& +
and his wife and his ten sons.] And the wrath of the King subsided],
Ὁ 2.
[Jos. 8+ Which event compels me to wonder at the divine provi-
dence, and to learn his wisdom and justice, not merely in punishing
the wickedness of Haman, but in bringing it about that he should suffer
the same penalty that he had devised for another; so teaching, that
whatever evil one plans for another, he is unconsciously preparing for
himself first of all. Haman, accordingly, who had not used discreetly
the honour that he had received from the King, was destroyed in this
manner.]
7. NDNA] ἔκθυμος δὲ γενόμενος L: om. LG (exc. 8 © ὃ πε g3b under *)
—ypaanwnn] de loco suo &: de loco convivii J: καὶ πλησθεὶς ὀργῆς
L: + et intravit 9: + wcaass\ 85: + καὶ ἣν περιπατῶν L: - et exiit L—
jm N33] hortum arboribus consitum J: τὸν κῆπον (ἢ. (+ τὸν σύμφυτον
Ν δ. amg, 93h under *): hortum DZ: om. L.—yn7)-end of v.] om. L.—
any] om. HG (exc. & © 5, 93b under *, 249): παρεκάλει 52, 64, 243, 248,
C, Ald.— wpa5] παρῃτεῖτο G: καὶ ἡτεῖτο 52, 64, 243, 248, C, Ald.: παρεκά-
λει 55, 71, 74, 70, τού, 120, 236.— wp) 2y]om. LZ G (exc. 8 © 5, 93b under *,
249).— 17DNn] om. |G (exc. & & ἃ πιρ 93b under *).— 17753 93] om. ( 3.
— rx] with Haupt read yoy.— ayaa vox] ἑαυτὸν ἐν κακοῖς ὄντα (ὦ L.—
qbna nxn] om. 3 (5 (exc. δὶ © 4, 936 under *).
8. 1» — bony] tr. aft. my L—ybnay] gui cum J.—nv] om. L.—
1Γ02] nemoribus consito + et intrasset J: om. L GZ G (exc. & & 8 ms, 93h
under *).— 7} -- ΟΝ] ad locum suum Z: om. G (exc. δὰ © ἃ πρὶ 93b under *).
— yom] reperit Aman J.— 58} + ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας ᾿Εσθὴρ τῆς βασιλίσσης L.
— Ὀ6)] in the sense of ‘lying prostrate’ as Jos. 719 1 S. 53-4 Am. g! (see
BDB. p. 657, ὃ 6; Kau. § 116 d).— πὸ -- Wwe] ἀξιῶν τὴν βασίλισσαν G:
reging et deprecabatur eam tenens &: ἔτι ἀνακειμένης L.— ὙΓΟΝΊ + jou
$.— w)225] with ellipsis of 77, as T', ‘he has not come except to violate’
(Kau. $1147). According to Haupt, it is impf. with prefixed emphatic
4 (of. AJSL. xxii. p. 201). 22 means ordinarily ‘subdue’ (Ne. 5°).
Here the context demands the special sense of ‘violate.’ ny] nou L& G
(μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ & & me) — 993] ἐνώπιόν μου L:om. GH.— N— 7257] ἀπαχθήτω
‘Auay καὶ μὴ ζήτω: καὶ οὕτως ἀπήγετο L: om. 327: ᾿Αμὰν δὲ ἀκούσας διετράπη
τῷ προσώπῳ (Ὁ (pr. ὁ λόγος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ στόματος τοῦ βασιλέως δὶ “. anne,
MORDECAI SUCCEEDS HAMAN 267
93b under *). 15M] Condamin (Rev. Bibi. vii. pp. 258-261) and Perles
(Analekten, p. 32) propose on the basis of G to read ὙΠ ‘his face grew
red’ (cf. Ps. 345 Jb. 62°, G διετράπη τῷ προσώπῳ). Haupt adopts this
emendation. It is not necessary with Sieg. to regard 15n (pf. with 1)
as an Aramaizing construction instead of impf. with 1 consec. The
clause is circumstantial and expresses the idea that the covering had
taken place before the word was fairly out of the King’s mouth.
9, Ὁ. ἼὉΠ] + gui stabant B: + zrclo Lassey S: τῶν παίδων αὐτοῦ L:
— boa v5] πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα G: τοῦ βασιλέως A: regis L: om. L.— 23] καὶ
G: Domine rex &: om. J L.— Ἴ 2 Π τα ws] tr. aft. ΤῸΝ L.— ws] om. $ 6.—
jr]om. JI: + Based $: - ἵνα κρεμάσῃ L: + ut illum suspenderet L.—
9 Ὁ] τὸν Μαρδοχαῖον L: + ἀστοῖς, $.—jo7-ws]om. G.— wr] οἷς,
5. by 3 129] cf. 1 S. 2539 Je. 3212. The phrase means ‘to speak well
of one.’ This Haupt finds inappropriate as a description of Mordecai’s
service, and emends to read ὋΣ 319 127 722 ‘rendered a good deed on be-
half οἵ. The change is unsupported by the Vrss.— 315] om. J G (exc.
Ν © amg, 93h under *).— ny] pr. καὶ (8 H: om. L 44, 106.— yo N33] ἐν
τῇ αὐλῇ αὐτοῦ L: om. 44, 106.— 132] 2122S Br.: ξύλον G (pr. ὑψηλόν & & 5,
930) om. A L: erectum &.— ann] pedum L&: + κέλευσον οὖν, κύριε, ἐπ’ αὐτῷ
αὐτὸν κρεμασθῆναι L.
10. om. L.— yon — yon] καὶ ἐκρεμάσθη Auav G: et suspensi sunt sicut
praceperat rex H— 21705] - τῷ λαλήσαντι περὶ τοῦ βασιλέως 249.—
22v’] pausal form for 733% (Stade § gor ὃ).
MORDECAI IS INSTALLED IN THE PLACE OF HAMAN (8!-*),
1. On that day King Xerxes gave Queen Esther the property
of Haman, the enemy of the Jews (©: + and the men of his house,
and all his treasures, and all his riches.] The property of criminals
was confiscated by the state, according to Her. iii. 129; Jos. Ant.
xi. 17. Haman’s property the King bestows upon Esther in com-
pensation for the injury done her. Property, lit. house, is used in
the sense of all a man” belongings, as Gn. 30’ 44! 1 K. 13°
Jb. 8:5; so rightly the addition of ©. On enemy, see 3'°.—And
Mordecai came before tne King], i.e., he was raised to the rank of
the high officials who saw the King’s face (110: 7°).—For Esther
had disclosed what his relationship to her was.) Now for the first
time the King discovers that Mordecai is a connection of Esther ;
but cf. 27- 2 4416. How the King could have remained in ig-
norance of this fact until this late date is as extraordinary as
Haman’s ignorance up to the moment when the blow falls, To
208 ESTHER
his relationship to Esther Mordecai owes his present promotion.
His service to the King has already been rewarded.
2. And the King drew off his signet [τὸ + ring] which he had
taken away from Haman [L + and with which his life was sealed, -
and the King said to Esther: Did he plan also to hang Mordecai
who saved me from the hand of the eunuchs? He did not know
that Esther was his relative on the father’s side.] And he gave it
to Mordecai.| On the signet-ring, see 3195, The removal of the
ring must have preceded the leading of Haman out to execution;
but since it was not mentioned in 7%, it is inserted here as an after-
thought. The bestowal of this ring made Mordecai grand vizier
and clothed him with all the powers that Haman had hitherto
possessed (319-1°)—And Esther appointed Mordecai [©: + master
and steward] over Haman’s property.| According to 3% 11 51! οἱ
the estate must have been very great, so that the administration
of it and disposal of its revenues gave Mordecai wealth suitable
to his new dignity. How much he possessed before, we are not
told, only that he had leisure to sit most of the time in the King’s
gate. [L + And he said to him, What dost thou wish? and I will
do it for thee.]
1. oA το Ὁ}}2] om. L.— wrwns] om. 44, 71, 106: Haupt deletes.
—asbnn] om. G (exc. 936 under *).— yonn 2-773] om. H.— ov]
oman ΟἹ om. (5 (exc. 8 © *™, 93b under *).— JopA= 137701] καὶ ἐκά-
λεσεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τὸν Μαρδοχαῖον (tr. aft. 82 39707) L: καὶ Μαρδοχαῖος
προσεκλήθη ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως G.— mb -- 3] om. L.— NDS 9927] cogno-
verat rex B: + τῷ βασιλεῖ 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 236.— 79 NA AD] ὅτι ἐνοι-
κείωται αὐτῇ G (+ Μαρδοχαῖος 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120, 236): quod Mar-
docheus erat de genere regine &: quod esset patruus suus J.
2. nyav] + rp Syn K 18, 95; R 42, 405: + ἀπὸ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ L.—
DAD — wr] om. L.— way] + rex L.— ay] ‘to transfer from one person
to another’ (cf. Nu. 277), here from Haman to the King.— sq AN}
om. L.— 2.199 - own] Kal ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ L.— nr] suam J.’
ESTHER OBTAINS PERMISSION TO COUNTERACT HAMAN’S EDICT
AGAINST THE JEWS (83-8).
3. And Esther spoke again before the King]. The overthrow
of Haman and the elevation of Mordecai do not satisfy Esther
so long as Haman’s edict of destruction remains unrevoked. Al-
ESTHER OBTAINS A NEW EDICT 269
though Mordecai held the signet-ring, he did not venture to use it
to save the Jews until express permission had been obtained.
From vy. ‘it appears that Esther once more risked her life in going
to the King unsummoned (cf. 5!). It is hard to see why this was
necessary, now that Mordecai was grand vizier and could bring
all matters before the King. It is also hard to see why Esther
should run this risk when the day for slaughtering the Jews was
set nearly a year later (see on 4"). The author wishes to magnify
Esther’s patriotism by representing her as willing to risk her life
twice for her nation.—And she fell at his feet, and wept, and be-
sought him]. Esther’s supplication is much more passionate in
this case than in 75. because her petition concerns not herself
but her people (cf. 7%)—To counteract the evil of Haman the
Agagite and his [8 + wicked] plan which he had devised against
the Jews.] Counteract is lit. cause to pass over. On Agagite,
see, σ᾽: on the plan, see 2.) τ΄-
4. And the King extended to Esther the golden sceptre [I + in his
hand as a sign of clemency,] and Esther arose and stood before the
King.] See on 5?.
5. And she said, If it seems good to the King, and if I have won
his favour, and the thing is proper in the King’s opinion, and I
am pleasing unto him]. The first two formulas of introduction
have been used frequently before (cf. 11° κ΄. § 7%), the last two are
new.—{@' + Let him make a decree and] let it be written to revoke
the dispatches, the device of Haman son of Hamm(‘datha, the
Agagite, which he wrote to cause the destruction of the Jews that are
in all the King’s provinces.| evoke is lit. cause to return (cf. 8°).
On dispatches, cf. 1% 315 81° g29- 25. 3, On the contents of these
dispatches, cf. 5:5... The added words, the device of Haman,
bring out the thought that the former edict had not been issued
for the good of the state, but to gratify Haman’s private vengeance.
6. For how can I gaze upon the calamity that has befallen my
people, and how can I gaze upon the destruction of my kindred 7],
i.c., 1 cannot be a silent spectator while this tragedy is being
enacted. Here Esther reiterates the petition that she began to
present in 7* ‘, from which the King’s attention was diverted by
his wrath against Haman (cf. 75). Kindred is used as in 21". 3,
270 ESTHER
On the similarity of this v. to Gn. 44%, see Rosenthal, ZATW.
XV. p. 281 (see on 6°).
7. [Jos. 2 + And the King promised her that he would not do
anything that would be displeasing to her, or that would be con-
trary to her desire.| And King Xerxes said to Queen Esther and
to Mordecai the Jew.
[Ὁ + Behold, thou didst wrong at the beginning, when I asked thee
saying, From what race art thou sprung? that I might make thy family
kings and rulers; and when I asked, From what stock art thou? that I
might make thy family generals and polemarchs; that thou didst say, I
know not, for my father and mother died leaving me a little girl.]
Esther alone comes before the King and she alone is addressed
by him, so that the words and Mordecai the Jew look like an in-
terpolation. They are omitted by 6L ZS Jos., but cf. v. 3.--
Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther, and him they
have hanged upon the gallows [& + with all his house] because he laid
hands upon the Jews], cf. 7:°-8'. The King reminds Esther of the
two favours already granted, not to suggest that he has done as
much as can reasonably be expected, but to show that he is kindly
disposed toward the Jews, and is ready to do all that the law will
allow to avert the consequences of Haman’s edicts.
[ὦ + What dost thou still desire Ὁ] [L + And Esther said to the King,
Grant me to punish mine enemies with death. And Queen Esther
begged the King for the sons of Haman that they also might die with
their father. And the King said, Let it be so. And she smote a multi-
tude of her enemies. In Susa also the King granted the Queen to put
men to death; and he said, Behold, I give thee the right to hang them.
And so it was done.]
8. Now [© + make haste,] write ye yourselves on behalf of the
Jews, as seems good to you, in the King’s name, and seal it with
the King’s signet,] [Jos. ὅτι + to send into all the kingdom,] for the
document that 1s written in the King’s name and that is sealed with
the King’s signet cannot be revoked [Jos. 51 + by those who have
read it.] The addition of Jos. suggests that the clause beginning
with for gives only a reason for the sealing that has just been
mentioned (so Schu.); but the word revoked suggests rather that
ESTHER OBTAINS A NEW EDICT 271
it is a reason for the whole activity of Esther and Mordecai com-
manded by the King. Esther had asked (v. 5) that the edict of
Haman might be revoked; the King now says, It is impossible
to revoke a law that has been made (cf. 119), but you may de-
vise measures to counteract its operation. This v. is a counter-
part to the permission given to Haman in 3".
3. om. L 106.— ἼΓΌΝ] om. & G (exc. & © 5, 93d under *, 71, 74, 76, 120,
236).--- Δ ΠΥ] finite vb. instead of inf. after 7o1m.— Ἵ9 5] eum JI.—
721] budso B: καὶ ἠξίου G—n3vnd-4an1] om. F—pnnn] om. G
(exc. δ & 5 πιε 93h under *).— Nn] om. G (exc. 93b under *).— nxi-
Ὁ. 75] Haupt deletes as a tertiary gloss derived from 935.--- 1nawnn] om.
G (exc. 936 under *).— ὃν awn ws] de quoimpetraverat Aman adversus
genus &: + συμπᾶσι 93b +.
4. om. L.— $n 1] ille ex more 3,.---- ΤΌ Ὁ] om. J 44.— 03 wi) Ὁ3
Ba.: 2 ΦΨ Var. Or. (Ginsburg) N! S.— 3717) + ἣ ἢν ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ g3b
under +.— opm] as depoo $.— Nox] ila J: om. 106.— dn04]
eum J.
5. NN] καὶ εἶπε(») GLB: + σῦν K 117 G: + Μαρδοχαῖος L: +
regi G.— 3113) -- oN] om. L.— ἼΠ:Π 1] σοι G: κυρίῳ μου τῷ βασιλεῖ 44, 74, 76,
τοῦ, 120, 236: domino meo G.— Ὑ) 8 τ- ὈΝῚ] tr. aft. 72072 $.— oxy] om.
ox G (exc. 44, 936, τοῦ, 108@).— 1155] om. G: ἐνώπιόν cove ὁ: ame, Α΄
44, 108a, 249, 93b under *: ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς cov N: in conspectu tuo DB:
in oculis ejus J.—vyya— ww] om. GF (exc. δὶ © 8 ™E, 249, 93b under
*).— w2] an Aram. word found only in late Heb. (cf. Ec. 11°), and
ordinarily used of the ceremonially clean (cf. Siegfried, Neuheb. Gram.
§ 44).— on 2] δὲ J.— yyya ὯΝ 73] om. JS.— n>] obsecro ut novis
epistolis 9: modal $: πεμφθήτω G: mittantur a te littere L.— vor]
ἀποστραφῆναι (6: ἀποστρέψαι 8 A: ὅπως ἀνέλῃς L.— 275] cstr. inf.
with 9 giving the contents of the writing as 3° and often.— Ὁ. ἼΡΌΠ] τὴν
ἐπιστολὴν L.— nawnn] veteres J: pr.0 $:7a ἀπεσταλμένα (ὦ: om. LE.—
Δ ΝΠ 12] om. ILG G (exc. δὶ * © ms, g3b under *): μ- Ἰ $.—navwnn-
ΝΠ] Haupt deletes as a gloss derived from ν. 3.--- wx -end of v.] om.
L.— πονῇ] perire J.—nx]+5> many codd. (KR) $B'T?E.— orn]
ἐο5 9.— 7902 My 523] ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ cov G: in regia tua in nomine
tuo &.
6. om. L τοῦ: Haupt deletes as a gloss or variant to *.— mx]
finite vb. after 52) instead of the usual inf. cstr. or inf. cstr. with $ (ζ΄.
Kau. § 112 p).— 773] 2 ΤΙΝ means to look intently upon something that
inspires joy or horror. Cf. Gn. 2115 “gaze upon the death of the child.”
— ΝΥ) here only in the book in the sense of ‘befall.’ For this the au-
thor generally uses ΠΡ (cf. 47 6').— xs» Ww] om. GF (exc. 93b *): et
interfectionem J.— xs] ΝΣ K 245 R τοῦ, Sebhir in some codd.—
272 ESTHER
soy — ADDN] om. J.— 82] σωθῆναι G: liberari L.—y1283 sola G: in
g°}138. The correct form 1572 Ν. On the formation, see Ols. ὃ 215 ὃ;
Stade, ὃ 274 b.— nn] de patria mea GL.
7. = DN] om. L.— wwny] so Oc. (Ginsburg): Φυ ΠΝ] Or.
N'S Br. B!: om. 6G: Haupt deletes.— nox] ili D: om. 44, 106.—
a= 72>D7] om. GL (exc. 93b under *): τῇ βασιλίσσῃ A ὅ5.--- τπ--
snond] καὶ ἐνεχείρισεν αὐτῷ ὁ βασιλεὺς τὰ κατὰ τὴν Bacrdelay L.—7I7}
om. 3} 1Π.---- m3] πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντα (θ: vines facultates 1ῆ.-- “ΓΙΌ Ν 5] καὶ
ἐχαρισάμην σοι G: tibi LH— oI τ- ἸΠΙΝῚ om. L.— abn] jussi afigi 3:
ἐκρέμασα G: suspendi &.— oa -- Ὁ} Haupt deletes to correspond with
his restoration of 22£.— ww Sy] + ausus est 9.— o7793 -- bw) cogitavit
super me mala inferre regno meo L.—'3 1 ΓΦ] as 251 3° 62 g2.— oI]
D173 Q.
8-13. tr. aft. ν. 14. Lonny] καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐνεχείρισε τῷ Mapdoxalw L:
om. ΓΝ 37. onN is emphatic both in its insertion and in its position —
1203] γράφειν L: scribe L: om. $.— by] not ‘unto’ but ‘concerning’ (cf.
v.2 g2°).— oma Sy] om. 6 LG.—oyya aw] ws δοκεῖ ὑμῖν G: ὅσα Bov-
λεται L: quemadmodum tibi placet et Mardocheo &.—odwa-—end of ν.]
om. L.— Sn71] μου & (exc. 93b).— 9NMy] om. 1.— Ἴ 5 2] meo + hec
enim consuetudo erat 9: pov 6 L.— 3] «Ὁ H.— 3nd) ws sans) ὅσα γράφεται
G: quecunque scribuntur L.— an] see on 1”.— 333] mittebantur J.— ov
ban] ἐπιτάξαντος τοῦ βασιλέως G G.— yn] inf. abs. instead of finite vb.
as 318 and often in Est. On the formation, cf. Kau. § 63c. Haupt regards
this as impossible in a coérdinated relative clause and reads dn) as in
312.- na 4] illius 9: μου G L—ps] pr.» S— award] αὐτοῖς ἀντειπεῖν
GL.
MORDECAI SENDS OUT DISPATCHES TO COUNTERACT THE EDICT
OF HAMAN (8°-!48),
9. And the King’s scribes [J + and secretaries] were called at
that time]. On the scribes, see 31... Mordecai does not delay in
availing himself of the King’s permission.—Jn the third month,
that is, the month Sivan, on its twenty-third day], 1.6., two months
and ten days after the issuing of Haman’s edict of destruction
(3). The intervening time is supposed to be filled with the
events of 4-82. On the Babylonian names of the months, see 2:5.
—And a dispatch was prepared in accordance with all that Mordecat
commanded, unto the Jews, and unto the satraps, and the governors,
and the officials [© + who had been appointed rulers] of the
provinces that (extended) from India all the way to Kush, 127
MORDECAI SENDS OUT DISPATCHES 273
provinces, to every single province in tts script, and to every sing’e
race in its language]. See on 313 and 1', which are in almost verbal
agreement with this passage. Just as the dispatches were formerly
prepared at Haman’s dictation, so now at the dictation of Mordecai.
—And unto the Jews in their script and their language]. Incredibly
large as the number of scribes was that Haman required, Mordecai
required still more, for he had to send also to the Jews in all the
provinces (see on 1% and 312). From this passage Blau draws the
unwarranted inference that, as late as the time of the writing of
this book, the Jews had not yet adopted the Aramaic alphabet,
but still made use of the old “Phoenician” character. Baer calls
attention to the fact that this is the longest v. in the Hagiographa,
containing 43 words and 192 letters.
10. And he wrote in the name of King Xerxes and sealed it with
the King’s signet [€' + ring.] See on 312».—And he sent dis-
patches by the mounted couriers]. ‘These are the well-known
Persian royal messengers, who have been mentioned already in
313, g.v. (cf. 3.5 84). Mounted couriers are lit. runners on the
horses.—Riding on the coursers, the royal steeds, bred from the stud,
[G: + whose spleens were removed, and the hoofs of the soles of
their feet were cloven.] The word translated coursers is used in
Mi. 1'* of a chariot-horse, and in 1 K. 58 (Eng. 4323) of the royal
horses. It must, therefore, denote a superior sort of horse. The
next word ’éhasht*rdnim is probably a loan-word from the Pers.,
derived from khshatéa, ‘kingdom’ (cf. Spiegel, Altpers. Keilin-
schr., p. 215), and means something like ‘royal steeds.’ The old
Vrss. can make nothing out of it and leave it untranslated. The
doctors of the Talmud also confess their ignorance of its meaning,
and say, “If we read the Book of Esther, although we do not
understand this; why should not other Israelites read it, even if
they understand no Hebrew?” (Meg. 18a.) The word trans-
lated stud is also uncertain (see note). These fast horses are not
mentioned in the sending out of Haman’s decree, 3! 1%. Ap-
parently they are granted as a special favour to Mordecai, in order
that the news of their deliverance may reach the Jews more
speedily.
11. To the effect that the King granted (© + help] to the Jews,
18
274 ESTHER
who were in every single city to assemble and to stand for their life}.
According to the edict of 3'*, they were to submit quietly to being
killed. That edict cannot be revoked, but now they are allowed
to defend themselves. The knowledge that the King favours them
will strengthen them and will weaken the attack of their enemies,
so that there is hope that they may come out safely. Thus far
the edict is what one would expect, if the previous law could not
be repealed. On stand for their lives, cf. 9'° Dn. 12!.—To destroy,
to slay, and to annihilate every armed force of race or city that might
be hostile to them}. Cf. 3%. The clause contains a series of ob-
jects to granted. From 8* g!-16 it appears that the Jews are here
permitted not merely to defend themselves against attack, but also
to carry on an aggressive campaign against their enemies. A
contrary opinion is maintained by Haupt only by an arbitrary
changing of the text. The former situation is now reversed (01);
whereas before the Jews had to submit to being killed by their
foes, the foes have now to submit to being killed by the Jews.
Improbable as it is that Xerxes should devote the whole Jewish race
to destruction, it is vastly more improbable that he should give up
his Persian subjects to be massacred by the Jews.—Children and
women] might grammatically be the subject of the preceding in-
finitives, but this gives no good sense. Sieg. suggests that it is
another object to granted, and translates granted children and
women and their goods as plunder; but in that case we should ex-
pect their children and their women. ‘This construction is contrary
to the analogy of 3:3, where the Jewish women and children are to
be killed. Accordingly, in spite of the absence of a conj., we must
regard children and women, like armed force, as objects to kill,
slay, and annthilate. ‘The older comm. are more troubled than the
author over the question, whether it was right for the Jews to kill
the women and children. Bon. infers from the statement that the
Jews did not take the spoil (9! 15), that a fortiori they did not kill
the women and children; but it is questionable whether this in-
ference is valid.—And to plunder their goods]. See on 3".
12. On one day in all King Xerxes’ provinces,
{L + And the letter which Mordecai sent out had the following con.
tents: Haman sent you letters to the effect that you should hasten to
MORDECAI SENDS OUT DISPATCHES 275
destroy quickly for me the treacherous race of the Jews; but I, Mordecai,
declare to you that he who did this has been hanged before the gates of
Susa, and his property has been confiscated, because he wished to slay
you]
On the thirteenth of the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar,}
see on 35",
ADDITION E.
MORDECAI’S LETTER.
At this point (9 @ insert Mordecai’s letter, E'-* (§ and Eng.
Apoc., Ad. Est. 16'-*). L inserts after 87. Jos. gives it in a much
modified form. @? also inserts a letter similar in substance. In
some indirect way it must be derived from @. For a critical ap-
paratus to the Greek text, see Paton in HM. ii. pp. 39-42.
1The following is a copy of the letter: The great King Artaxerxes
unto the governors of countries in 127 provinces from India unto
Ethiopia, and unto those that are concerned with our affairs, greeting.
?Many who are honoured too much with the great bounty of their
benefactors, desire yet more, ‘and endeavour not only to hurt our
subjects, but also, not being able to bear abundance, undertake to
plot against those that do them good: ‘and not only take thankful-
ness away from among men, but also, being lifted up with boastful
words, as though they had never received good, they think to escape
the evil-hating justice of God, who always sees all things. ‘Oftentimes
also the fair speech of those that are put in trust to manage their friends’
affairs, has caused many that are in authority to be partakers of innocent
blood, and has involved them in remediless calamities: *beguiling with the
false deceit of their lewd disposition the innocent good will of princes.
7Now you may see this, not so much from the ancient histories that have
come down to us, as you may, if you search, what has been wickedly done
through the pestilent behaviour in your presence of those that are un-
worthily placed in authority. *%And we must take care for the time to
come, to render our kingdom quiet and peaceable for all men, *both by
paying no attention to slanders, and by always judging things that come
before our eyes with the greatest possible gentleness. 1!°For Haman the
son of Hammedatha, a Macedonian, an alien in truth from the Persian
blood, and far distant from our goodness, being received as a guest by us,
Nhad so far obtained the favour that we shew toward every nation, that
276 ESTHER
he was called our father, and was continually honoured by all men, as
the next person unto the royal throne. ‘But he, not bearing his high
estate, went about to deprive us of our kingdom and our life, 13 having
by manifold and cunning deceits sought the destruction both of Mor-
decai, who saved our life, and continually procured our good, and also
of Esther the blameless partaker of our kingdom, together with their
whole nation. ‘For by these means he thought, catching us unguarded,
to transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians. '*But we
find that the Jews, whom this thrice guilty wretch has delivered to utter
destruction, are no evil-doers, but live as citizens by most just laws:
éand that they are children of the most high and most mighty living
God, who has established the kingdom both for us and for our progen-
itors in the most excellent manner. ‘’Wherefore ye shall do well not
to put in execution the letters sent unto you by Haman the son of Ham-
medatha. '%For he, that was the worker of these things, is hanged at
the gates of Susa with all his family: God, who ruleth all things, speedily
rendering vengeance to him according to his deserts. 1!*Therefore ye
shall publish openly the copy of this letter in all places, to let the Jews live
after their own laws, 2°and to aid them, that on the aforesaid day, being
the thirteenth day of the twelfth month Adar, they may defend themselves
against those who set upon them in the time of their affliction. *For
Almighty God hath made this day to be a joy unto them, instead of the
destruction of the chosen people. ~And ye shall, therefore, on the feast
days called ‘“Lots’’* keep it a high day with all feasting: that both
now and hereafter it may be safety for you and for the well-affected
Persians: but for those who conspire against us a memorial of destruc-
tion. %Therefore every city or country whatsoever, which shall not do
according to these things, shall be utterly destroyed without mercy with
fire and sword; it shall be made not only unpassable for men, but also
most hateful to wild beasts and fowls forever.
13. The contents of the edict (were), Let it be given out as law in
every single province, published to all the races, that [G + all] the
Jews be ready for this day]. See the almost identical passage, 3".
—To avenge themselves on their enemies.| This shows that the
Jews are granted not merely the right of self-defense, but also to:
do to their enemies as the enemies intended to do to them (cf. 8").
14%, The couriers went forth [Jos. + bearing the letters,] riding
upon the coursers, the royal steeds]. See on v. '°.—Hastened and
expedited by the King’s order.| See on 3°.
* Reading with Grotius, Fritzsche and Ryssel κλήρων, as a translation of Purim,
instead of the meaningless ὑμῶν.
i -
- ἡ" ὁ re
i
3
é
»
MORDECAL SENDS OUT DISPATCHES 277
9. wwe 539 -- ἸΝῚΡ] om. L.— ΝῸΠΠ -- Ἴ5Π] om. G (exc. δὶ © ὃ πᾷ 930
under *): regis H.— wn Γ}3] ἐγαΐ autem tempus J— wwr] τῷ πρώτῳ
GL (τρίτῳ s ὁ: ams, 93b).— wan] om. 85 (6 L.— 10] Siban G: ut Φ:
Νισά(ν) ὦ (Σιουάν ~ & ame, 030): om. H.—aAwrdwa] ἐν τετάρτῃ 249.—
Drwy)] om. Ζ.---Ἰ2] τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἔτους (6: τοῦ δευτέρου ἔτους & *: τοῦ αὐτοῦ
μηνός A, N, γ6: ipsius mensis GZ: + bape $.—IN)] aohso §.—]
wohs 35: ἐπέστειλε 6¢ L.— 13972] om. 1 (6 (exc. δὶ & 8 mz): Μαρδοχαῖος διὰ
γραμμάτων L: ᾿Εσθήρ 44, 71, 74, 76, 106, 120, 236: om. H.— 2x—end
of v.Jom. L.—>x] \s §.— ἈΝ] om. 1) §: Haupt follows § in this and the
preceding reading — Dprwnnn] principes J: (Louse wo 9: Tots οἰκονό-
μοις (6: actoribus L.— 72] + qui presidebant J: τῶν σατραπῶν L G.—
ny ὙΠ om. 6 L.— ws] om. $ 27 (5 (exc. & & 8 mE, 93b).— wa] + Ox sev-
eral codd., K and R.— A270!) satrapis G.— A») ΤΠ) 2] gentium im-
perantibus G.— 71022] κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν λέξιν G: secundum GL.— ody) oy)
13753] oLLaSs yu} LSadtso 55: gentem et gentem secundum uniuscujusque
eorum linguam &: om. (Ὁ (exc. 936 under *).—ow>>)— dx] et Judeis
prout legere poterant et audire J: om. L G (exc. 936 under *): Haupt de-
letes on the ground that the Jews needed no special dispatches, since those
sent to the satraps were to be published, and since the Jews understood
the languages of the provinces where they resided.
10. wrwnx— 372] om. L.—an2] οσδιϑΪο 5: ἐγράφη δὲ G ZL: καὶ
ἐγράφη A, 71, 74, 70, 230. This vb. and the following may be impersonal
(cf. 37), but it is not necessary with $ to read them as Niphal.— owa] διὰ
G 1 .--- wrwn7y] so Oc.: wywns Or. ΝῚ 5. Br. B!: Haupt deletes.— ann]
"δου, Ζίο Φ: καὶ ἐσφραγίσθη GL: καὶ ἐσφραγίσατο L.— 7507 2] τοῦ βασι-
λέως L: αὐτοῦ & G.— nows)-end of v.] om. L.— nw] καὶ εξαπέστειλαν &
(ἐξαπέστειλεν xe-# A),— d7DD] om. G.— 12] διὰ (ὁ G.— οὐχ Π] βιβλιαφόρων
G: librarios currentesG.—od103] Loose) pao $:om.G: Haupt deletes
as a gloss to the next two words.— 093277 — 533] gut per omnes provincias
discurrentes veteres litteras novis nuntiis prevenirent J: om. G&L: τοῖς ἐπι-
Barats τῶν ἁρμάτων οἱ μεγίστανες viol τῶν Ῥαμαχείμ 93b under *.— wo]
bess $: κρϑὶ 7: sworn 52: om. GLGF FI: ἁρμάτων 93b. The gen-
eral meaning ‘horse’ is established by Aram., Syr., and the apposition to
a 010 here, and 1 K. 58 (cf. Mi. 118) shows that it must be a special kind
of horse. The word v3 ‘property’ is from the same root.— Ὁ) ΠΛ ΦΠΝ]
om. 6 LG 3: of peyloraves 93b *: sybvory, Tt: xvwory T? (Haupt re-
gards these last two forms as corruptions of xXbau1x = xnbdav, jp so
tabellarius, ‘courier’). RaShI translates ‘camels’; IE. ‘mules.’ Ge-
senius, Thes. 76, connects with New Pers. astar or astadr, ‘mule’; but
this corresponds with Old Pers. a¢patara, Skr. agvatara, which does not
resemble the above form. Equally impossible is the etymology of Pott
(Forschungen, p. xvii) from esahyo, ‘king,’ and shutur, ‘camel.’ The
derivation from khshatra, ‘kingdom,’ was first suggested by Haug in
Ewald’s Jahrbiicher, v. 154 (see Rédiger, Suppl. to Ges. Thes., p. 68), and
278 ESTHER
is now generally accepted. Haupt deletes this word as an antiquarian
gloss, and also the following two words as a tertiary explanation of this
gloss.— 9077] fase} $: poor ὅσ: ὑπο 52: Ραμαχείμ g3b: om.
G L&I. In Syr. and New Pers. the word means ‘herd,’ in New Heb.
‘mule.’ In Ar. ‘mare.’ Whether it means here ‘studs,’ ‘mares,’ or
‘stallions’ is uncertain. With Haupt we should point 0.2997 instead of
2.90207. The latter means properly ‘herdsmen.’
11. ws]J= ‘that,’ introducing the contents of the dispatches, as 119
2!0 34 411 62, a late usage.— JoDN— We! Jom. L: fasts κ᾿ δι» 12,.] &: ὡς
ἐπέταξεν (ὦ G.—o09] adrots G&L: τὸ ἔθνος αὐτοῦ 1, -- wx 2]om. 6 LB.
—wyr wy 533] ἐν πάσῃ (τῇ) πόλει G: κατὰ χώρας ἕκαστον αὐτῶν L: om. LZ:
JAdugso Nac, ὅδ. -ὑπρπ9] et in unum preciperent congregari I: χρῆσ-
θαι Τοῖς νόμοις αὐτῶν G&L: ἑορτάζειν τῷ θεῷ L.—-nyo—end of ν.]
om. &.—ovp dy say] βοηθῆσαι τε αὐτοῖς G: καὶ μένειν 1,.-- τοοτπῦ --
end of v.] om. L.—72x5)— yond] καὶ χρῆσθαι ws βούλονται G (+ ἀφανί-
fev καὶ φονεύειν ὡς βούλονται καὶ ἀπολαύειν 930 under *).—3795y] om.
ymany codd. KR, Β.--- πϑΝΥ] om. 33.---- 7211-55 ny] τοῖς ἀντιδίκοις
αὐτῶν ᾧ (+ πᾶσαν δύναμιν λαοῦ καὶ χώρας τοὺς θλιβόντας αὐτούς
xe-ame, 93b under *): omnes J: ww sas $.— bn] of. τ. Haupt de-
letes.— ΓΝ DST] Kal τοῖς ἀντικειμένοις αὐτῶν G: Qal ptc. from 7s ‘be
hostile,’ not from the noun ὋΣ ‘enemy,’ which cannot govern the acc.
(BDB. 849, III.). Haupt changes unnecessarily to OnXx 0778" (cf.
Nu. 109).—125—y] pr. o $: om. G (exc. δὶ © #™z, 93b under *): Haupt
deletes as a gloss derived from 3!%.—odw31] + et universis domibus J.—
15] + et constituta est J.
12. ΦΥΌΨΗΝ -- Ὁ}}27] om. L.— tnx ova] om. ©: om. 3 9.— ΓΙ)" 2] τῇ
βασιλείᾳ G— 507] om. JGY.— wrwny] om. J: Haupt deletes.—
nerdowa] quarta L.— wy ow] om. L.— vanjom. IS GL &.
13. om. LGE.— pawns] 20 §.—ans7] om. & (exc. δὶ 5:5, 93)
under *).—}n395] ἐκτιθέσθωσαν G: ἐκτιθέσθω x: ἐκτεθείσθω A.— n>] om.
Θ ὦ (exc. 93b under *).— 740] τῇ βασιλείᾳ (ὃ. — 101] om. HG (exc.
936 under *).— 2] om. J: -οϑο $: ὀφθαλμοφανῶς G.— ovpyn 535] om.
3G— nwa] + πάντας G—own 7] orn Q.—ormny) ovpny Q.—
ma ord] om. J.— 7275] πολεμῆσαι G.
14a, qsnn—ox77] om. L.—osn] pr. o §: of μὲν οὖν ἱππεῖς (.---
Ὁ) ὝΓΦΓΙΝΠ τ- 529] οπῃ. IGF (exc. & © ἃ mg, 93h under *): pr. boaanlo (Ὁ.
-- οὐ τ πνπ ] om. $: Haupt deletes.— ws] om. L.— 737] aaaito S:
festinanter &: Pu. ptc. pl. (cf. 29 6').— opin] perferentes J: Dulon,ms>
&: ἐπιτελεῖν G: καὶ διωκόμενοι ἐπιτελεῖν & ὁ: ἃ πρ g3b under *. Cf. 41"
61: Jahn, Haupt, delete—y nn 7373] Haupt deletes as a gloss derived
from 3'8.— 7373] nuncia J: τὰ λεγόμενα G: precepta L.— bor] om. J 95.
—nvn)-end of v.] om. 44, 106, 107, 2360: Haupt deletes as ascribal ex-
pansion derived from 3415,
THE JEWS REJOICE 279
THE JEWS REJOICE OVER THEIR ESCAPE (85:11),
14°-15. Meanwhile the law had been given out in Susa the for-
tress, and Mordecai had gone out [J + from the palace and] from
the King’s presence in a royal garment of violet and white]. On
royal garment, see 6%; on violet and white, see 1°—And a big
golden crown]. The word crown is different from the one used
for the royal turban in 1" 217 68, but the idea is the same. Not
only the King, but also his favourites were allowed to wear the
royal head-dress, and in Mordecai’s case this was specially large.
—And a mantle of fine linen and purple}. See on τό. When Mor-
decai received these decorations, we are not told, presumably at
the time when he became grand vizier (8'‘-). He is now privileged
to wear continually what before he received for a short time only
(611).
[Φ! + Rejoicing and glad of heart because of his great honour and
abundant dignity, clothed in royal garments of wool, linen, and purple,
with a chain of fine gold of Ophir in which were set pearls and precious
stones, clad ina mantle made from the young of the bird of paradise(?)
of the western sea, under which was a purple tunic with embroidery of
all sorts of birds and fowls of the heavens, and this tunic was valued at
420 talents of gold. And he was girt about the loins with a girdle on
which were fastened throughout its length beryl stones. His feet were
shod with Parthian socks imported by the Macedonians, woven of gold
and set with emeralds. A Median sword hung by his side, suspended
on a chain of rings of gold, on which was engraved the city of Jerusalem,
and on whose hilt the fortune of the city was depicted. A Median hel-
met painted with various colours was put on his head, and above it was
placed a great crown of Macedonian gold, and above the crown was
placed a golden phylactery, in order that all peoples, nations, and tongues
might know that Mordecai was a Jew, that the Scripture might be ful-
filled where it is written, “‘And all peoples of the earth shall see that the
name of the Lord is named upon thee.”” And when Mordecai went out
from the gate of the King, the streets were strewn with myrtle, the court
was shaded with purple extended on linen cords, and boys with garlanded
heads, and priests holding trumpets in their hands, proclaimed, saying,
“Whoever is not reconciled to Mordecai and reconciled to the Jews,
shall be cut in pieces and his house shall be turned into a dung-hill.”
And the ten sons of Haman came with lifted hands, and spoke before the
righteous Mordecai, saying, ‘‘He who gives wages to the Jews brings
also the wages of the wicked upon their heads, This Haman our father
280 ESTHER
was a fool because he trusted in his riches and in his honour. The
humble Mordecai has defeated him through his fasting and his prayers.”
And the righteous Esther looked out at the window, for the Queen was
not permitted to go among the people in the street. And Mordecai,
turning his eyes, saw her and said, “‘ Blessed be the Lord who did not
give me a prey to their teeth.” Esther answered, saying, ‘‘ My help is
from the Lord who made heaven and earth.”’” Many people rejoiced
at the fall of the wicked Haman and gave thanks and praise on account
of the deliverance which was wrought for the Jews, and they celebrated
the deliverance and the glory which the righteous Mordecai had at this
time (similarly @?, cf. G2 on 6").]
And [Jos. + when they saw him so honoured by the King, the
Jews who were in] the city of Susa had shouted and rejoiced], in
contrast to 315, where the capital is perplexed at the edict of de-
struction. Here, as in 3'5, the author ascribes to the whole popu-
lation the emotions of the Jews. The city of Susa is here dis-
tinguished from the fortress of Susa as in 315 4!: δ 6 (see on 15).
16. Unto the Jews there came light, and joy, and rejoicing, and
honour.| Light is a figure for prosperity, as in Jb. 2228 30%
Ps. 97". @, following Meg. 160, translates light, ‘freedom to
busy themselves with the Law”’; joy, “‘and to keep the Sabbaths”;
rejoicing, ‘‘the set feasts’; and honour, ‘‘to circumcise the fore-
skins of their sons, and to place phylacteries upon their hands
and upon their heads.” On honour, see τ. The Jews in Susa
are still meant. Now that they had become the King’s favour-
ites, all men hastened to flatter them.
17. And in every single province and in every single city, wher-
ever the King’s command and his law arrived]. See on 4%.—There
was joy and rejoicing [© + of heart] among the Jews, and ban-
queting and holiday], in contrast to the fasting, weeping, lamenta-
tion, haircloth, and ashes of 4", when Haman’s edict was promul-
gated.—And many of the heathen [(6 & L + were circumcised and]
became Jews, [Jos. + to secure safety for themselves by this
means,] for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them.] So com-
pletely were the tables turned, that it was now dangerous not to be
a Jew. Heathen is literally peoples of the earth; not people of the
land, AV.; or peoples of the land, as RV. (see note). On fear had
fallen upon them, cf. 92*- Gn. 35° Ex. 1515 Dt, 11% Ps. 105% al.
THE JEWS REJOICE 281
The allusion to proselyting in this v. is one of the many indications
of the late date of the book. There is no evidence that this took
place before the Greek period.
140, nam] + regis J: [Apoaaso ὅδ: exemplum epistole G.— 773]
«3.321» §: pf. with yin a circumstantial clause. takes it as a relative
clause, ‘in the word of the King and the law which had been given out
in Susa.’— 737] om. IG (exc. 8 © *, 93b under *): civitate regis LZ:
περιέχον τάδε, (here L inserts 88-!8),— x¥) 93990)] not impf. with ) consec.
in sequence with the foregoing, but another circumstantial clause, unless
regarded as an instance of the late use of the pf. with ) connect. instead of
impf. with 1 consec., as 933 (cf. Driver, Tenses, § 313). Here, however,
the subject precedes the vb., as normally in a circumstantial clause.
16. Ἴ ὉΠ nbn] om. LG L (exc. xe 4m, 93b under *).—-m Γι 55]
om. £ LG (exc. δὶ ὁ: 4™s, 93b under *).—-1)] ,a590 ®: et aereis J:
deplyny & © 5, ο3}.--- τίῦγ -- wy] om. L (exc. 93a): Haupt deletes.—
n>wy)] here only in Est., elsewhere 792 (111 2!7 68) —aby] om. J $ GG.
—prany] et amictus J: καὶ διάδημα GL: 5.95 ζ:: ἁ.λ. from Aram. 47>
‘enclose.’ It denotes a sort of spacious outer mantle.— }13] serico pallio
I: et byssinum L.— ΠΝ] om. L: om. 1G L.— www Ὁ» ΠΥ] ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ
ἐν Σούσοις (9 1, G.— rdas] usually ‘neigh,’ here of a shrill cry of joy, as
Is. 126 54!; pf. in continuation of the series of circumstantial clauses.—
mney] om. LZ G (exc. x« #me): + dre A: pausal form of pf. 3 f. 5. of
stative vb. Haupt deletes as an explanatory gloss to the preceding
word.
16. ΠΝ] om. 44, 106, 107: cf. Ps. 139! Aram. and late Heb. for 7s,
and used with the same literal and figurative meanings. The transla-
tion of ©! is a play upon the similar word xnv7)s ‘law.’— Annw)] πότος Τ,.
— ww] κώθων L: τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ το: κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ 108b: om. GF G (exc. & ©: 5,
93 under *).— 3p] om. L& (ὁ (exc. δὶ © 5, 93b under *).
17, 200 -- 533}] om. 1,.--- 533} om. G (exc. τοϑα): om. 1 $.— Amn]
om. $ & & (exc. 93b under *).— 932)2] om. 6 L— vy] om. F.— yyy] om.
$ ΤΊ G (exc. 93b under *).—oxpn-end of v.] om. 71.— 3—d1pr] om. 44,
τού, 107.— ὙΠ -- ΟἹ Ὁ] οὐ. AN 52, 74, 76, 243.— D—n}om. GF.— 137]
om. 248, C, Ald.—1n» 45n7] om. LG (exc. δὶ ὁ: ἃ ms, 93h under *).—
wn) om. J.— yn] + ob ἂν ἐξετέθη τὸ ἔκθεμα G (exc. Ν): + τὸ ἔκθεμα
248, C, Ald.— pew] 2.9 $.— 3w-ornd] om. L— or] epule 3:
+ ο $.— 31 Ὁ] καὶ εὐφροσύνη G: καὶ ἀγαλλίασις 74, 76,120, 236: om.
249.— 3 dv] Here as in 1 S. 258 of aday of feasting. In g!% 3 Zc. 819,
as in late Jewish usage, of the feast days of the religious calendar.— snyn
ΥΝΠ] alterius gentis J: τῶν ἐθνῶν G: τῶν Ἰουδαίων L. The singular
yn oy means ‘people of the land,’ and is used either of the aboriginal
Canaanites, as Gn. 237: 121. (P) Nu. 149 (JE) Ezr. 4‘, or of the Israelites,
as Ex. 5§ (J) Lev. 427 20? 4, The plural p>xn ny means always ‘the
282 ESTHER
peoples of the earth,’ and is used of the heathen in contrast to Israel.
So Dt. 281° Jos. 4% 1 K. 858. 60 7 Ch. 525 2 Ch. 633 3219 Ezr. τοῦ Ne. τοῦ £
Ez. 3112 Zp. 32°. Similarly nian ny ‘peoples of the lands,’ 2 Ch. 13°
Ezr. 3° οἱ τ ΠΊΝΩ. 93° 102%. From this plural a singular is formed in New
Heb. with the meaning of ‘one ignorant of the Law,’ who is no better
than a heathen (cf. Jn. 74%).—on7n2] eorum religioni et ceremoniis
jungerentur 31: —wno2bso $: om. toendofy.L. This word is a Hithp.
denom. from ‘17> (Stade ὃ 164), ἁ.λ., and rare in New Heb. @! @
have 72ND, which is the usual later word for ‘become a proselyte.’—
Spy 2] διὰ G (καὶ διὰ 8 *): propter L—-np] + grandis 9: timorem qui
factus erat adversus inimicos &.— ὉΠ }} cunctos I: om. LG (exc. 93
under *).
ON THE APPOINTED DAY THE JEWS DESTROY THEIR
ENEMIES (9!-!°).
1. And in the twelfth month, that is, 05.355 + among the Jews]
the month of Adar, [Jos. + but among the Macedonians Dustros,]
on its thirteenth day]. ‘The nine months that intervened since the
second edict was sent out (89) are passed over in silence.—When
the King’s command and his law went into operation}, lit. arrived
to be done (cf. 4° 817). According to the irrevocable law of 31%, the
heathen are to kill the Jews; and, according to the equally irrev-
ocable law of 8", the Jews are to kill the heathen. Lively times
are to be anticipated.—On the day, when the enemies of the Jews
expected to domineer over them, it was changed [© + by Heaven on
account of the virtue of the forefathers] so that the Jews domineered
over their enemies.| According to AV., Rys., the second clause
is a continuation of the preceding temporal clause, and the apo-
dosis does not come until the next ν., but this is not so natural.
It is impersonal (Keil, Sieg., Haupt). The characteristic avoid-
ance of the name of God is seen here as in 4*- 1: 16 61,
2. The Jews had assembled in their cities in all King Xerxes’
provinces to lay hands upon those who wished them ill.|_ This is in
accordance with the edict of 8". Jo lay hands, lit. to streich forth
a hand, is a synonym of kill, as in 2%! 3°. The persons killed are
not merely those who attack them, but also those who are known
to be hostile, ‘their haters” (v.'). See on 8".—And no man had
stood out against them|, lit. had stood before them. Stood might
THE JEWS KILL THEIR ENEMIES 283
mean took a stand, as in 4“ 5! 77; but from 9g: '* it appears that the
Jews encountered opposition, so that we must translate had kept
a stand, as in 8" g'* Jos. 108 21** 229. The enemies of the Jews
attacked them in accordance with the edict of 5315, but they had no
enthusiasm and were easily defeated —For the fear of them had
fallen upon all the races.| See on 817.
3. And all the officials of the provinces and the satraps and the
governors, [J + and every dignitary in every place,] and those who
did the King’s business had been helping the Jews, for the fear of
Mordecai had fallen upon them.] See on 3% 1% The royal offi-
cials have no difficulty in seeing which edict they would better
enforce. They everywhere take the side of the Jews and help
them kill the heathen. Granted that such an edict could be sent
out, this is doubtless the natural result.
4. For Mordecai was [© + overseer and] great [€' + and
steward] in the King’s house, [3] + and had much power,] and the
report of him kept going through all the provinces, for the man
Mordecai [©: + was master of the house and father to the King
and] grew greater and greater.]| This is an explanation of the last
clause of the preceding ν. All the provinces learned that Morde-
cai was so powerful that his vengeance would surely overtake any
one who showed himself hostile to the Jews. On King’s house,
see 2%. Grew greater and greater is lit. was growing and was
great.
5. So among all their enemies the Jews made a smiting with the
sword, and a slaughter [© + with maul-clubs] and a destruction
[G: + of lives.] Made, lit. smote, is followed by the cognate acc.
smiting and the synonyms slaughter and destruction. Cf. the
terms of the decree in 8'.\—And they did with their enemies as they
pleased.| Did with is used in the sense of did to as τι" 66. This
is more than self-defence. All that were known to be hostile to the
Jews were hunted out and killed.
6. [Jos.28* + So the King’s decree was carried out in all the
country that was subject to him] and in Susa the fortress the Jews
slew and annihilated 500 men [G' + all the chieftains of the house
of Amalek.] On Susa the fortress, see τ᾿. This slaughter took
place in the palace-quarter under the King’s very eyes. It
284 ESTHER
indicates the presence of a considerable body of Jews in Susa
(ff. 4").
7-10. Meanwhile they slew Parshandatha, and Dalphén, and
’Aspatha, and Pératha, and ’Adalya, and ’Aridhatha, and Par-
mashta, and ’Arisay, and ’Ariday, and Wayzathd, the ten sons of
Haman, son of Hamm(datha, [Vrss. + the Agagite,] the enemy
of the Jews, [J + whose names are these.] On the origin and
meaning of these names, see p. 70. The Massora prescribes
that they are to be written in a perpendicular column on the right
side of the page, with and on the left side. This arrangement
is followed in most of the printed editions. The reason for it is
found in haggadic legends as to the way in which the sons of
Haman were hanged. See on g'*, and Buxtorf, Synag. Jud., Basel,
1680, pp. 557-559. In the first name, the Massora prescribes that
th shall be written smaller than the other letters; in Parmashta,
that sh shall be small; and in Wayzatha, w large and z small.
These peculiar letters may indicate early attempts to correct the
text (cf. Baer-Strack, Diqduge hatte‘amim, 61, p. 48 f.). They are
known already to BT., for Weg. τοῦ directs that the 1 of Wayzatha
shall be written large, to show that the ten sons were all hanged on
one gallows (cf. v."). Meg. also directs that the names of the ten
shall be uttered in one breath, because their souls left their bodies
at one time.—But on the plunder they did not lay their hands],
although permitted to do so by the King (8"). According to
RaShI they left this for the King, so that he would not permit the
princes of Trans-Euphrates to disturb their brethren. Similarly
IE., Esti. According to Men., Tir., Lap., it was to avoid suspicion
of having attacked their enemies for mercenary reasons; accord-
ing to Grot. al., to prevent the heathen from saying that they had
enriched them, as Abraham in Gn. 143.
1. om. L &.— xv] quem vocari ante jam diximus J.— vr] om. 335 ὦ.
— 13 oY] om. 85: τοῦ μηνός G.— nwynd— ws] quando cunctis Judeis inter-
fectio parabatur J.— ws] om. G.— yn Wwe] here of time, in 4 87 of
place. On wx = ‘when’ after words expressing time, see BDB. 82b.—
yun)+ 1.5] Θ..-- 31 τὰ γράμματα τὰ γραφέντα ὑπὸ G: τὰ γράμματα 44,
106, 107.—nwynb inn] om. & (exc. δὶ & #™, g3b under *).— 073-5”)
Haupt deletes as a scribal expansion.— 3¥ -- 03] om. $.— ἼΦΝ ova] et
¥.— wx —rws]om. G (exc. 93 under *).— 3") inhiabant J: a late word
THE JEWS KILL THEIR ENEMIES 285
borrowed from Aram.— 00.77 52}Ν]} OTe Sp §.— p07]
eorum J.— vow] sanguini J: om. $— wv] found only in post-exilic
literature and NH.— 0723] om. J $.— 997)] versa vice J: om. 1 $.—
31973)] Niph. inf. abs. as a substitute for the finite vb., as so often in this
book, e.g., 69 88 (cf. Stade, $$ 251, 626 6); here apparently as a substitute
for the impf. with 1 consec.— N17] {Zpaas 55.--- ὈΠῸΝ) -- ws] Haupt
deletes as a scribal expansion.— wx] = ‘so that,’ as Gn. 117 1315 Ex. 2076
Dt. 4! 40 63 a/.— oN ws -- ΠΡΌ ἀπώλοντο οἱ ἀντικείμενοι τοῖς Ιουδαίοις
G: Judai superiores esse ceperunt et se de adversariis vindicare J.— wv}
δ.) 5.
2. om. &.— anyr—Ap3] om. LG (exc. 93 under *): pr. 1 3} 89.--
ΠΡ] pf., as wy in the next v., instead of impf. with 1 consec., because
these events are not subsequent to v. !, but area réswmé in detail of what
is there stated in general.— 0177] om. J.— Jn] et loca J¥.— vrwny]
om. J: Haupt deletes —1vp303] Ὡς. $.—anyr + et persecutores suos
B.—o3p5] Ὁπ)53 ττὸ codd. KR, Ν' Br. B?: om. & (exc. 930 under +,
Ν δ. amg): αὐτοῖς L.—ornp bp) 12] φοβούμενος αὐτούς G: ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ
αὐτούς L.— oa np] formido magnitudinis eorum J.— ony 59 Sy] om. ( L:
Haupt deletes the whole clause from 53 to ΡΠ as an illogical scribal
expansion.
3. 521] nam et I: γὰρ G: et L: 5é L.— mana] τῶν σατραπῶν GEL: om.
Ι,.---- ΠΊΠΡ ΠῚ] om. 6 G.— ran wy] καὶ of γραμματεῖς GLE: om. 44,
71, 106.— D9 ws] om. J: βασιλικοὶ GL: regis L: om. 44, 71, 106.—
DN ID] qipOado H: ἐτίμων GLL—ovw] Deum G—omy- >]
Haupt deletes as a scribal expansion.— 12770] baste) 8.
4, ἼΠ:Π -- 51] om. LG@G (exc. 8 © ἃ πρὶ 93h under *).— 13] + cogno-
verant J.— 2172] quem 33.---- Τ 23] Zo H— J wor] fama quoque
nominis ejus crescebat J: προσέπεσεν yap τὸ πρόσταγμα τοῦ βασιλέως ὀνο-
μασθῆναι (56: preceptum enim erat timorem regis nominari &: καὶ προσέ-
πεσεν ἐν Σούσοις ὀνομασθῆναι ᾿Αμὰν καὶ τοὺς ἀντικειμένους L.— wry]
onscw §: from ynv (cf. Jos. 627 99 Je. 6%), a rarer form with the same
meaning as yov.— ΠΏ ὙΠ 523] quotidie I.— |2Zaadco wen as 5: ἐν
πάσῃ (TH) βασιλείς G L: in omni civitate ejus 1Π: + αὐτοῦ 44, 74, 76, 106,
120, 236.— “ΥἹΔῈ -- 13 51 et per cunctorum ora volitabat 9: om. L ἸΏ ὦ (exc.
93> under *): Haupt deletes as a scribal expansion.— 273) 5] in
2 Ch. 17! 543) Ἴδη, which suggests that 512 may be an adj. It is
probably better, however, to regard it as an inf. abs., since this construc-
tion is such a favourite with the author.
5-19. om. £.—5. om. L G (exc. 93b under *).— "2 13»)] ‘smote among,’
as Jos. rol? 2 5. 2310 2417— 553] om. J.— arn] magna J.— 1738) 397)
Haupt deletes as a gloss derived from the next v.— ) ΠῚ] et occiderunt eos
3.—}738)] om. J: see on 88.— 0373] quod sibt paraverant facere J.
6. om. ©.— ww} om. 1 ὅδ: καὶ ἐν avry G.: καὶ ἐν Σούσοις αὶ *
xe amginé A T,,— 7729] om. δὶ ἜΤ, 44, τοῦ J: Haupt deletes as a gloss.
286 ESTHER
—onn7] om. J.— 328)] om. I S$ LG (exc. & ©: 5, 93b under *): inf. abs.,
as so often in this book.— nxn won] ἑπτακοσίους L.
7. om. 32 τοῦ: tr. aft. gi J.
8. om. GZ τοῦ.
10. om. &.— nwy] pr. extra J: pr. καὶ L, 44, τοῦ, C.— ΓΙ 73] om.
3:55:--Ὁ Agagite 3: + μι $: + (τοῦ) Βουγαίου G L: + καὶ Βουγαίου
44, τοῦ: + Βουδέου x *— 3] τοὺς ἔχθρους 249.— 1277] pr. quos cum J:
om. 1, G (exc. δὶ © 5. A, 936 under *).— 07)—723)] καὶ διήρπασαν G: καὶ
διήρπασαν πάντα τὰ αὐτῶν L: καὶ οὐ διήρπασαν C: καὶ ἐν τοῖς σκόλοις οὐκ
ἀπέκτειναν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν g3b under *: om. 106.
THE KING GRANTS ESTHER ANOTHER DAY OF SLAUGHTER IN
SUSA (011-10).
11. On that day the number of those slain in Susa the fortress
came to the knowledge of the King.| According to IE. the enemies
of the Jews reported it in order to turn the King against the Jews.
If so, they failed in their effort.
12. And the King said to Queen Esther, In Susa the fortress the
Jews have killed and annihilated 500 men, [G' + chieftains of
the seed of Amalek,] and also the ten sons of Haman. In the rest
of the King’s provinces what have they done? [Meg. τοῦ + Then
came an angel and smote him on the mouth.] The idea is, if as
many as 500 men have been killed in the palace-quarter, how vast
must have been the slaughter throughout the empire. The ad-
dition of Meg. assumes that the question is put in anger, and only
because of supernatural intervention does the King change his
mind and ask Esther what more she wishes. Of this there is no
trace in the original. Xerxes tries to please Esther by showing
her how precisely her desire has been carried out, and then pro-
ceeds to inquire what more she wants.—[44 + And the King said
to Esther,] Now whatever thy request 1s shall be granted thee, and
whatever is still thy petition shall be done.) See on 5: ὃ 72. The
King is so well disposed that he is ready to grant Esther permission
to massacre a few more thousands of his Persian subjects, if she
sees fit (cf. 8").
13. And Esther said, If it seems good to the King]. See on 11°.—
Let it be granted to-morrow also to the Jews that are in Susa to act
in accordance with the law of to-day [© + by keeping a holiday
THE SECOND MASSACRE 287
and rejoicing as ought to be done on a famous day.] The expla-
nation of ζδι 15 inadmissible, since nothing has yet been said of any
celebration of the thirteenth of Adar as a holiday (cf. v.17). In
accordance with the law of to-day can only mean with a slaughter,
such as has been permitted to-day (cf. 8" 9*-!"); so Jos., “Τὸ treat
their remaining enemies in the same manner.” For this horrible
request no justification can be found. A second massacre was in
no sense an act of self-defence, since the power of the enemies of
the Jews had already been broken by the events of the thirteenth
of Adar. This shows a malignant spirit of revenge more akin to
the teaching of the Talmud (e.g., in Tract. ‘Abhoda Zara) than to
the teaching of the OT. On law, see 18.—And let them hang the
sons of Haman upon the gallows], although they have already been
killed, according to vv. 71°. The vengeance of Esther pursues
them even after they are dead. We must suppose that their bodies
are suspended with their father’s (715 87), in order to complete the
degradation of the house of Haman and to serve as an additional
warning to the enemies of the Jews (cf. 1 S. 31'°; Her. iii. 125;
Vi. 30; vii. 238).
14. And the King commanded that this should be done, [Jos.2*°
+ because he was unable to deny Esther anything,] and a law was
given out [246 + on the fourteenth of Adar, and they slew 300
men] 7 Susa.] See on 31:5. The complaisant King at once
issues a new edict granting the two points that Esther requested,
namely, another slaughter of his Persian subjects, and the hanging
of the sons of his former friend. No improbability is too great
for this author. The next two clauses show how this law was
executed.—So they hanged the ten sons of Haman [codd. + upon the
gallows. ]
[Φ! ©? + And this is the order in which they were hanged with Haman
their father on the gallows which Haman had prepared for Mordecai:—
Its height was 50 cubits. It was set three cubits deep in the ground, and
Parshandatha was 44 cubits above the ground, and Parshandatha was
hanged in a space of 3 cubits, and between him and Dalphon was $ cubit.
Dalphén was hanged in a space of 3 cubits, at a distance of ᾧ cubit from
*Aspatha. ’Aspatha was hanged in a space of 3 cubits, at a distance of
ὦ cubit from Pératha. Pératha was hanged in a space of 3 cubits, at a
distance of }cubit from ’Adalya. ’Adalya was hanged inaspace of three
288 ESTHER
cubits, at adistance cf 4cubit from ’Aridhatha. ’Aridhatha was hanged in
aspace of 3 cubits, at a distance of 4 cubit from Parmashta. Parmashta
was hanged ina space of 3 cubits, at a distance of ᾧ cubit from ’Arisay.
’Arisay was hanged in a space of 3 cubits, at a distance of $ cubit from
’Ariday. ’Ariday was hanged inaspace of 3 cubits, at adistance of 4 cubit
from Wayzatha. Wayzatha was hanged ina space of 3 cubits, at a distance
of }cubit from Haman. Haman was hanged in a space of 3 cubits, and
above his head 3 cubits were left, so that the birds might not eat of it.]
[@' + And Zeresh fled with 70 sons who were left to Haman, and they
earned their living by becoming doorkeepers, and also Shimmeshe, the
scribe, was slain with the sword, and 108 sons, who were rulers in the
King’s streets, died with the 500 men slain in Susa.] [©?-+ And when
Mordecai came and saw Haman and his sons hanging on the gallows,
Mordecai addressed Haman thus: Thou thoughtest to do evil to the
people of the house of Israel, but He who knoweth the hidden things and
the thoughts, hath brought thy plan upon thy head. Thou wast de-
siring to kill us and to remove us from under the wings of our Heavenly
Father. Now they are treating thee so, and are hanging thee with thy
sons under thy wing.]
15. And the Jews that were in Susa assembled also on the four-
teenth day of the month of Adar.] In this way the author seeks to
explain the fact that in his day the city Jews kept the feast of
Purim on the fifteenth of Adar, instead of the fourteenth, the day
observed by the country Jews (cf. g!8:). History here arises
from custom, not custom from history.—And they slew in Susa three
hundred men [τ + of the house of Amalek,] but on the plunder
they did not lay their hands.] See on ν. '*.
11. om. LY.— a7 ova] om. 106.— 7739] om. IG (exc. δὶ ο: *, 936
under *).— 75n7 9385] om. 52, 930.
12. om. G— bor] qui J.—-rnox5] om. J.— 73507] om. LG (exc.
xc amg, 93b under *).— 737 }wwa] om. L: Haupt deletes 79:30.—
DW WI] ἀπώλεσαν of Ἰουδαίοι (ὦ: πῶς σοι οἱ ἐνταῦθα (ἐνταῦτα ἡ το,
108b) L.— "3 ΝῊ] om. LG (exc. 8 © 8 mg, 93b under *): Haupt deletes.—
127 -- ΦΏΠ] om. L.— ὉΠ -- ΓΝῚ] om. G (exc. 8 ὁ: # ms, 93b under *).— Nw
min] ἐν δὲ τῇ περιχώρῳ (χῶρᾳ A) G: καὶ οἱ ἐν τῇ περιχώρῳ L.— Jo7] om.
3:91, (exc. 93) under *).— wy nn] quantam putas eos exercere cedem J:
πῶς οἴει ἐχρήσαντο (κέχρηνται κὰ © * A) G: κέχρηνται L: + καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασι-
λεὺς πρὸς ᾿Εσθήρ 44.--- 011] om. 154 codd. K R, J $.— 7n)- end of ν.]
om. L (cf. 8? end).— 4nb>xw] ἀξιοῖς + ἔτι G: postulas + ultra J.— yn]
posh 8: καὶ ἔσται G: om. I.— 15] om. J.—7212-end of v.]om. G
(exc. 93b under *).— y]om. 3} §.— wyn)] ut fieri jubeam 3: -omedl &.
THE LWO? DAYS (OF PURIM 289
13. om. ©.— 3 -- ὉΝ] om. SL: τῷ βασιλεῖ G: αὐτῷ 44: ἐὰν τῷ βασιλεῖ
φανῇ 936 under *.—22 om. SG L.— ywwa ws] om. $G (exc. 93)
under *): ods ἐὰν θέλωσιν L.— nwyd] χρῆσθαι G: ἀνελεῖν L.—ovn 33}
Lascaus >I $: ὡσαύτως G: καὶ διαρπάζειν L.—yyn—nxi] om. 1, (ς΄.
87 end).— yya Sy] om. G (exc. δὶ © *, 93b under *).
14, om. 32 106.— Ν}] καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν G: καὶ συνεχώρησεν L: ἐπέστρε-
ψεν 8 Ἔ.-τ oon --επα of ν.] om. 1..--- Ἴ52Π] om. G (exc. 93 under *).—
nivyad] Niph. inf. here only in book. The Qal inf. is the regular con-
struction.— }n3m)] καὶ ἐξέθηκε(ν) G.— ΓΙ] τοῖς Ιουδαίοις G: + τῇ τεσσαρεσ-
καιδεκάτῃ τοῦ ᾿Αδὰρ καὶ ἀπέκτειναν ἄνδρας τριακοσίους 236.— }ww 3] τῆς
πόλεως G: om. & Ἔ.--- ΓΦ» NX] τὰ σώματα G: om. δὶ *.— bn] κρεμάσαι (Ὁ:
+ yen ον K 147, 180; R 443, Ὁ, 249.
15. om. LGY.— ora] oy Q.— ws] om. JG.— ww] om. 71.
—013 D1] om. & (exc. 93) under *),.— wx—oNn3] tr. aft. m4, v. 4, 236.—
wind] pepe co §: om. G (exc. 8 ἘΝ © 5, 93b under *).— 178] om. Ὁ
x Ἐπ: ww 2] om. G (exc. 8 © πε 93d under *): + οἱ Τουδαίοι δὲ © 9 m8,
93b under -:-.--- ὉΠ) -- ΠΙ22}] καὶ οὐδὲν (οὐθὲν A) διήρπασαν G: καὶ οὐθὲν
διήρπασεν 93b under +: + καὶ οὐκ ἐξέτειναν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν εἰς διαρπα-
γήν 930 under *.
THE ORIGIN OF THE TWO DATES ON WHICH THE FEAST OF PURIM
IS KEPT (015 19):
16-172. Now the rest of the Jews that were in the King’s prov-
inces had assembled, and had stood for their life, and had rested
from their enemies, and had slain among their foes 75,000 men
[G: + of the house of Amalek], without laying hands on the plunder,
on the thirteenth day of the month of Adar [Jos. © + the slaughter
took place] [G: + among the descendants of Amalek ;] [5 + And
the men whom the Jews killed in Susa were the enemies of Israel,
who said to the house of Israel, Within a few days from now we
will kill you and dash your children upon the ground.] This v.
does not continue the narrative of v. 15, but is a supplementary
statement in regard to the events of the thirteenth of Adar already
related in vv.?-°. Hence the tenses are properly rendered by the
pluperfect. On the phraseology, cf. 8:1 5: οὔ 15. 15. The phrase
stood for their life is mechanically repeated from 8", although,
according to 811 οὐ, they encountered little opposition. The new
item, that 75,000 men were killed, contains an incredibly large
number. © changes it to 15,000 and L to 10,107. The clause,
19
200 ESTHER
and on the plunder they did not lay their hands, is not the con-
clusion of the sentence, as the Massoretic division of the verses
suggests, but is a parenthetical remark separating the verbs of
ν. 15. from the adverbial clause at the beginning of v.17, on the
thirteenth day of the month of Adar. ‘To this faulty verse-division
are due the additions of Jos. ©: AV. and RV.
17°, And they rested on its fourteenth day.] Not until the day
after the fight could they have rest (cf. vv. 18-1 2). Hence it isa
mistake when Sieg., following the Massoretic division, translates,
“On the thirteenth day of the month of Adar, then they found
rest, and on the fourteenth.’—And they made it [J + a solemn
occasion that for all time to come they should keep as a day of
feasts and] a day of banqueting and joy.| Cf. 8'".
18. But the Jews that were [3] + making the slaughter] in Susa
[ὦ J + the fortress] ad assembled [© + to cut off the children of
Amalek] on tts thirteenth day and on its fourteenth day], as already
narrated in vy. *'°'5. In contrast to the Jews of the provinces,
who had only one day for slaughtering their enemies, those of
Susa had two days, and therefore could not enjoy themselves
until one day later than their brethren.—And they rested on tts
fifteenth day, and made it a [3] + solemn] day of banqueting and
goy.| Cf. 87 g!7.
19. Therefore the country Jews, that dwell in hamlets of the rural
districts, keep the fourteenth day of the month of Adar as a joy, and a
banquet, and a holiday, and a sending of dainties to one another.|
Here we find the reason for the foregoing stories of the different
days of slaughter. In the author’s time there was a diversity of
practice, the country Jews keeping Purim on the fourteenth of
Adar and the city Jews on the fifteenth. This he seeks to explain
by the theory that the Jews of the provinces had only one day
of vengeance, while those of Susa had two. On banquet, see 13;
on holiday, 87; on dainties, 2%. This y. has all the value of a
(ord; it is not surprising, therefore, that in the Talmud it has be-
come the basis of an elaborate halachic development. In addition
to the celebration here recorded, Meg. 2a prescribes that the roll
of Est. must be read in hamlets on the fourteenth of Adar, or on the
preceding market-day that falls on the eleventh, twelfth, or thir-
LEE WOM DAYS. OF PURINE 201
teenth; but that it must not be read earlier than the eleventh or
later than the fourteenth. ‘This raises the question, What may
legally be regarded as a hamlet? According to Meg. 3b, a town
that was originally unwalled, but subsequently has been surrounded
with a wall, is still to be regarded as a hamlet. A place with less
than ten men whose whole time is devoted to prayer is also to be
regarded as a hamlet (cf. 52).—_({G codd. + But those who dwell in
the cities keep also the fifteenth of Adar as a joyous and good day
by sending dainties to their neighbours.] This is exactly what we
should expect, but do not find in the Heb. It is implied in v. #,
and once must have stood at this point in the text. Whether the
reading of G is a survival, or is a happy conjectural emendation,
it is impossible to say. It did not stand in the text used by the
doctors of the Talmud; but they felt the need of it, and supplied
it by a process of casuistical reasoning (Meg. 2a, Mishna; 2b,
Gemara). By cities the Mishna teaches we are to understand
places that have been surrounded with a wall since the days of
Joshua (cf. Dt. 35). Other authorities hold that it means places
that have been fortified since the days of Xerxes (2b). The rule
of the Mishna gives rise to extended discussions over the question,
which cities of Palestine were walled in the days of Joshua (cf.
Meg. 5b).
16. om. G.—d729Nd— Nv] om. L.— rNw1] om. ἫΝ Ψ J.— M1103 Wry]
om. 44, 106: of ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ G: πᾶν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ 248.— m3] 593
myn τς codd. K R, J.— 07] om. G: ᾿Αρταξέρξου 71, 74, 76, 236.—
yap3] om. J.— ny] καὶ ἑαυτοῖς ἐβοήθουν G: inf. abs. instead of finite vb.,
as throughout this v. and the next. A very common construction in this
book (cf. Kau. ὃ 113 f.).— 0wp3 by] om. G (exc. 8 © 5, 93b under *).—
m)3)] inf. abs. as νν. 17: 18, The statement that they had rest from their
enemies, although supported by all the Vrss., does not come in naturally
before the statement that they slew their enemies, and v. 17 states that they
did not rest until the fourteenth day. Accordingly, after the analogy
of 813, Bert., Reuss, G, Rys., Wild., Buhl, propose to read either 0337) or
d'p)}, ‘and were avenged.’ The reading mv) has probably come in
from the next v. Haupt deletes the whole phrase 07)2»Np m3) as a mis-
placed gloss.—.277)] o&juco §: ἀπώλεσαν yap G: καὶ ἀπώλεσαν L.—
mw] for 2 ὅδ: αὐτῶν G: δυνάτων δὶ *: om. L.— Ade Dvpawy Awnn]
μυρίους πεντακισχιλίους G: μυριάδας ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑκατὸν dvdpas L.— Ὁ) — 71331]
καὶ οὐδὲν διήρπασαν (x © 4m, 93b under * = 18): om. LA: Haupt deletes.
292 ESTHER
17-19. om. L&.—13-0V3] om. 71.—odr3] om. oy $G.—rvdw]
τέσσαρες A.— wn] 3 for Ὁ $:0m. 6.— 18] + primus apud omnes inter-
fectionis fuit J: om. δαὶ Ἔ.--- π ἢ Quen 2210 $: om. A: inf. abs. as in the
preceding v. So the Vrss. in general. @' takes as a noun and trans-
lates xv) MAAN. Haupt deletes this and the following word.—
13] bapa o> §: τοῦ αὐτοῦ μηνός G.— yy] wy) Q in some codd. G,
3SG—anwn] ἀναπαύσεως μετὰ χαρᾶς G: ἀναπαύσεως 71.--- ΠΠῸΦ
om. 71:
18. om. K 76, 107, 111, BLL 106.—ornay] on Q: hi 3!.---
apa] in cede versati sunt ¥.— 12 wy avibws] om. G (exc. δὶ © ἃ mz, g3b
under *): + μηνὸς ’Addp 93b under -:-.--- ΠΡ 3 ΝΞ} -- 6η6 of v.] om. 71.—
132] om. (ὁ (exc. δὶ © ὃ πε g3b under *): τοῦ ᾿Αδάρ 74, 76.—M3)] καὶ οὐκ
ἀνεπαύσαντο B55, 74, 76: ἀνεπαύσαντο δὶ *°-bAN 93bC: καὶ ἀνεπαύσαντο
other codd.— 13 5] om. (9.--- ΠΣ] wy) K 176, Q: et idcirco constituerunt
I: ἦγον 6€G.— oy 108] om. G: + solemnem JI.— Anwr] μετὰ χαρᾶς G.
19. om. L@&.— 5 Sy] ki vero J¥—oun57] ov77 Q: om. J: the K
is to be read 01750 or O50, ‘the separated’; the Q, 04799, ‘the
villagers.’ The next clause ΤΊ ΒΓ y3 02e7 is an exact translation
of 07957 and is probably, therefore, an early explanatory gloss.— Ὁ)3 5]
ach $:om. G (exc. δὶ © *, 936 under *).— npn ya] [25pm% Lge
δ: in oppidis non muratis ac villis J: ἐν πάσῃ χώρᾳ τῇ ἔξω G: towns of the
remote regions, 7.e., of the country, in contrast to M433 oy ‘walled
towns’ (Dt. 35).—aor nx] S 35: om. G (exc. 93b under ἘΝ Ξ wand] om.
win $@G (exc. 93b under *).— ΠῚ] om. G (exc. & & 5, 93b under *).—
ndwy] mbwny some codd. Nti— yayrd] + οἱ δὲ κατοικοῦντες ἐν ταῖς μητρο-
πόλεσιν καὶ τὴν πεντεκαιδεκάτην τοῦ ᾿Αδὰρ (+ ἡμέραν αὶ A) εὐφροσύνην
(-ns 8 A) ἀγαθὴν ἄγουσιν ἐξαποστέλλοντες μερίδας καὶ τοῖς tAnTlov BN AN
52, 55, 64, 74, 76, τοϑα, 236, 248, C, Ald. (with slight variations in the
different codd.).
INSTITUTION OF THE FEAST OF PURIM.: (920-3):
The section 950-35 bears evidences of having been derived from a
different source from the rest of the book; but it must have been
excerpted by the author himself, since all that goes before leads up
toit. The author probably found 939-32 ina Jewish history entitled
“the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia”
(102), and wrote 1'-g!* to serve as a new introduction to this sec-
tion. It thus became the vehicle of his own thought, although
borrowed from another writer, and may practically be treated as
an integral part of the book (see Introduction, § 24).
THE FEAST OF PURIM 203
MORDECAI COMMANDS TO KEEP BOTH THE FOURTEENTH AND
THE FIFTEENTH OF ADAR (039-23).
20. And Mordecai wrote the following words]. This is not an
assertion that he wrote the Book of Est., or even the foregoing
section 11- 1", as the early critics commonly assume. The added
clause, and sent letters, shows that the things written were the con-
tents of these letters, as given in vv. 21-22. Cf. v. 39, where this second
message can only refer to what follows (see p. 61).—And he sent
letters unto all the Jews that were in all the provinces of King
Xerxes, those near and those far}. Cf. 859.
21. To establish for them [3] + with solemn honour] [6 L +
these good days][L + for hymns and joy instead of pain and grief,]
that they should continue to keep the fourteenth day of the month of
Adar and its fifteenth day in every single year]. This v. and the
next give the contents of the letters. According to ν. 13 the Jews
of the author’s region kept partly the fourteenth and partly the
fifteenth of Adar in memory of their escape; but according to this
passage, Mordecai enjoined upon all the Jews to keep both days.
This points to a different author who reflects the custom of another
region. V.'° shows perhaps the custom of the Palestinian Jews;
this v., the custom of the Eastern Jews. The editor intends the
celebration of the two days to be understood in the light of v. 1%,
but this does not lie naturally in the language.
22. Like the days on which the Jews rested from their enemies],
ἦ.6., in each successive year they are to celebrate these days as they
did at first at the time of their deliverance (vv. 111::). The trans-
lation as the days of AV. and RV. is ambiguous.—And the month
[ὦ + that is Adar] that was changed for them from sorrow to joy
and from mourning to a holiday]. Before the month, like is to be
supplied from the preceding clause (cf. 8'7 9!).—To keep them
as days of banqueting and joy and of sending dainties to one an-
other]. ‘The construction begun in v. "1 is resumed after the long
parenthetical clause in v.*. The language is almost identical
with that of v.'°. The similarity of this v. to 817 g'- 17-19 does not
prove identity of authorship. The editor who excerpted it from
the Chronicle of Media and Persia was familiar with its language
204 ESTHER
and imitated it in the earlier part of the book, which he meant to
serve as an introduction to it—[@'+ and alms] and gifts tothe poor.|
This feature does not appear in the account of the first celebration
of the day 9!7-!°, although, according to v. 335, the feast was to be
celebrated every year just as at the time of its institution.
20. 7277 ΓΝ] oaIn ba mw K 244, R 486, J.—or5d now] et {{|-
teris comprehensa misit J: εἰς βιβλίον καὶ ἐξαπέστειλε(ν) LG U.— 55]
om. 3! ( G L.— 523] om. 92 GF L.— yar my] τῇ βασιλείᾳ (6 1, 1.---
winwnx] om. IJ: ᾿Αρταξέρξου GL: Ξέρξου το, 108): Haupt deletes.—
4) 5.371 Π] not found in 1-9! (cf. Dn. 97).— 23p9] Pi. inf. of yp. Found
also in vy. 27- 2% 81. 82, but not in 11--019 (cf. Ru. 47 Ez. 13° Ps. 11928: 106).
A late word.
21, amy]om. GL: pro festis J$.— ΟΡ ΤΌΤ] om. L: the periphrastic
form expresses the continuity of the action—ov nx] om. 1,1} G (exc.
936 under *): ὦ $.— wan] om. $ 1, 10 G (exc. δὶ & 4 ™2, 93b under *).—
a8] om. $ AL: τοῦ ’Aydp καὶ *— or] om. 55 10 LG (exc. 93b under *).—
qwy awn] |Lmasce $.— 13] om. 6F L: 391. $.— 1221-933] om. (6 15 L:
Loss Lie No ®: reveriente semper anno J.
22. Annwy—0°D3] om. L.—o°n79] O°". K 158, R 378, 11: ἐν γὰρ ταύ-
ταις ταῖς ἡμέραις G: in diebus J.— Wws] om. G (exc. 8 ο- 5. A).— wa] erra-
verunt H.— 072] om. G (exc. δὶ & 8 mz, οὖ under *): et servati sunt L—
vanayjom. wana J: om. 1 $: secundum mensem L.— wx] om. J.— 9573]
scriptus est L: ἐγράφη καὶ A.— o>] om. 5: + ὃς ἣν ᾿Αδάρ G (93) under +,
A om.).—"0] not found in 1'~9!9.— 3=-parn]om. 8 93b.— 2.0 -- Φ32 Ν
om. τού, 249.— on] ὅλον ἀγαθὰς (Ὁ: αὕτας A: ὅλας ἀγαθὰς 44, 106: ὁ λαὸς
ἀγαθὰς 76: ὅλον εἰς ἀγαθὰς 68, 245, C, Ald.—Anwn] γάμων (ἢ F.— anv]
om. ππῸ τοῦ.-- nowy] mbwnvar.: ἐξαποστέλλοντας G: καὶ ἀπέστειλε L:
mittere &.— ΤΟ] dona et partes L.— ws] sacerdotibus L: om. L.— wyr>]
τοῖς φίλοις (6: οἱ amicis ἼΠ: om. L.—nunnjom. L¥ G (exc. 93b under *).
—oryand] + et orphanis et viduis 1ῆ.
THE JEWS AGREE TO OBEY THE INJUNCTION OF MORDECAI (033-28).
23. And [@ + all] the Jews made customary [J + as a solemn
rite] [G' + for themselves in equal measure] that which they had
begun to do}, i.e., they agreed to keep every year the days that they
had just celebrated.—And that which Mordecai had written unto
them], as just related in vv. 2°, The editor does not notice that
what the Jews have begun to do g!7-!° does not correspond with
what Mordecai commands in 935-32, The Jews have continued to
THE BEAST OF PURIM 295
keep these days down to the present time, and they have added
a number of rites to those prescribed in 9!*-. The most impor-
tant of these is the reading of the Roll of Est. on the feast days.
To the discussion of the proper performance of this ceremony
the Talmudic tractate M°ghilla is mainly devoted. The roll must
be read in unwalled towns on the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth,
or fourteenth of Adar; in walled towns, on the fifteenth. All Israel-
ites, including women, must listen to it. It may be read in any
language that is known to the people, and in Heb. and Gr., even
when these are not understood (Meg. 18a). According to Meg. 7b
there is no difference between the observance of the day of Purim
and the Sabbath, except that on the former the preparation of
food is allowed. According to Meg. 6b, if the Roll has been read
in the first Adar, and a second Adar is intercalated, the Roll
must be read again in the intercalary month. For the further de-
velopment of the feast in post-Talmudic times, see Malter, Art.
“Purim,” in Jewish Encycl.
Verses *-25 contain a brief duplicate account of Haman’s con-
spiracy that varies in some respects from the account given in
the earlier part of the book. Here the King has no knowledge
of Haman’s plans; but when they are brought to his attention, he
commands to punish Haman. There is also no mention of Es-
ther’s part in averting the mischief. ‘These facts favour the view
suggested above that vv. *°-*? are derived by the author from an
independent document.
24. For Haman, son of Hamm*datha, the Agagite, the enemy of
all the Jews]. See on 3'- '°—Had devised (plans) against the
Jews to annihilate them]. See on 8%. To annihilate them, which
is not found in the parallel vv.8* 9%, may have been copied by mis-
take from the end of this v.; so Sieg.; Haupt deletes the word at
the end of the v.—And he cast pur, that 1s, the lot, to discomfit them
and to destroy them.| See on 37.
{G2 + And when men saw Haman and his sons hanging many days
upon the gallows, they said, Why does Esther transgress the command
of Scripture not to leave a corpse on the gallows? Esther answered and
said to them, Because King Saul killed the Gibeonite proselytes, his sons
were hanged on the gallows from the beginning of barley-harvest until
296 ESTHER
the rain fell upon them, that was six months; and when the Israelites
went up to appear before the Sanctuary, the heathen said to them, Why
are these hanging there? The Israelites answered and said to them,
Because their father laid hands upon the Gibeonite proselytes and slew
them. How much more then ought the wicked Haman and his sons to
hang forever on the gallows, since he wished to destroy the Israelites
at one time.]
25. And when it came before the King]. © reads, and when he
came before the King. The f. suffix translated i is understood
by 3$@: Gand many modern comm. of Esther, but this is un-
natural, since she is not mentioned in the context (9'* is the last
occurrence of her name). This suffix, accordingly, must be
taken as neuter referring to the conspiracy of Haman just men-
tioned (so Bert., Keil, Oet., Wild., Sieg., Stre.). The non-
mention of Esther in this passage is additional evidence of its lit-
erary independence.—He said in connection with the writing
(G: + that they should blot out the memory of the house of Amalek
from beneath the heavens]. This is commonly supposed to mean,
he commanded in writing, but the expression is peculiar and does
not occur elsewhere. In 79 no mention is made of an edict when
Haman was sentenced. @ reads, saying to hang Mordecai. J,
Meg. 17a, G2, read she said, and @: refers the writing to the com-
mand in Ex. 17"*-!*. The text is apparently corrupt (see note).
—Let his wicked plan which he has devised against the Jews return
upon his own head]. Cf. 8° τ K. 2% Ob. 15 Ps. 717 48). A differ-
ent account of the transaction and of the reason for the King’s
sentence is given in 7f- This is a further evidence of the literary
independence of this section.—And let them hang him and his sons
upon the gallows.| According to 715, Haman was hanged alone;
and according to 91", his sons were not hanged until after the mas-
sacre of the 13th of Adar. Here the hanging of the father and the
sons seems to take place at the same time.
26. Therefore they called the days Purim because of the name of
the pur.] Here, for the first time, we find the reason for the inser-
tion of the remark about pur meaning the lot in 37 9%. It is to
furnish an etymology for Purim, the well-known name of the feast.
On the real origin of this name, see Introduction, § 28. There-
THE FRAST (OF PURIM 207
fore). The predicate which belongs to this is found at the begin-
ning of v.27. Between the two stands the long parenthetical
clause 2%», The Vrss. have not understood the construction and
consequently have supplied various predicates after the conjunc-
tion (see note). Because of all the words of this message, [3] + that
is, the things that are written in this book,] [@: + in order that
they might be heard by all the people of the house of Israel and
that they might know]. This message JO: ©? and many comm.
understand of the Book of Est., but it is evidently the same as
the letter mentioned in ν. 39, which is certainly not this book (see
on v. ?°).—And because of what they had seen in this respect [© +
in regard to the observance of Purim]. Seen is used in the sense of
experienced, as in Ex. 10°—And because of what [τ + was done
among them that was wonderful for Mordecai and Esther, and
that they might know the deliverance which] had come unto them}.
The last two clauses are a duplicate to the narrative of 8'-9g!8,
27. The Jews established [© + the statute] and made it custom-
ary for themselves]. A continuation of the sentence begun with
therefore in v.**. The statement is a duplicate to 9!°—And for
their descendants and for all who should join themselves to them
[G: + as proselytes]. The addition of ©: gives the true sense.
Those who join themselves are the same as those who become Jews
in 81, Here, as there, the allusion is an evidence of the late date
of the book.—T hat it might not be repealed], like the unchangeable
laws of the Medes and Persians (1'*).—To continue to keep these
two days in accordance with the letter that prescribed them and in
accordance with the time set for them], lit. according to their writing
and according to their time. ‘The possessive pronouns refer to
days. The writing is the same as the Jetters of v.2° and the message
of ν. 35, The time is that set by Mordecai in v.*.—{@' + By read-
ing the Roll in Hebrew characters in their synagogues upon the
eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth days in villages, and
in towns of the provinces, and in cities] 7m every single year]. The
language imitates that of the letter in v. ™.
28. And that these days might be remembered and be kept [© +
as a feast] in every single generation and every single family [© + of
the priests and Levites] and [© + of all the house of Israel that
298 ESTHER
abode in] every single province and [€' + that abode in] every
single city]. ‘The language is similar to that of 122 313 8°, but gener-
ation and family have not been used before in the book. On kept,
of. v.2.—That these days of Purim might not be repealed by the
Jewish community], lit. might not pass over from the midst of the
Jews. See on τ'" 88—And that the memory of them might not
cease among their descendants [3] + who are bound to keep these
ceremonies] [Jos.*** + And, since they were about to be destroyed
by Haman on these days, and on them escaped the danger and
took vengeance on their enemies, that they might do well by cele-
brating them and giving thanks to God].
23-25. Haupt deletes as a gloss on the ground that Purim is derived
froma Pers. word meaning ‘portions,’ and that, therefore, v. 2°, which de-
scribes the giving of this name, should follow immediately after v. 33, in
which the sending of ‘portions’ is mentioned. Both the etymology of
Purim and the proposed emendation are extremely doubtful (see p. 79).
— apy] Yap) 29 codd. K R, δ! G2 I 9 ὦ 1Π1,, Oort, Haupt: sg. be-
cause preceding the subject (Kau. § 145 g, 0). Perf. with ) instead of
impf. with Ὑ consec., in accordance with late usage (Driver, Tenses,
§ 133). There is no certain case of this construction in 1'-g!9 (cf. 3”),
but it is common in 929-82 (cf. 9%: 35. 27), It is an evidence, therefore, of
the literary independence of this section. 537 in the late sense of ‘make
traditional’ is found only in this section (cf. v. 37). In 4‘ it means ‘re-
ceive. — D177] + coasts $:+ in solemnem ritum J.— nwy>—nx 1
om. LG (exc. 936 under *): οὐ posuerunt in commemoratione &.— nx\—
end of ν. 35] om. L.— 3172] om. G.— om Ν] ὉΠ» τὸ codd. K, 26 codd.
R: om. K 236, 9%.
24, om. L &.— 13] πῶς G: ὅπως καὶ A: περὶ 44, τοῦ: \ to $.—xNNIN7]
᾿Αμαδάθου G: ᾿Αμαγάθουν καὶ *: ᾿Αμαθάδου A: + ὁ ᾿Εβουγαῖος δὶ came;
Zpscor BAU: ¢ gdon ὅθ: om. 44, 71, 106.— 22 ΝΠ] μι 5: (ὁ) Μακέδων
G: Τωγαῖος 93b: om. 44, 71, 108a.— or 53 WA] om. G6. — 73] + et
adversarius §.—‘3] om. K 95, 170, R 266, 547, J.— 3wn] ἐπολέμει G: ὃς
ἐπολέμει 44, τοῦ: πολέμει 108a.— or Sy] αὐτούς G: αὐτοῖς 74, 76,
249, Ald.: τοὺς Ιουδαίους A 93b: + malum J.—0d73N5] om. G.— 9
757] ΝῚ C: καθὼς ἔθετο G: καὶ ὡς ἔθετο καὶ © » A 93: 09) 15 pf. with 1 con-
nective, as in 9%—Spm—y. % wr] om. 106.— "81 phur FB: lee Ξ:
ψήφισμα (ὃ: οπι. 71.--- ὉΠ Nw] quod nostra lingua vertitur in sortem J:
kal κλήρον G: καὶ €Bare(v) φοῦρ ὃ ἐστιν κλήρος & © «, 93b under *.— pond]
om. J. Qal inf. with sf. 3 pl. Not used in r'-9!*% A play in sound
upon the name Haman (Cas., Schu.).—0d73x>y] om. IG.
25, om. L&].— ἼΒΌΠ -- ΠΙΝ3 31] om. 71.— ὯΝ 332] so Oc.: 4833) (Raphe)
THE FEAST OF PURIM 299
Or. (Ginsburg): ef postea ingressaest Esther $: padsol Lon iss [τὸς 5:
καὶ ὡς εἰσῆλθεν G.— Hd dy ὍΝ] obsecrans ut conatus ejus litteris regis
arriti fierent J: |,-a0 len pl S$: λέγων κρεμάσαι τὸν Μαρδοχαῖον G&
(930 under ~):@! omits 19D oy: Haupt translates ‘in spite of the letter,’
and regards as a tertiary gloss.— 21] son) S: ἐγένοντο (6: ἐγένετο A.
— avnn] om. JG.— ow w7- ws] tr. aft. ws7 ὅ5.---- awn ws] —?
Daw Z| S: ὅσα δὲ ἐπεχείρησεν ἐπάξαι (ὦ (πράξαι 71, ἐπάγαγεν 93b).— Sy
WRI] ἐπ’ αὐτὸν G.— NN YN] «σι. 6.5.2.29 S: καὶ ἐκρεμάσθη αὐτὸς G.
—yyn Sy] om. (6 (exc. 8 ο- = & ΒΑ Ν, 936 under *).
26. om. GH 71.— πον πὶ ov] om. A.— on] phurim J: 555 Ὁ:
Ppovpal G: Ppovpiv. x ©- «: Povpdaia 1, (Φουρμαία το, 108b, Φουρδία g3a):
Φουρουρείμ 93h: Φρουρίν 249: Poupiu C: Ppovpéas (Ppovpaiovs) Jos. xi.
ὃ 295.— ow dy] id est 31: διὰ G L.— W57] sortium J: ἱὼ..κ-9 ὅθ: τοὺς κλήρους
GL: τοὺς καίρους Ν. ---ἸΞ 5y—end of v.] Haupt deletes as a gloss.—
12 $y] eo quod J: ὅτι G: τοὺς πεσόντας L: om. $ τοῦ: + phur id est sors in
urnam missa fuerint J: + τῇ (+ ἰδίᾳ 249) διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν καλοῦνται
@povpal (Φοὺρ 93h: all under + 93b) 6— >y 8—end of v. 37] om. L.— by 4]
et J: διὰ G: καὶ διὰ 93b.— 92] om. $ G.— 1727] que gesta sunt J: om. 108a.
— nnn] epistole + id est libri hujus volumine continentur J: τῆς ἐπισ-
τολῆς G: As. egirtu, Gr. &yyapos, is a late loan-word synonymous with
a.nd in v.2 See Noldeke, ZDMG. xl. 733; Meyer, Entstehung d. Ju-
denthums, Ὁ. 22.—72)'] Segs0 “so §:-end of v. om. 44, 106.— 187]
sustinuerunt J: πεπόνθασιν G.— 72> by] διὰ ταῦτα (ταύτην: αὐτήν) G: om.
3: 55: lit. ‘upon thus.’ Here only ἃ prp. is used before “39. " Cf. 85.--
7012] Sepdo Xo H—amds pn] deinceps immutata sunt I.
27. om. L&.— 127] καὶ ἔστησε(ν) G: ἔστησαν N: ἔστησε μνημόσυνον 74,
76, 236: 0m. $ J: see 9%. Haupt reads 1>)p) in immediate connection
with 727.—ay»-1"P] om. 44, 71, 106.— apy] apr Q, Kethibh in
many codd. N' 1 5 3, Ὁ ὦ. The Qeré is meant to be read 737). Pu.
inf. abs., as so often in this book instead of the finite vb. The Kethibh
substitutes the finite vb. Haupt deletes as a gloss to the preceding vb.—
b3] om. G (exc. 936 under *).—od37] sg. $.—8>y] fy S— Vay] ἄλλως
χρήσονται G: the sg. is difficult, since it has no subject. Either with ὦ!
we must supply pA before it, or we must read 13y, in which case the
meaning will be, ‘that they might not transgress.’ Haupt reads 3)" nd
and transposes to the end of the ν. after 7327.— nw7>-end of v.]om. 6
(exc. 93b under *).— 3793] cf. 1% 3! 4 4888. 9. 18.— Ὁ)213}} olspo Φ.
—r”iwy] om. Ὁ.
28. om. 44, 106.— 50} εἰς τὰς ἡμέρας L: et diet L— 7x7] om. L.—
D213] μνημόσυνον G: μνημοσύναι A: els μνημόσυνον Τ,: mentionem fecii
£: the ptc. is dependent upon nvn in the preceding v.— dwy2-end
of ν. 33 om. L.—owyn] om. £: ἐπιτελούμενον G: ἐπιτελουμέναι A.— 733]
om. $5 6L.— 04] om. $: progeniam L.— answny vAnawn] om. 3}:
[Dope 5: καὶ πατριὰν G E.—77D)] om. IS GL.— vy] om. ISE.
300 ESTHER
—28b Haupt deletes as a late explanatory gloss.— 2] indicens L.—
a7] τῶν Ppovpai (ὁ: τῶν Φρουρῶν & *: τοῦ Ppovpal A: τῶν Φουρουρεὶμ
93b: τῶν Φρουρὶν 249: vigilias L: phurim 9: 1.5.9 $— NA] id est
sortium J: om. H.— 39) 8>] nec non observentur I: ἀχθήσονται G: quas
celebrareni G.— or rn] a SJudeis J: εἰς τὸν ἅπαντα xpbvov 6 L.—
Arby xd D7] om. B.—A] here only construed with }>.— oyun] ab
eorum progenie 3|: ἐκ τῶν γενεῶν (δ: de progenie GL.
ESTHER AND MORDECAI WRITE A SECOND LETTER CONCERNING
PURIM (9?9-82).
On the origin of this section and its relation to 92-28, see [ntro-
duction, § 24.
29. [Meg. 7a + Esther sent to the wise, saying, Establish for the
future a festival in my honour. They sent back word to her,
Thou wilt arouse hatred against us among the heathen (similarly
JT. Meg. 1').] Then wrote Esther the Queen, the daughter of
’Abihayil, and Mordecai the Jew [ἴθι + all this Roll] with all power].
Wrote is f. sg., so that the following words and Mordecai the Jew
are possibly a gloss derived from ν. * (see note). According to
ν. 1, Esther writes to confirm the words of Mordecai; it is not
natural, therefore, that he should take part in this letter. Esther’s
purpose is to add the weight of her authority to that of the grand
vizier in securing the observance of Purim. On ’Abihayil, see
2'*, Wath all power, Keil and Sieg. understand to mean with all
emphasis. Others think that it means with all the authority of
her position.—To establish the following second message concerning
Purim, [2 + that if there were a year with an intercalated month,
they should not read the Roll in the first Adar, but should read
it in the second Adar.] The expression this message, like these
words, in v. 35, does not refer to the foregoing, but to the following
narrative. Just as the substance of Mordecai’s letter is given in
vv. #£-,so that of Esther’s letter is given in v.*. On Purim, see
Introduction, § 28.
30. And [she] sent letters unto all the Jews]. ΑΒ remarked above,
probably Esther alone writes to confirm Mordecai’s previous letter ;
consequently, instead of the m. sg. he sent at the beginning of this
v., we must read she sent, or else with J 9 read the pl. Possibly
THE FEAST OF PURIM 301
the accidental insertion of the m. form at this point has induced
the interpolation of the words and Mordecai the Jew in the preced-
ing v.—Unto 127 provinces, the kingdom of Xerxes]. See on 1! 8°.
—(Containing) friendly and faithful words], lit. words of peace and
truth; in apposition with Jeffers in the preceding clause. These
letters began with the usual Oriental expressions of good will, and
added the assurance that Esther would remain a faithful Jewess.
31. To establish these days of Purim [© + in the second Adar]
at their appointed time [© + of intercalation]. Here we get the
contents of the second letter mentioned in v. 2°. ὅθι rightly feels that
it is superfluous after 92°-?8, and therefore makes the above inter-
polations to give Esther something new to write about (cf. ©? on
v.2*)—As Mordecai the Jew had established for them and Esther
the Queen]. The allusion is evidently to the previous letter of
Mordecai vv. 2°-2. Esther’s purpose in writing is solely to back
up Mordecai’s letter with her authority, and to keep the Jews from
forgetting the feast of Purim. ‘The vb. is sg., although two sub-
jects follow, and in y. 2° Mordecai alone writes. It looks, there-
fore, as if the words and Esther the Queen were an interpolation
from y. **.—And as they [τ + the Jews] had established for them-
selves and for their descendants], as narrated in vv. *-?*.—[€! + to
remember] ¢he matters of the fastings and of their cry of distress.]
These have been mentioned in 4 as occurring at the time when
Haman’s edict went out; but Mordecai’s letter 92°-*? contains no
express mention of them, nor do the Jews agree to do so in g?-?8.
Probably the author’s idea is, that the words of Mordecai’s letter 9,
“like the days on which the Jews rested from their enemies, and
the month that was changed for them from sorrow to joy, and from
mourning to a holiday,” mean to say that the Jews are to keep
the days of Purim every year just as they did the first year, that is
both with fasting and with feasting. ‘This the Jews agree to do
in 97. From this passage it does not appear which day of Adar
was to be kept asa fast. The later Jews fixed it on the 13th, the
day that Haman appointed for their destruction, under the name
of ‘‘Esther’s Fast.”
32. So the command of Esther established these matters of Purim
and it was committed to writing [τ + by the hand of Mordecai in
302 ESTHER
the Roll] JIT@', Meg., Jewish comm. in general, and many
Christian comm. understand the phrase it was committed to writ-
ing of the writing of the Book of Est. Pisc., Jun. and Trem.,
Grot., Raw., αἰ. understand it of the Persian annals (cf. 225 6! 102);
Mal., Osi., Vat., of the Jewish annals; Bert., Keil, Oet., Wild.,
Sieg., Stre., of a special document used by the author of Est. ΑἹ]
of these views labour under two difficulties, (1) that write in the
book in Heb. idiom means no more than commit to writing (cf. Ex.
174 Nu. 523 Jb. 192%). There is no need, therefore, to see in the
expression the book any reference to a well-known work. (2) The
abandonment of the construction with Waw consec. shows that
the establishing of the matters of Purim and the writing are not
subsequent to the events just narrated, but are coincident with
them. This v. is merely a summing up of what has just been told
in vv. 29-30, The statement that the commandment of Esther es-
tablished these matters of Purim is not something new, but is a refer-
ence to the enactment recorded in v. *! (note the identity of phrase-
ology). The committing to writing is the same that is recorded
in ν. 9. The same word book is used of Esther’s letter in v. 39.
29-32. Haupt deletes as a gloss.
29. om. L.— 30371] so Ml (with large 7); some codd. with ordinary n.
The large initial letter possibly suggests that the text is suspicious. The
f. sg. agreeing with the nearest subject is possible, even if another sub-
ject follows, but is less usual than the pl. and suggests that 797 937901
may be a gloss. Haupt reads ‘797 13770 APN Ὁ9 AN ADbNA ANDK ANsm.
— max] ᾿Αμιναδὰβ G: ᾿Αμιναδὰν δ: om. L.— 77] om. 71, 74, 76,
106, 236, H.— pn 5a ΓΝ] τό τε στερέωμα G: τότε εἰς μνημόσυνον 44, 106:
| Pa = S: omni studio I: firmamentum G&: 4A is an Aram.
word that occurs only here and τοῦ and Dn. 11!7. ms in the sense of
‘with’ is unnatural in this connection, we should expect 3. This leads
Haupt to make the transposition indicated above.— d°p?] ué sanciretur
I.— Op-ed? 9: ὅσα ἐποίησαν G: fecit L: cf. 95". 51. %.— Aas] 67: o%—
aan] dies solemnis I: 1.55.9) S: τῶν Ppovpal G (Φρουρῶν x *: Φρουρίμ
x © b: bpovpala A: Φουρουρείμ 93b): custodientium G.— mown msi] om.
GL: om. nw 85: + in posterum FH.
30. om. LZG—nbe] pl. JS—ord] om. J—ms>v] regis 3:
padso aZaaStess 95: Haupt reads nsbn32.— npn 09v] tr. &.
31. om. L& 106.—oapd] some late editions pypo.— om 3213 -- ap?)
om. 6.— 2°57] sortium I.— 7x7] cum gaudio 9.— Ὁ] pl. IB: καὶ ἔστη-
σαν & (93b under +: om. to xp 71).— O7>y] ἑαυτοῖς Kal’ ἑαυτῶν ῷ
APPENDIX TO THE BOOK 303
(ἑαυτούς 74, 76, 236: 93) under ~-): not to be referred to o7327 (Wild.),
but to the Jews (cf. v. 2!).— 177] om. 6.— 12°) wd] om. 1 85: καὶ τότε
στήσαντες (ἢ (93h under +): om. 74, 76, 236: καὶ τότε ἔστησαν 249.— oy
ὉΨ)] κατὰ THs ὑγ(ι)είας (τὴν νηστείαν C) (ἑγαυτῶν G (93b under +): τὰ
περὶ τῆς βουλῆς 71: τὰ περὶ τῆς ὑγ(ι)είας 74, 76, 236.---- Ὁ» Ὁ»}] καὶ τὴν
βουλὴν (ἑγ)αυτῶν G: καὶ ὑγείας αὐτῶν 71: καὶ τῆς βουλῆς αὐτῶν 74, 76,
236: om. 93b.— "3 L,coes ὅ5: om. JG.— m7] «Ὄσιξοο Ὁ S:om.
G.— onpyr] + et sortium dies J: om. G.
32. om. L& 71, 106.— 10ND) καὶ λόγῳ: λόγῳ & * A: qui vocatur I.—
mbxn—orp] op + ‘Qs 95: et omnia que libri hujus J: ἔστησεν (+ αὐτά 74,
76) els τὸν αἰῶνα G.— 5903 3N33)] historia continentur J: καὶ ἐγράφη els
μνημόσυνον &: + literal version of v. 30 7D’ to end of v. 32, 93b under *.
APPENDIX TO THE BOOK
THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF MORDECAI (το!-3).
1. Then King Xerxes imposed tribute upon the mainland and upon
the islands of the sea. [53 + But when King Xerxes knew Esther’s
race and her descent, he treated them like free men in the world,
and made the peoples of all races and kingdoms serve them.]
The object of this ¢ribute isnot stated. Raw. and others conjecture
that it was to recoup himself for his unsuccessful war with Greece.
The wide extent of his kingdom, including the islands (or coast-
lands) of the Mediterranean, is evidence that this monarch is
Xerxes the Great (see Introduction, ὃ 22). From 939 to 9332 the
author has been quoting an older document. He continues here,
as though he were about to give an extended account of Xerxes’
reign, but stops abruptly at the end of this v. and contents himself
with a reference to the Book of the Chronicles, from which he
has derived these items.
2. But all his powerful activity and his might], lit. all the work
of his power and his might. The might of a king is the record of
his famous deeds (1 K. 152% and often).—And the exact account of
the greatness of Mordecai with which the King magnified him [ΤΠ +
in his kingdom]. The same expression is used of the glorification
of Haman 3: 5". Mordecai was so great that his deeds, as well as
those of the King, were recorded in the Chronicle.—Are they not
written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and
304 ESTHER
Persia?| This is the regular formula with which the authors of
Kings and Chronicles refer to their authorities (1 K. 114 141% *8,
etc.; 2 Ch. 252° 282° 32%, efc.). This is supposed by many to be the
same as the royal diary mentioned in 2% 6!. In that case the
citation is a fraud on the part of the author of Est. designed to imi-
tate the ancient histories and to give authority to his work, since
it is inconceivable that the royal annals of Persia were accessible
to him, or that they contained an account of the greatness of
Mordecai. It is not clear, however, that these Chronicles are the
same as the royal diaries. In 258 we read of ‘‘the book of the acts
of the days before the King,” and in 6: of “the book of the memo-
rable things of the acts of the days.” This is evidently the private
diary of King Xerxes; but here we read of ‘‘the book of the acts
of the days of the kings of Media and Persia,” which seems to be a
history of the Medo-Persian Kings. The Books of the Chronicles,
to which the authors of Kings and Chronicles refer, are not royal
annals, but are late historical compilations, accessible to every-
body, in which fuller information might be found concerning the
kings. So here the author is probably thinking of some Jewish
history, like the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and
Israel used by the Chronicler, that gave from the Jewish point of
view the traditional history of the kings of Media and Persia.
From this work apparently the passage 9?*-ro! has been extracted
(see Introduction, § 24). Media is here placed first because the
Median monarchy preceded the Persian. In 1°. '*- 19 Persia is
placed first, because in the time of Xerxes it held the hegemony
in the dual kingdom.
3. For Mordecai the Jew was next in rank to King Xerxes].
This is the reason why so much is said about him in the Book of
the Chronicles. He was grand vizier, the real ruler of the Persian
empire (cf. 82: % 15 g8f- 2 Ch. 287 Tob. 153).-ἶςι ©: + Treasurer
and elder of the Jews, chief over all the peoples; and from one end
of the world to the other there was obedience to him and honour.
And all kings feared before him, and they trembled before him
as before the King. Mordecai himself was like the morning-star
among the stars, and like the dawn going forth in the morning.]
And he was great in the esteem of the Jews and liked by the multi-
APPENDIX TO .THE BOOK 305
tude of his brethren, [| Meg. τοῦ + but not by all his brethren, for a
part of the Sanhedrin turned away from him (RaShI + because,
when he became great, he neglected the study of the Law).] The
expression does not mean, as Weg., Ramb., think, that there was
a minority that was not pleased with Mordecai. The multitude of
his brethren is parallel to the Jews in the last clause and means all
his fellow Israelites (cf. 5"). In spite of his exaltation Mordecai
was envied by no one.—Seeking the welfare of his people, and caring
for the peace of all his race [Jos.*** + Enjoying at the same time
the fellowship of the Queen, so that by means of them the affairs
of the Jews were prosperous beyond all expectation. This, then,
was the way in which things happened to them in the reign of
Artaxerxes.] This gives the reason why Mordecai was so beloved
by all the Jews. In his high position he did not forget his kins-
men, but constantly laboured for their good. Thus the book closes
with a pleasant picture of the happiness and prosperity of the
Jews under the beneficent rule of their coreligionist.
1. om. @: Haupt regards asa misplaced gloss to 2!8.— Ὁ] ἔγραψεν δὲ
G: ἔγραψεν yap A: καὶ ἔγραψεν L: fecit J.— wrwns]so Oc.: wrens Q
Oc.: vinwase Kethibh Or. ΝῚ 5 Ὁ: om. (6 L (exc. & © 4 mg inf, 93d under *):
see Ba. This spelling, which occurs here only in the book, is nearer to the
original Pers. Khshayarsha than the usual spelling.— D2] a word of un-
known origin, meaning in early Heb. ‘forced labour.’ Here, as in New
Heb., it means ‘tribute’: tributarias 3: τέλη & A 93b (under *): τὰ τέλη
L: om. 6.—y Jomnem 9: + aso S: ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν G& (τὴν βασιλείαν
under + 930): ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ 44: om. L.— ΝῊ] + cunctas 31}:
om. Ν GL.
2. 1321-531] om. 31: Haupt transposes after the following clause.—
awyn 53] pl. S$: om. G L.— wn] τὴν ἰσχὺν αὐτοῦ GL: cf. 939.-ττ- ἸΓ 12}
καὶ (τὴν) ἀνδραγαθίαν (+ αὐτοῦ 44, 106) G: om. L.—nbra ΓΦ ΡῚ] DuwoawZo
σι2α.:.59 5: πλοῦτόν τε καὶ δόξαν Τ, (56 (93b under +): et annuntiata est
gloria H.— 3770] τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ G: καὶ Μαρδοχαῖος L: Mardochei
L.— yon --wsy] om. G (exc. 93b under *): ἐδόξασε L: Haupt deletes
as a scribal expansion.— ὉΠ NA] om. J: καὶ L: lor B: ἰδοὺ (+ ταῦτα *
936) G: sicut L—o 373) coudo 5: γέγραπται G: ἔγραψεν Τ,.--- pd]
libris J: rots βιβλίοις 1, -- 09999 1927] om. LE IG (exc. 935 under *).—
29D] regis LZ: om. IL 64, 71, 74, 76, 93a, τοῦ, 236, 243, 248, 249, C, Ald.
—pd7p)] + els μνημόσυνον (Ὁ 1, (930 under +): om. &.
3. 7] om. 6 LF (exc. δὶ & # me, g3b under *).— ΠΣ ΦῸ] + loa Φ:
διεδέχετο G L: suscipiebat L.— 3525] τὸν βασιλέα G & L: the usual expres-
20
306 ESTHER
sion is J$20 73¢'p.— wren] ᾿Αρταξέρξην G: Ξέρξην L: + in die illa Z:
Haupt deletes.— 5] + fon $: + ἣν GLL.— om] ἐν τῇ βασιλεία
GLE: \s for 6 S$: Haupt reads 2192.— wns — ἽΣ Ἢ] om. §.— 13) καὶ
δεδοξασμένος G: καὶ φιλούμενος L: et magnificatus L.— vas 2.5] ὑπὸ TOV
Ἰουδαίων (Βασιλέων 71) καὶ φιλούμενος G (om. καὶ Pid. 44, 106, 249): ὑπὸ
πάντων τῶν Ἰουδαίων L: a Judeis et ex ducatu ἼΠ.---- wr] (δι)ηγεῖτο G:
καὶ ἡγεῖτο L: preerat G.— 22] τὴν ἀγωγὴν (Ὁ: om. LY.— οὖν -- ἸΏ} 5]
om. GL: αὐτῶν καὶ δόξαν περιετίθει Τ, --- ὉΥ 725] ‘care for the welfare’
(ff. Zc. 910 Ps. 85%).— yu] τῷ ἔθνει αὐτοῦ G LB: not ‘his posterity,’ but
parallel to 72)", as Is. 61%.
ADDITION: ἫΣ
THE INTERPRETATION OF MORDECAI’S DREAM AND CLOSING
SUBSCRIPTION.
After 10° 6 & L append the following passage, F'-" (= Vulg.
and Eng. Ad. Est. ro‘-11'). On the origin and antiquity of the
passage, see Introduction, §§ 13, 20. For the Gr. text and variants,
see Paton in HM. ii. pp. 50-51.
1Then Mordecai said, These things have come from God. ?For I re-
member the dream which I saw concerning these matters, for nothing
of them has failed. As for the little fountain that became a river, and
there was light, and the sun, and much water, the river is Esther, whom
the King married, and made Queen: ‘and the two dragons are I and
Haman: *and the nations are those that were assembled to destroy the
name of the Jews: ‘and my nation, this is Israel, which cried to God and
were saved: and the Lord saved his people, and the Lord delivered us
from all these evils, and God wrought signs and great wonders, which
have not been done among the nations. ‘Therefore he made two lots,
one for the people of God, and another for all the nations. 8And these
two lots came at the hour, and time, and day of judgment before God
(for his people) and against all the nations. So God remembered his
people, and justified his inheritance. !%Therefore these days shall be
kept by them in the month of Adar, on the fourteenth and fifteenth days
of the month, with an assembly, and joy, and with gladness before God,
throughout the generations for ever among his people Israel.
uJn the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Dositheus,
who said that he was a priest and Levite, and Ptolemy his son, brought
the foregoing letter concerning Purim (Phrourai), which they said was
genuine, and that Lysimachus, son of Ptolemy, one of the people in
Jerusalem, had interpreted it.
INDEXES.
INDEXES:
—-+
I. INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS.
See ΤΟΣ,
TBR, 50.
TaN, 207.
1138, 62, 272.
ΣΝ, 185, 392.
DPIN, 50.
728, 59.
IN, 69.
NWN, 59, 299.
sory, 70.
xopAK, 68.
TIX, 59.
InN, 59.
ADK, 62, 281.
τιν, 59.
TMX, 50.
ΤΙΝ, 144.
DIBVWWNAN, 65, 212, 277.
pono, 151) BOs:
PION, 305.
ΘΠΩΦΤΙΝ, 5, 273, 277-
338, 59.
ON, 50.
ὍΝ, 166, 223.
vx, 62, 261.
210 DN, 59.
ἼΩΝ, 181.
7 WR, 59, 62.
DIN, 62, 147.
SET sy 70:
ἌΩΡΟΝ, 69.
᾿Ξ Ν, 144.
TPIT, 144.
‘DAN, 71-
Se Xe
ΒΟ ΤῈ:
res = ‘so that,’ 285; =
‘that,’ 278;
284.
= ‘when,’
AT Wes, 284.
ms with undefined noun,
166; = ‘with,’ 302.
Ξ ΓΝ, 181.
3 of instrument, 251; of
essence, 260.
ANB, 181.
O7283, 159, 199.
N03, 67.
1923, 69.
O73, 145.
Gna, 62, 177.
1NNYDI, 135.
y3, 62, 144.
733, 59, 62.
13, 59.
113, 62, 150.
309
ΝΡ, 67.
AVI, 59, 62, 134.
3220 m2, 224.
1:3, 62, 144.
913, 285.
ndana, 59.
1NDAT, 135.
72, 195.
7), 59.
74, 213.
73,02; 145.
5733, 63, 65, 207.
23: 310 121, 267.
avy 127, 300.
a7, 50.
m7, 63, 256.
DOIN}, 213.
M1, 154.
DP, 70.
V1, 145-
vII, 50.
nq, 65, 146, 154.
| 107, 233.
310
nv27, 62.
ΝΠ, 69.
"27, 69.
ὙΠ, 199-
yI7, 225, 260.
YIN, 132.
ND, 69.
ah9n, 132:
ὉΠ, 60.
17, 69.
7037, 63, 186.
Vay, 268.
mi; 32, 289.
WB DT, 59.
129, 59.
nea, 63.
τσ, 262.
ay, 50.
mipwa, 146.
mova, 146.
V9, 70.
NII, 299.
m3), 180.
92, 208.
INN, 154-
Did 20, ale
RDN, 71.
3), 291, 292.
nw), 66.
ana, 302.
BY, 237-
mM, 224.
, 63; 242:
1321, 6ο.
121, 6o.
YU, 59, 306.
wM, 243.
nm, 68.
Ϊ
)
INDEX
ὅπ 63.
Wn, 03, 144.
99m, 59.
PN, 59.
yon, 207.
yen, 59-
M3997 ὙΠ, 59.
Wi, 223.
N31, 67.
wan, 59.
en, 59-
Don, 59.
πὰ 59.
9%) 59:
ORs
305, 59, 63, 281.
Ww, 223.
1) 1D", 63, 251.
YD 3D, 59, 177.
MM, 59-
52%, 59.
PHN. 172.
ὃν 3D}, 147.
WIP, 159, 299.
N32, 50.
ys), 216.
Wr 59, 63, 135.
ιν, 192.
ov, 63.
iu), 207.
2 with inf., 242.
wD, 266.
δον 159.
PhP yh ΤΟΙ:
>, concessive, 160.
Ὁ23, 63.
ΓΘ 9 NDP, 63.
ΠΡΟ NDP, 63.
DE 72, 65, 68, 144.
N2e99, 68.
N3v2, 133.
We, 63, 271:
3372 59.
TRS; Oey agin
7, with inf., 59, 159, 162,
177, 219, 246, 251; em-
phatic, 266; with pas-
Sive, 243.
ἈΠ 50.
ἸΞΗ 225:
NS?) 187.
tay ΤΠ:
N25, 159.
Bm307, 207
72, 60.
nyd, 224.
AP?, 50.
path, 215.
wo, 50.
AD nd, 177.
TONE, 59, 63.
AIP, 59, 63, 133.
MD, 235.
INT 1D, 60, 63.
wD, 67.
OD, 235, 252.
nD, 59:
Navan, 59.
yw, 224.
NQD, 50.
wp, 262.
mDNdD, 60.
WP, 59-
ΠΡΌ, 509.
mn, 59, 63, 143, 146,
159, 233.
12D, 60.
12, 224.
ΓΤ, 59.
DD, 60, 186, 305.
ΠΣ, 60.
N¥D, 50, 271.
ID ΝΣ, 63, 177.
NOD N32, 177.
BPP, 59, 215.
¥R2, 180.
970, 172.
pap, 180.
Dyn, 68.
δ, 68.
nxvn, 186.
mown, 50.
ὙΠ MVR, 60, 306.
ΠΡΌ, 60.
AND, 50.
oN, 282.
73ND, 6o.
7?
9¥NIID133, 172.
Γ}3), 262.
"dy 59-
112), 166.
Y22, 59.
Mm, 59, 63.
2, 63, 261.
DInN}, 272.
OnM), 212.
“Δ πο), 285.
INDEX
DNSP2, 143.
58), 59.
6), 266.
WD. 59.
IN. NW, 63, 177.
JON Nv, 177.
Nea, 185.
moviy, 212.
ΤΣ, 251.
1, 59-
192, 251.
DID, 59.
Ὁ, 60, 300.
7D, 59.
ΓΙ ΠΟ, 146.
WWD, 277.
7D, 59, 162.
DIND, 50.
Nas, 59:
MSD ΓΝ Dy, 199.
ὩΣ, 59.
nny, 158.
ny. 281.
ὋΣ, 59.
9Y, 190, 207, 210, 272.
nae dy, 60, 63, 299.
YnasbD ΝΌΞ ὧν, 133.
DY, 59.
Υ ΝΠ op, 281.
Y2T79 DY, 202.
Thy, 63, 224.
by spy, 63.
PET OY, 299.
Υ}. 59-
PDs 50.
AND wy, 207.
ny, 243.
| "B, 77-93, 202.
mys, 78, 83.
art
dB, 60, 299 f., 302.
ROT, 70.
ANP, 59.
nw, 212.
Ὁ 555, Br.
DNB, 292.
NUD, 71.
D15, 159.
Twos, 65, 212.
Wwe, 63.
RTBU, 70.
DPN, 65, 135.
Ὁ2Π|5, 65, 160.
wwe, 05, 212.
273, 281.
MNS, 59.
DNS, 59, 63.
ws, 261.
Dns, 278.
V3, 59.
Sap, 59, 218, 298.
Y3R, 59-
Dp, 60, 294.
Ὁ» D9), 147.
OP, 242.
RP, 59-
mp, 271.
D297, 294.
ΠΟ je
‘2789, 271.
ΓΝ, 63, 177.
ms, 185.
ΠΝ 277.
UNS, 50.
| TERY, 154.
312 INDEX
37, 59. |
Shah, 50: av, 50:
pa 246. Aae, 102:
mv}, 224.
Ξ ΞΟ ον; TINY, 50.
W2), 277-
D°2D7, 278. ye", 165.
yA, 50. 723, 267.
ὍΣ", 50. τ ΠΡ 272:
MBS, 145.
τὸν, 50.
13%", 63, 284.
aw, 59. you’, 285.
nee’, 281. mv, 63, 177.
Tare, 59. δ, 181.
nav, 59. mv, 192.
vow, 63, 285.
Jpn yeu, 180.
TAN) pe, 63, 215. We, 59.
nye’, 69.
M37", 63, 223, 271:
wy, 627., 145.
TERY 08:
me, 63, 163, 261. πρεῖ, 68.
AION], 159.
N22, 144.
39225, 63, 281.
PIA, 166.
NYNDD, 135.
APA, 60, 63, 302.
wa, 69.
wowon, 68.
onoata, 218.
Il. INDEX OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS.
AARON IBN SARGADO, 105.
Abayob, ττο.
Aben Ezra, see Ibn Ezra.
Abenmelech, 110.
‘“Abhoda Zara, 287.
Abulwalid ibn Ganah, 105.
Ackermann, 113.
Adamus, I10.
Adeney, xiii, 117.
‘Adhath D¢bharim, 2.
Aeschimann, 113.
Aeschylus, 64, 129, 196.
Ahikar, Story of, 75.
Alber, 117.
Albrecht, 158, 223.
Aldine edition, xi, 33.
Alexander-Romance, 67.
Alkabez, 18, 20, 24, 41, IOI, 110.
Almosnino, 110.
Alsheikh, 110.
Amama, 109.
American Journal of Semitic Lan-
guages, ΧΙ.
Anan b. David, roq.
Ananikian, viii.
André, ΧΙ, 43, 46, 104.
Andreae, 212.
Antoninus, 35.
Antwerp Polyglot, 19.
Apocrypha, vil, 33.
Apostolic Canons, 5.
Aquila, 29, 34.
Aquine, d’, 105.
Arabian Nights, 65, 76, 180.
Arama, 110.
Arnaud, 117.
Arrian, 52, 123.
Asher, 139.
Ashkenazi, 110, 118, 164.
Asolanus, 33.
Assemani, 4, 6, 8.
Aster, 52.
Athanasius, 4, τοι. ,
Athenezus, 92, 129, 140, 142.
Athias, 12.
Aucher, 112.
Augusti, 113, 116.
Augustine, 5, 60, τοι.
Authorized Version, xi.
Avesta, 72, 165.
BABA BATHRA, 110.
Babylonian Talmud, xi, 2, 20, 98 f.,
ror, see M°ghilla.
INDEX
Bacher, 104.
Bare xi Θ᾽ 12, 125, 142, 172, Υγ81,
284.
Ball, 46.
Bamberger, τοῦ.
Barnes, 17.
Barrett, xiii, 116, 187.
Basel Polyglot, 18.
Basila, 7.
Baudissin, xill, 115.
Bauer, xili, 113.
Baumgarten, xiii, 53, 113, 125, 128-
130, 134, 161, 183, 195, 201, 220.
Bawli, 118.
Beck, 114.
Bede, 53-
Bellamy, 116.
Bellarmin, xili, 53.
Benary, 71.
Ben Asher, 9, 12-15, 145, 195, 219,
252;
Ben Bezalel, ττο.
Ben David, 104.
Benfey, 69-71.
Ben Hayyim, 11-13.
Ben Hayyim Gaon, 14.
Benjamin of Tudela, 139.
Ben Naphtali, 9, 14/., 145, 195, 219,
233-
Benson, 116.
Benter, 108.
Ben Uphran, 232.
Berger, 40.
Berliner, 106.
Bernstein, 1106.
Berossus, 92 ἢ.
Bertheau, xiii, 43, 57, 116, 120, 127,
ΤΣ, 15:9; SON ΤΟΣ LOO, 707:
181, 183, 185 f., 196, 202, 206,
209, 213, 223 f., 233, 243, 256,
260-262, 291, 290, 302.
Bertholdt, 113.
Bevan, 54.
Bezold, 54, 137.
Biblia Magna Commentariorium,
109.
Biblia Maxima, 109.
Biblia Sacra Vulgata cum _ plur.
inter p., 111.
Biblical World, xiii.
Billerbeck, 134.
Birch, 126.
Bissell, xiii, 8, 43, 46.
Blau, 273.
Bleek, 77, 113.
Bloch, 57, 63, 113 f.
313
Blunt, 116.
Bottcher, xiii, 162.
Bohlen, von, 123.
Bomberg, 11.
| Bomberg Bible, 1516-17, xi.
Bomberg Bible, 1526, xi, 18, 22.
Bonart, xili, 53, 109, 130, 164, 174,
176, 183, 186, 196 f., 226, 262,
274.
Boothroyd, 116.
Boysen, 116.
Breithaupt, 103, 105.
Brent, 108.
Brescia Edition, xi, 10.
Brisson, 124, 148, 150, 195.
Brockelmann, 207.
Brown, Driver, Briggs, Heb.-Eng.
Lexicon, καὶ, ἘΠ if, E50) 7. 181;
207, 212, 224, 251, 266, 284.
Brugsch, 145.
_ Bruns, 112.
Buber, 103 αὶ
Buchholz, 124. Φ
Buckley, 116.
Bublre7. 135, 175; 102; 151, 202,
224, 261, 201.
Bullinger, 95, 235.
Bunsen, 57.
Burder, 116.
Burmann, 110.
Buxtorf, xiii, 13, 284.
CAHEN, 118.
Cajetany x1) 52, 108) 7., Teo} 107,
248.
Calmberg, 1106.
Calmet, xiii, 111.
Calovius, xiii, 110.
Calvin, xiii, 108.
Canney, 145 /.
Canons of Carthage, 5, 42.
Canons of Laodicea, 4.
Canons of Trent, 42.
Capellus, 53.
Carpzov, xili, 53, 112.
Carthusianus, 108.
Caspi, 107.
Cassel, xili, 22 f., 116, 125, 133, 158,
176, 188, 298.
Cassiodorus, 4.
Castalio, 108 f.
Celedeiis, 56, 109.
Ceriani, 17.
Chais, 111.
Chandler, 112.
Chavannes, 115.
314
Cheyne,) ΧΙ, Ὁ, 7. Gwen 132
144.
Chipiez, 121.
Chrysostom, 37.
Clarke, 110, 1106.
Clay, 8
Clement of Alexandria, 60, τοι.
Clericus, xiii, 53, 111, 128, 130, 133,
142, ἴθι, LOA, τῶι fey) 17S, 187;
100, 209, 248, 261.
Codex Alexandrinus, xi, 5, 32.
Codex Ambrosianus, xi, 16.
Codex Basiliano-Vaticanus, Xi, 4, 32.
Codex Claromontanus, 4.
Codex Complutensis, 40.
Codex Corbeiensis, 40 f.
Codex Frederico-Augustanus, 32.
Codex Oratorius, 40 7.
Codex Pechianus, xi, 40 ἢ.
Codex Petropolitanus, 0.
Codex Sinaiticus, xi, 5, 31 7:
Codex Vallicellanus, 40.
Codex Vaticanus, Xi, 4, 31.
Complutensian Polyglot, xi, 10; its
Greek text, 33.
Condamin, 267.
Cooper, 108.
Cordthwaite, 1106.
Cornelius Nepos, 220.
Cornely, 114, 117.
Cornill, xiii, 17, 92.
Corrodi, 112.
Coste, 121.
Couzio, 109.
Cramer, 113.
Critict Sacri, xiii, 109.
Crommius, 109.
Crusius, 112.
Ctesias, 69, 71, 190, 136.
Cumming, Oly, Τὴ 235:
Curtius, 129, 138, 196, 255, 264.
Curzon, 134.
Cyril of Jerusalem, 4.
DALMAN, 8.
Damasius, 24.
Dathe, 116, 187.
David, 22, 24.
Davidson, xiii, 113, 116.
Deane, 46.
Delitzsch, xiii, Οἱ,
Derenbourg, 6, 80.
Deutsch, 6.
Dialogue of Timothy and Aquilla, 4.
Diestel, xiii.
Dieu, de, τοῦ αὶ
134 f., 144, 1
INDEX
Diculafoy, 65, 126, 134, 130 7., 161,
165, 173, 188, 231, 248, 261.
Dijserinck, 45.
Dillmann, xiii.
Dio Chrysostom, 92.
Diodati, 108.
Diodorus Siculus, 77, 190, 192.
Dodd, 116.
D’Oyley, 116.
Dozy, 145.
Driver, xiii, 38, 115, 281, 208.
Drusius, xiii, 53, 108 f., 125, 136,
TSO} 152, τή, LOS a/c 100) τὸ,
261 f.
Dukes, 15.
Duncker, 123.
Duran, 110.
Dutch Annotations, 108.
EBEDJESU, 4.
Eckard, 112.
Ehrenpreis, 118.
Eichhorn, xili, 53, 112, 130.
Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, 102.
Eliezer b. Judah of Worms, 106.
Eliezer, Rabbi, 232.
Elijah hag- Gaon, 118.
Ellicott, 114.
Encyclopedia Biblica, xiii, 136, 206.
Encyclopedia Britannica, xii.
Epiphanius, 4, rot.
ΠΡ BAe, G5). jlo
193.
Erman, 126.
Escobar et Mendoza, 109.
Estius, xiii, 109, 168 f., 284.
Eusebius, 4, 34 f., 52, 98, IOI.
Ewald, xiii, 113, 181, 202.
Expositor, xiii.
Expository Times, xiii.
Eybeschiitz, 118.
78, 80-82, 88,
FERNS, 109.
Ferrand, 51.
Feuardentius, 10g. ᾿
ἘΠΕ 2 20 527:
Fihrist, 76.
Fillion, 117.
Firdausi, 76, 136.
First Targum, xi, 18-21, ΣΟῚ.
Fiske, 114.
Flandin, 121.
Frankel, 43.
Frankfurter, 107.
Frazer, 87, 92.
Frensdorff, 13.
INDEX 315
Fritzsche, xiii, 8, 37 f., 43, 45, 270.
Fryar, 131.
First, 45, 85, 118.
Fuller, 8, 43, 46.
GALLIKO, I10.
Gaster, 104.
Geiger, 113, 124.
Geiger-Kuhn, 121, 148.
Gelbhaus, 23.
Gemara, ΧΙ, 99 f., see Talmud,
Babylonian Talmud.
Genebrard, 52, 161, 100.
Geneva Version, 109.
Gersonides, 107.
Gesenius, xiii, 70 f., 132, 261, 277.
Gildemeister, 212.
Gill, 116.
Ginsburg, 3, 6, 9, 11 f., 13, 138, 172,
219, 272, 299.
Gladden, 114 f.
Goeje, de, 76.
Gottingsche Gelehrie Anzeigen, xiii.
Géttingsche Gelehrte Nachrichten,
xiii.
Goldschmidt, too.
Gordon, 53.
Grabe, 32.
Gratz, 63, 83, 113.
Gray, 110.
Greek Version, xi, 24, 29-47.
Grotius; τοῦ 7 155) f=, Or, 169;
176, 182, 187, 197, 284, 302.
Griineisen, 87.
Grinthal, 17.
Gunkel, 87, go.
Gute; rie:
HAVERNICK, xili, 113, 128, 183.
Halévy, 78, 115.
Haley, 116, 196.
Hall, 1106.
Hamburger, 113.
Hamel, du, 111.
Hammer, von, 85.
Hareeus, 109.
Harkavy, 6.
Harper, vi, xiii, 117.
Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible,
xiii, 145, 188, 206
Haug, 277.
Haupt, 46 f, 54, 68, 70, 79, 81 ἢ,
86, 88, 92, 94, 115, 127, 135, 144 f,,
147, 153 J-, 1§6, 158-163, 166,
171, 176 f., 179-181, 185-188,
IQI-195, 199, 202, 207, 212 f.,
15) 210. 22, 272 7, 210, 251;
260-262, 266 f., 272, 274, 277 11:
282, 291, 295, 298 f., 302, 305.
Hause, 114.
Haweis, 110.
Haye, de la, tog.
Heidenheim, 13.
Heilbronn, r10.
Helmolt, 134.
Hengstenberg, 45.
Henry, xiii, rro.
Herbst, 52, 113.
Herodotus, ΧΙ], 54, 64.
1 Ὅθ᾽. 220:
—— ji, 106, 200.
——i, 126, 142.
——1, 123, 128, 236.
Sara i, 134, 195-
-- Ἰ 136), 238:
——i, 192, 209.
—— iil, 31, 153, 158.
—— ili, 67, 185.
—— ill, 69, 178, 221.
—— lll. 72, 20.
—— ili, 77, 220.
—— lil, 79, 200.
Mie O4a 72, 15, τσ. 220;
Mi OO; 72. 128.
iil, 94-106, 123.
ili, 95 f., 129, 205.
1 7 122:
Hiern ΤΠ2. ,220:
111 125, Σ 257:
ili, 128, 201.
1. 120, 207.
1 138, 245:
lili, 140, 220, 245.
Iv, 44, 123.
Vent, ὉὉ:
—v, 14, I60.
——— V, 18," 50.
Vy 53 5" 137
---νὶ, 320, 287.
—— vii-ix, 121.
Vil, 4, 120.
vii, 8, 128.
——vii, 9, 123.
——vli, 27, 129.
——vii, 28, 200.
VI Ὁ. ὅ0.7.. 1 128-
Wily 70; 105;
Vii, 100, "102.
——vii, 114, 71.
—— vii, 136, 107.
——-vii, 151, 137.
Vil s1O 7 sues
316
Herodotus, vii, 238, 287.
vill, 85, 192, 245.
viii, go, 192.
vili, 98, 160.
vill, 99, 214.
vill, 105, 148.
bg, 2. Gain
1X53 2,0 OO:
1x, OON-5) Ἐ20, 040s
Ibe (BP 1207:
IX τῶῦῷ; 245.
IX τοῦ, 222.
ix, IIO, 150, 240.
bg TAS “1:
Herxheimer, 117.
Herzfeld, 113.
Hess, 112.
Hesychius, xi, 31, 36.
Heumann, 112.
Hewlett, xiii, 116.
Hexapla, 34.
Heyse, 24.
Hezelius, 186.
Hilary, 4, ror.
Hillesum, 118.
Hilprecht, 133.
Hirsch, 115.
Hitzig, 84, 113, 162 f., 243.
Hoffmann, 93.
Holmes and Parsons, xiii, 35-37.
Holzmann, 113.
Hommel, 87, 91, 114.
Hooght, van der, vi, 12.
Horace, 142.
Horowitz, 104, 114.
Horsley, 111.
Houbigant, ται.
Hiibsch, 106, 118.
Hughes, 116.
Hugo of St. Victor, 56, 107.
Hummelauer, 117.
Hunter, 114.
Huntley, 53.
Hurwitz, 14.
IBN EZRA, xiii, 11, 20, 52, 106 ff,
128, 161, 164, 169, 196, 248, 261,
284, 286.
Ibn Ganah, τος.
Ibn Melech, xiii, 110, 261.
Ibn Sargado, 105.
Ibn Yahya, 1το.
Immanuel b. Solomon b. Jukuthiel,
100.
Isaac ben Eleazar, 15.
Isaiah b. Elijah di Trani, 107.
INDEX
Isiodorus, 5.
| Isserles, 56, 118.
JABLONSKI, 12.
Jackson, 108.
Jacob, 30, 40, 133.
Jahn, 46 f., 113, 134, 146, 187, 262.
Jahrbticher fiir protestantische The-
ologie, xiii.
Jamieson, 116.
Jampel, 115, 134.
Jastrow, 137.
Jehring, 95, 235.
Jekuthiel the Punctuator, 13.
Jellinek, 8, 43, 103, 106.
Jensen, 67, 69 δ, 75, 87, 89, 91-93
215.
Jeremiah, Rabbi, 232.
Jerome, xiii, 5, 10, 24-28, 33 ff,
36 f., 41 f., 53.
Jerusalem Talmud, xi, 99, τοι.
Jewish Encyclopedia, xiii.
Jewish Quarterly Review, xiii.
Johanan, 174.
John of Damascus, 4.
Johns, 78, 88, 93.
Joseph b. Goryon, 102.
Josephus, xi, xiii, 8, 37, 39, 42, 44,
53, 60, 61, 78, 80, 83, 98, r00,
102, 124, 134, 150, 153, 164.
Josephus Gorionides, 102.
Journal Asiatique, xiii.
Journal of the American Oriental
Society, xiii.
Journal of Biblical Literature, xiii.
Journal of the Roy. Astat. Soc., 137.
Judah Low b. Bezalel, 110.
Judah the Prince, 99.
Jiidisches Litteraturblatt, xiii.
Junilius, 5.
Junius and Tremellius, xiv, 53, 64,
LOL, LOS a, L27 7. WO, Τὴ} 01}
181, 196 f., 248, 256, 261, 302.
Justi, 53, 66-70, 121, 124.
KABLE, τό. :
Kamphausen, xiv, 57, 116, 127, 169,
τού.
Kara, 106.
Kaulen, 42, 114.
Kautzsch, xiv, 8, 46, 114, 143, 156,
TSO; 100) 177 elo lel 2, 2112. ΠΕ;
216, 219, 224, 242 17: 251, 257,
260-262, 266, 272, 291.
Keerl, 45.
Keil Serre αὐτὸ, 120.) 28, 121; 5530,
INDEX
τῶ, ποῦ, τὸν, LO, 570.7. 127,
186 f., 196, 200, 206, 209, 213, |
221, 224, 260f., 282, 296, 300, 302.
Keilinschriften u. das A. T., xiv,
145.
Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, xiv.
Kelle, 113.
Kennicott, xi, 67., 9, I1I.
Kerner, 108.
Kimhi, 135.
Kirkpatrick, 114.
Kittel, 12.
Kleinert, 113.
Kleist, von, 82.
Knabenbauer, 117.
Knudtson, 132.
Kohler, 113, 116.
KGnig, ixv, 46, 82, 114, 181, 207.
Kohlreif, 52.
Kohn, 118.
Kohut, 104.
Kosters, 115.
Kraft, 6.
Krauss, 224.
Kuenen, xiv, 30, 76, 82, 197.
Kuhn, 124.
LAGARDE, xiv, 4, 8, 18, 21, 32, 35, 37>
65, 85, ΟἹ, 135, 144, 147, I51, 212.
Langen, 38, 42, 45.
Lapide, 4, xiv, 52, 108 f., 128, 186, |
| Mathna, 139.
100, 196, 223, 256, 284.
Lassen, 123.
Lavater, 108.
Lawson, 116.
Layard, 249.
Ledrain, 114, 117.
Lee, 16. .
Leimdorfer, 115.
Leitner, 100.
Le Long, 6.
Leo Hebreus, 107.
Leon de Bagnols, 107.
Levi ben Gershom, xiv, 107.
Levita, 9, 13.
Levy, xiv, 170, 178.
Lightfoot, 53, 169.
Lilienthal, 112.
Lion, 136.
Littmann, 36.
Livy, 264.
Lowe, 117.
Loftus, 134.
London Polyglot, xi, 16, 18, 20.
Lucian, 150.
Lucian the Martyr, 31, 37.
317
Lucian’s recension, xi, 37-38, 44, 52,
8.57: LOO:
Luther, 96, 108.
Lyra, 52, 107, 109, 131, 174, 221,
262.
M’CLyYMONT, 115.
Macrae, 1106.
M’Crie, 116.
Macrobius, 150.
Magazin fiir die Geschichte τι.
Wissenschaft des Judenthums, xiv.
Mahzor Vitry, 14.
Maimonides, 9, 14, 97-
Malbin, 118.
Mally, 114.
Malter, 94.
Malvenda, xiv, 53, 109, 128, 133,
136, 174, 182, 186, 196, 256, 295,
302.
Mant, 1106.
Marchant, 111.
| Mariana, xiv, 109, 133, 169, 187,
2506; 201-
Marquart, 67 ἢ., 114.
Marsham, 51.
Marti, 147, 151, 160, 212.
Martianay, 111.
Mason, 1106.
Massora, xi, 11-16, 248.
Mas'‘tdi, 76.
Maurer, xiv, 116, 162, 186, 251.
Mayer, xiv, 110, 169.
Megasthenes, 52.
Méghilla, xiv, 20, 28 f., 93, 98-100,
110, 290 f., 295, 305.
Megillath Ta‘anith, 78, 80.
Meier, 84, 113.
Meijboom, 63, 85, 113.
Meir Ὁ. Hayyim, 111.
Meissner, 87, 90, 92, 110.
Melammed, ττο.
Melito, 97.
Menahem b. Helbo, ros.
Mendelssohn, 117.
Menochius, xiv, 53, 109, 164, 169,
174, 190, 196, 256, 262, 284.
Mercator, 52.
Merkel, rro.
Merx, 8.
Meyer, xiv, 53, I00, 121, 124, 212,
299.
Mez, 309.
Michaelis, xi, xiv, 7, 57, 78, 83, 111f,,
116, 166, 226.
318
Midrash Abba Goryon,
100, 240, 245.
Midrash Esther Rabba, xiv, 103.
Midrash from Yemen, 104.
Midrash Megillath Esther, xiv, 103.
Midrash Legah Tob, xiv, 103.
Midrash Ponim Aherim, xiv, 104. |
Midrash published by M. Gaster, |
104.
Midrash Shoher Tob, xiv, 104.
Millman, 113.
Mishna, xiv, 95, 98 δ, 110.
Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft, xiv.
Mo‘ed, 99. |
Moldenhauer, 112.
Molder, 108.
Mommesen, 5.
Montanus, 12, 20, 109, 141.
Moor, de, 115.
Moore, vi, 145.
Morgan, 116.
Morgan, de, 126, 134.
Moses the Punctuator, 13.
Mosul edition, Syriac, xi, 16.
Movers, 113.
Miller 765) 1335 195, 20m
Miinster, xiv, 108 f., 181 248.
Munk, 22, 24.
Muss-Arnolt, 87.
lV, 165.
NAHMIAS, τοῦ.
Naples editions of Bible, xi, 10.
Nathan ben Jehiel, 20.
Nathan of Soncino, το.
Nehemiah, Rabbi, 88.
Nestorideo, r11.
Neteler, xiv, 117, 136, 196.
Neubauer, 6, 134.
New Testament, xi.
Nicephorus, 4.
Nickes, 51, 113.
Niebuhr, 121.
Niemeyer, 112.
Niese, 39.
Noldeke, xiv, 30, 43, 46, 113, 115,
205, 299.
Norzi, 7, 166, 172.
Nowack, xiv, 87.
OEDER, 1{2.
Oettli, xiv, 69, 117, 120, 156, 160,
177, 186, 190, 197, 206, 262, 296,
302.
Old Latin Version, 24, 40 f., 100.
Old Testament, xi.
INDEX
Olshausen, xiv, 185, 207, 272, 208.
Oppert, xiv, 66-71, 113 f., 137.
Orelli, 114.
Orientalistiche Litteratur-Zeitung, xiv.
Origen; πὶ 645) 51 ἢ, 51 7.) ὦ»
ΙΟΙ.
Osgood, 137.
Osiander, xiv, 108 f., 152, 186, 197,
261, 302.
Ostervald, 116.
PAGNINUS, xiv, 108 f., 141, 152, 161,
248.
Pamphilus, 34 /.
Pape, 118.
Pareus, xiv, 108, 150, 158.
Paris Polyglot, 19.
Paton} ins 82) 21) 227, 229: 275)
300.
Patrick, xiv, r10, 152, 168.
Paulus Burgensis, xiv, 107.
Payne-Smith, 178.
Pellican, xiv, τοῦ.
Pereles, 118.
Perles, 267.
Perreau, τοῦ.
Perrot, 121.
Peshitto, 16 f.
Petavius, 53.
Petrie, 126.
Petronius, 148.
Petrus Comestor, 107.
Pfeiffer, 53.
Pfortner, 406.
Philippsohn, 117.
Philo, 31, 61, 98.
Pirge Rabbi Eliezer, xiv, 20, 24,
196. 5
Piscator, xiv, 108 f., 127, 136,
152; TOL, 102, Mom 2.9. 20,
Pliny, 145.
Plutarch, 139, I41, 150, 196,
248.
Polybius, 126, 137.
Poole, 109.
Pope, 115.
Posner 18. 20; 22:
Pott, 0; 277:
Poznansky, 105.
Prayer-book of Yemen, 105.
Preuschen, 5.
Priestly, 116.
Prince, 115.
Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archeology, xiv.
Pseudo-Athanasius, 4.
INDEX
Ptolemaic Canon, 1206.
Purver, 116.
Pyle, 110.
RAB, 132, 136, 144, 174, 226.
Raba, 162.
Rabba b. Abuhu, 234.
Rahlfs, 16.
RaLBaG, 107.
Raleigh, 116.
Rambach, xiv, 110, 152, 167 f., 181,
187, 248, 261, 305.
RaShBaM, 106.
RaShI, 11, 24, 52, 105, 107, 118, 132,
135, 161, 164, 196, 277, 284, 305.
Ratner, τοο.
Raven, 115.
Rawicz, roo.
Rawlinson, xiv, 68-71, 116, 130,
HOZ LOT eo 71} ΠΟ 185; 1807;
196, 200, 206, 209, 302 7
Real-Encyclopddie fiir protestantische
Theologie u. Kirche, xiv.
Records of the Past, 137.
Reggio, 117.
Renan, 86.
Reusch, 113.
IRGUSSHEXIV 240, 78; 850, 15 7. ἘΠ],
224, 201.
Revised Version, xi.
Revue des Etudes Juives, xiv.
Rhabanus Maurus, 53, 107.
Richardson, 108.
Riehm, 113 f.
Rinck, 116.
Robertson, 114.
Robiou, 114.
Rodkinson, roo.
Roediger, 69, 132, 277.
Rosenthal, 249, 270.
Rossi, de, xi, 6-9, 42, 60, 110 f.
Ruffinus, 5
Rupertus Abbatis Tuitiensis, 107.
Rupprecht, 115.
Ryle, 3.
Ryssel, xiv, 8, 31, 43, 46, 57, 116,
ἘΠ ΕΟ ΕΖ eUsois,, CSOs 16,
181, 188, 200, 202, 213, 233, 243,
260, 276, 282, 291.
SA, τορ.
Sa‘adia, 14, 104.
Saba, 56.
Sabatier, 40.
Sachau, 86, τότ.
Sacy, de, 117.
319
Salianus, xiv, 53, 130.
Samuel ben Meir, xiv, τοῦ.
Samuel, Rabbi, 132, 135, 144, 174,
220.
Sanctius, xiv, 53, 108 f., 125, 128,
155: 170, 15350100:
Sanday, 5.
Sartorius, 112.
SayGem 72; Ε14.
Scaliger, 52, 71-
Schanz, 114.
Scheftelowitz, 67-71, 115, 132.
Scheil, 134.
Schenkel, xiv.
Schiller-Szinessy, 6.
Schirmer, 116.
Schlatter, 114.
Schlottmann, 114.
Schmidt, 78, 116.
Schnurrer, I1t.
Schoene, 52, τοῖς
Scholtz, 375 95m
Scholz, 42, 46, 56, 113 f., 120, 124,
128, 130, 132, 138, 162, 168, 196.
Schott, 116.
Schrader, xiv, 113, 138.
Schudt, 93.
Schiirer, xiv, 43, 46, I15.
schultzi xv; 53) 1rd jr; 12. 147,
156, 158, 161, 169, 177, 186-188
τοῦ; 200; 200) 227, 22550200 ἢ;
270, 208.
Schulze, 112, 1106.
Schwally, 86, 88.
Scott, 116, 130.
Second Targum, xi, 21-23.
Seder ‘Olam, 53, 100.
Seisenberger, 42, 117.
Seligsohn, 170, 194.
Semler, 13, 112.
Serarlus, XV; 53, 100, 128), 131, 133.
174, 196, 221.
Shahin, 104.
Siegfried, xv, 86, 117, 138 f., 143,
154, 156, 158, 162, 166, 169, 177,
181, 185, 187, 200, 202, 206, 213,
222-224, 230, 243, 251, 256, 260,
262, 267, 274, 282, 290, 295 f,,
300, 302.
Simeon, 116.
Simeon b. Lakish, 97.
Sirach, 6r.
ΘΕ PB. 78525:
Smith, W. R., 114.
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, xv.
Smend, 88, 114.
320 INDEX
Solomon ben Isaac, xiv, 105.
Solomon ibn Melech, xiii, 110, 261.
Soncino Edition, xi, το.
Splegelo χὴν; sl 2 Ἐ25 7; 135) ΓῺ»
146, 273.
Spiegelberg, 126, 212.
Spinoza, 111.
Stade, xv, 143 f., 146, 186, 195, 207,
218, 224, 267, 272, 282, 285.
Stahelin, 113.
Stanley, 113.
Stebbins, 114.
Steinschneider, 6, 107.
Steinthal 95, 114.
Stenco, 108.
Stier, 45.
Stolze. 121.
Strabo, 88, 92 f., 126, 129, 137, 140.
Strack, xv, 6, 14, 99, 114, 224, 284.
Strassmaier, 54.
Streane, xv, 117, 130, 169, 186, 188,
256, 262, 296, 302.
Strigel, xv, 108.
Strong, 116.
Sutcliffe, 116.
Swete, 5, 31 ff, 35.
Symmachus, 29, 34.
Synopsis Criticorum, 109.
Syriac Version, xi, 16.
TABARI, 76
Taitazak, r1o.
Talmud, 28, 42, 60, 102, 162, 287,
273, 290 ἤ, 295; see M®ghilla,
Babylonian Talmud, Jerusalem
Talmud.
Tanhuma, 130.
Targums, vi, 42, 101; see First Tar-
gum, Second Targum.
Targum Rabbathi, 41.
Tayler, 18
Tedeschi, 118.
Terence, 148.
Terry, 116.
Thayer, viii.
Theodoret of Antioch, 37.
Theodotion, 34, 29.
Theologische Literaturzeitung, xv.
Theologische Studien u. Kritiken, xv.
Theologisch Tijdschrift. xv.
Thucydides, 245.
dhiclesrns
Tigurina, xv, 109, 141. 181, 248.
Tintori, de of Bologna. το.
Tirinus. xv, 52, 109, 186, 190, 196,
206, 254
Tischendorf, 24, 31.
Tobiah b. Ehezer, 103.
Tommasi, 40.
Toy, 87.
Transactions of the Society of Bibli-
cal Archeology, xv.
Trapp, 108.
Tremellius, 108 f., 127, 141, 302.
UNGER, 112.
Uri, 6.
Urumia edition of Syriac, xi, 16.
Wssher 253037
VALERIO, IIo.
| Vatable, xv, 52, 108 f., 141, 181 ff,
187, 248, 201, 302.
Vatke, 114.
Vernes, 114.
Vignoles, des, 52.
Vigouroux, 114.
Villiers, de, 114.
Vitringa, xv, 151, 164.
Vos, 112.
Vulgate, see Jerome.
Vullers, 65, 70.
WACcE, 8.
Wachsmuth, 126.
Wade, 115.
Wahl, 123.
Wallafridus Strabus, 107.
Walther, -52, 108.
Watson, 115.
Weber, 113 Κ
Weisslovits, 87.
Wellhausen, 174.
Wells, 110.
Welte, 42, 52.
Wendel, 145.
Wesley, 116.
Westminster Assembly’s
tions, 108, 130, 168.
Wette, de, 113, 138.
Wetzer, 42.
Whiton, 114. Ὁ
Wiener Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde
des Morgenlandes, xv.
Wildeboer, xv, 57, 86-89, 114, 117,
120, 162, 169, 176 f., 181, 186,
188, 196, 202, 206, 233, 251, 250,
260, 262, 291, 296, 302.
Willrich, xv, 42, 63, 77, 115, 125, 261.
Wilson, 108.
Winckler, xv, 52, 87, 90, 131-134,
144, 186, 193, 207, 212 f., 215, 235.
Annota-
INDEX
Winer, 113.
Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, 30.
Wokenius, 52, 110.
Wolder, 108.
Wolf, 6.
Wolfsohn, 117.
Wordsworth, 116.
Wright, 115.
Wiinsche, 101, 103, 125.
XENOPHON, Anabasis, 153, 185.
Xenophon, Cyropedia, 120,
136, 140, 160, 185, 201.
Xenophon Hellenica, 245.
~ Ximenes, 10.
134,
Yalqut Shim‘oni, xv, 88, 104.
Yecira, 15.
Yonge, 116.
321
| Yosippon, xv, 8, 20, 42, 102, 227.
ZAHALON, 110.
Zahn, 5.
Zechariah, 118.
Zechariah b. Seruk, 110.
Zedner, τοῦ.
Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldstina
Vereins, xv. ..
Zeitschrift fiir Agyptologie, xiii.
Zeitschrift fiir die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft, xv.
Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie, xv.
Zeller, 108.
Zimmern, 87, 90-93, 144, 215.
Zinck, 116.
Zockler, 46.
Zschokke, 113.
Zunz, 8, 23, 85, 113.
Ill. INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
AARON, 255.
Ab, 93, 201.
’Abhaghtha, 67, 148.
Abib, 200.
Abiel, 168, 259.
Abigail, 149, 171.
*Abihayil, 171, 181, 300.
Abimelech, 241, 255.
’Abinadab, 182.
Abishai, 167.
Ab-Kharkha, 227:
Abraham, 169, 242, 255, 259, 284.
Accad, 132.
Achemenes, 1206.
Achemenian inscriptions, 72, 128.
Achmetha, 134.
Acropolis of Susa, 126,
see Fortress, Susa.
Acrostics, 8.
‘Ada, 231.
*Adalya, 70, 284, 287.
Adam, 75.
Adar, 49 f., 55, 61, 78, 84, 86, 92, 94,
98, 202 f., 209 f., 275 f., 282, -87-
291, 293, 295, 300, 300.
Adar, the Second, 300 αὶ
Adasa, 78 f.
Additions of the versions, vi, vii;
in Aramaic, 8, 42; in Greek, 8, 25,
33, 41; regarded as canonical, 42;
supposed Heb. originals are trans-
21
137, 227;
lations of Josephus, 42; contra-
dict the Heb. text, 43; not a part
of the original Greek version, 44;
added to supply a religious ele-
ment, 44; literature on the addi-
tions, 45; the short additions, 46;
Addition A, 44, 90, 119; Addition
B, 210; Addition C, 227; Addi-
tion D, 230; Addition E, 44, 275;
Addition F, 90, 306; in Josephus,
39; in Lucian, 38; in Old Latin,
40; additions in Talmud, 28;
in Targums, 19, 22.
Adhmatha, 68, 152.
Africa, 152, 230, 250.
Agag, 70, 73, 194, 231, 256, 265.
Agagite, 43, 49, 69, 72, 90, 120, 194,
269, 284, 295.
Age of Est., v; ancient theories, 60;
makes no claim for itself, 61;
LXX version earliest witness, 61;
historical standpoint shows late
Greek period, 61; intellectual
standpoint, 62; language, 62.
A hashtranim, ΠΑ.
’Ahashwérosh, 48, 51, 53 fs, TAT.
nL, 128) 123:
Ahasuerus, 43, 47 7.» 51, 56, 60, 64,
71, 77, 95, 108, 121, 169; identi-
fied with Cyaxares, 51; with Asty-
ages, 52; with Cambyses, 52; with
322
Darius, I, 52; with Xerxes, 52;
with Artaxerxes I, 53; with Arta-
xerxes II, 53; with Artaxerxes III,
53; Monuments prove that he
was Xerxes, 53; statements of
Est. agree, 54.
Ahasuerus, the father of Darius the
Mede, 51.
Ahura-Mazda, 137, 148, 153.
Akra, 134.
Alabaster, 145.
Alexander Balas, 81 αὶ
Alexandria, 125.
Alexandrian Jews, 96.
Allegorical interpretation, 56, 138,
162, 168.
Alms, 294.
Amalek, 194, 222, 231, 256, 265,
283, 286, 288 f., 290, 296.
Amalekites, 73, 194, 200.
Amesha-Spentas, 148, 153.
Amestris, 71, 150, 240.
‘Ammihud, 168, 259.
‘Amminadab, 170, 182.
Ammon, 152.
Amorin, 99.
Anadatos, 88, 92.
Anagrams, 95.
Anahita, 137.
Anaitis, 88, 93.
Angarot, 184, 208.
Angel, 147, 221, 232, 242, 255, 259,
262 f., 286.
Annals of Persia, 49 f., 74, 192, 302;
see Chronicles, Book.
Annunaki, ot.
Antimeros, 194.
Antiochan text, 37.
Antiochus Epiphanes, 61 f., 63, 78.
Antonia, 134.
A padana, 137, 139, 144.
Aphiah, 168, 259.
Aphlitus, 231.
Apocrypha, vii, 33.
Apocryphal additions, 96.
Appendix, 303.
Approaching the king, 43, 72, 220,
269.
Arabic, 161.
Arabic learning, 104.
Arabic version, 105.
Aramaic, 62, 72, 160 f., 273.
Aramaic original of Greek addi-
_tions 8.
’Ariday, 70, 284, 288.
*Aridhatha, 70, 284, 288.
INDEX
*Arisay, 71, 284, 288.
Armour, 249.
Artaxerxes, 52 f.5 Τ10 7», 137, 150,
210, 275, .395-
Artaxerxes I., Longimanus, 52 /,,
60, 76, 124, 133.
Artaxerxes II., Mnemon, 53, 65,
136 f.
Artaxerxes III., Ochus, 53, 190.
Artaynte, 233.
Ashes, 214, 227 f., 230, 254.
Ashurbanipal, 133.
Aspatha, 70, 284, 287.
Assembly, 306.
Assembly of the gods, gr.
Assueros, 52.
Assyria, 132 f., 160, 190, 192.
Assyrian, 160,
Astrakhan, 146.
Astrologers, 151, 201, 255.
Astyages, 52, 127.
Atnisomus, 231.
Atossa, 121.
Aufklérung, 111.
Authorship of Esther, 63.
Azariah, 154, 239, 255.
Ba‘AL, 155.
Baanah, 168, 259.
Babylon, 125, 128, 130, 132, 134,
137, 149, 167; 170,255.
Babylonia, go, 132 f., 192.
Babylonian, 160.
Babylonians, 202.
Babylonian creation story, go.
Babylonian Election Day, 94.
Babylonian holy days, 83.
Babylonian legends, 125.
Babylonian months, 200, 272.
Babylonian New Year’s festival, 79,
Ol.
Babylonian origin of Purim, 87, 91.
Babylonian scribes, 14.
Babylonian tablets, 54.
Babylonian Talmud, xi, 2; 20, 98 f.,
tor; see M¢ghilld.
Bagoas, τόι. ;
Bahman Ardashir, 76.
Bal‘aqan, 194.
Balder, 79.
Banquet, 48 f., 65, 91, 126, 128, 135,
150, 184, 234 f., 238, 240, 257,
280, 290, 293; see Feast.
Banquet-hall, 263.
Barber, 253.
Baris, 134.
=~.
a 2 pee Tg a I IA li ar a Ta ag ai AN sk lat rite etait tee a,
INDEX
Barnabazos, 39, 100.
Baths, 165, 253.
Bazaars, 204
Beautiful women, 147, 149, 171.
Bechorath, 168, 259.
Bed-chamber, 247, 259.
Beds, 139
Behar, 84.
Bekhorath, 168, 259.
Bela, 168.
Bells, 249.
Belshazzar, 75, 128.
Benefactors of the King, 65, 245.
Benjamin, Tribe of, 48, 119, 168,
198, 255, 259.
Beryl, 279.
Beth essentiae, 220.
Bibliography, vil.
Bightha, 67, 148.
Bighthan, 69, 189, 244.
Bilshan, 169.
Bird of paradise, 279.
Birds, 279, 288.
Bithan, 137, 143.
Biurists, 117.
Biznai, 231.
Bizz*tha, 67, 148.
Bomberg Bible, 18, 22.
Book, 302.
Book of Moses, see Law.
Book of the acts of the days, 304.
Book of the memorable things, 304.
Bowing before superiors, 62, 195;
see Prostration.
Boys, 279.
Bridle, 252.
Broad place, 217.
Bulis, 197.
CABALA, 100.
Cesarea, 34.
Caiaphas, 256.
Calah, 132.
Calneh, 132.
Cambyses, 52, 123, 128, 158.
Canaanites, 281.
Canonicity, vii, 63 f., 94, 101
Cappadocian, 161.
Captivity, see Exile.
Carian, 161.
Carmeli, 78.
Carnival, 92.
Carpenters, 240.
Casting of lots, see Lot.
Catholic Commentators, 108.
Cattle, 227.
323
| Cedar, 266.
Chain, 249 f., 252.
Chalybonian wine, 141.
Chamber of Fate, gr.
Chapter division, 12.
Chariot, 248.
Chedorla‘omer, 133.
Children, 274.
Chislev, 202.
Choaspes, 126, 227.
Christ, does not quote Est., 97.
Christian attitude toward Est., 97,
ΙΟΙ.
Chronicler, 52.
Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and
Israel, 58.
Chronicles of the Kings of Media
and Persia, 42, 57 f., 120, 191 f.,
244, 292 f., 303 f.; see Annals,
Book.
Circumcise, 204, 280.
Circumstantial clause, 281, 285.
Cities, 291, 297 f.
City of Susa, 126, 211, 280.
City-square, 249.
Cleopatra, 30, 77, 81 f., 306.
Codices, Hebrew, 2, 6, 8; Greek,
4f., 31f.; Latin, 40 7; Syriac, 16.
Colours, 279.
Columns, 137.
Commentators, Catholic, 107-109,
ELL, ΤΙ; Jewish,)03) 07), LOL-1o7,
109, III, 117, 161; Protestant,
107, LLO, ττῦ-
Commercialism, 62.
Commissioners, 164, 173.
Complutensian Polyglot, το, 33.
Composition, Erbt’s theory, 81; see
Unity.
Compulsion to drink, 141.
Concubines, 180, 187.
Conspiracy, 190, 295; see Plot.
Contradictory statements in Est., 58.
Coptic versions, 36.
Copy, 211, 217.
Cords, 138.
Corpse, 295.
Cosmetics, 165, 174, 178.
Cotton, 138, 144.
Cotton cloth, 138, 144.
Couch, 263.
Council of princes, 73, 128, 154, 238.
Counsellors, 151, 255.
Country Jews, 288, 290.
Couriers, 49, 65, 208, 273, 276.
Coursers, 273, 27
324
Court, 136.
Courtiers, 127, 184, 195, 197, 220.
Cousin, 170 f.
Covering the head, 254, 264.
Creation story, 91.
Crier, 249.
Critical period of exegesis, 111.
Crown, 148, 230, 244, 248 7., 259, 279.
Crucifixion, 44, 101.
Crying, 59, 214, 301.
Crystal, 140.
Cup, 148, 254.
Cup-bearer, 141.
Curtains, 138.
Custom, 152.
Cyaxares, 51 f., 127, 169.
Cyreneans, 77.
Cyrus 52) 75, 21 ΞΠ22) ἸΖΟΣ ΠΏ.
130, 134, 169.
Daghesh forte conjunctivum, 257.
Dainties, 174, 290, 293.
Dalphon, 70, 284, 287.
Damascus, 190.
Daniel, 75, 121, 128) 148, 154, 100;
174, 210, 230.
Darius, 52 /., 75, 121-124, 129, 137,
169, 258.
Darius the Mede, 52, 122-124.
Date of the book, 281; see Age.
Date of the Greek version, 31.
Daughter of Haman, 254.
Daughter-voice, 240.
David, 164, 166 f., 239, 248.
Day of Atonement, 74, 202.
Day of Mordecai, 61, 80, 91.
Day of Nicanor, see Nicanor’s Day.
Days of the Week, 201.
Dead, 214; cult of, 86.
Decree, 49, 72, 248, 269; see Edict,
Dispatches.
Dedication of Feast, 202.
Deiosos, 231.
Delay in bringing girls to the King,
183.
Descendants, 297.
Diary, 58, 304; see Annals, Chron-
icles.
Diaspora, 61, 63, 203.
Dinazdd, 76.
Dioces, 220.
Dionysius, 131.
Dios, 194.
Dioses, 194.
Dispatches, 160, 208, 269, 272;
Decree, Edict.
see
INDEX
| Divine honours, 196.
Dizful, 126.
Dogs, 239.
Doorkeepers, 189.
Dositheus, 30, 77, 306.
Dragons, 120, 300.
Dravidian, 160.
Dream of Mordecai, 8, 39, 42, 102,
104, 110, 300.
ΘΙ 126). ΤῊὴῖὴῦ΄ῦ΄ 20
Drinking-cups, 140 f.
Drunkenness of Persians, 129, 150,
163.
Dung, 228.
Duplicate accounts, 58, 295, 297.
Dust, 230.
Dustros, 282.
EASTERNS, 15.
Ecbatana, 125, 134.
Bdicty42yn50, 157, 2ΠΟ ΤΟΣ 232:
287; see Decree, Dispatch.
Edom, 78, 152.
Egypt, 128, 152,
Egyptian, τότ.
Egyptians, 241.
Elah, 168, 259.
Blam ΘΠ, 80. 00, τῶν, ΤΩΣ πη»
160.
Elder, 304.
Elephantine, 161.
Eleventh of Adar, 295, 297.
Eliel, 168, 259.
Elijah, 86, 234.
Elijah the high priest, 213.
Eliphael, 168.
Eliphalot, 194.
Eliphaz, 194, 231.
Elpa‘al, 259.
Elul, 201.
Emerald, 145, 279.
Enameled tiles, 137.
Enemy, 260, 267, 276, 282-284, 287,
289, 291, 293, 295.
En-Mashti, 89.
Ephraim, 255. _
Ephrath, 78.
Eponymy, 93-
Erech, 89, 132/f.
Esarhaddon, 132.
ΒΘ 1945) ΤΟΙ fe, 220) 231) 295:
Escorting guests, 257.
Esther, the queen, 43, 45, 48, 55, 65-
67, 71-73) ΠΣ 81, 88, 90 f., 93;
etymology of name, 69, 85;=
Ishtar, 69, 78 f., 170; not identical
On) ΤῸ eine
INDEX
with Amestris, 71; analogue of
Judith, 75; of Shahrazad, 76;
moral character, 96, 108; origin
and bringing up, 170-171; taken
to the palace, 173; gains favour of
Hégai, 174; conceals her race,
175; visited by Mordecai, 176;
brought to the King, 182; made
Queen, 184; conceals her origin,
188; communicates with Morde-
cal, 216; resolves to go to the
King, 225; her prayer, 228; goes
to the King, 230; prayer in court,
231; received by the King, 232;
her request, 234; second request,
236; gives thanks for Mordecai’s
honour, 254; denounces Haman,
257; entreated by Haman, 263;
seeks to counteract Haman’s
edict, 268; sees Mordecai’s honour,
280; asks for second slaughter,
286; writes to confirm Mordecai’s |
letter, 300; the fountain in Morde-
cai’s dream, 306.
Esther’s Fast, 301.
Bthiopias 54, 73, 122 if, 133, 208;
210, 275. ᾿
Ethiopic, 36.
Euergetes 11, 77.
Eunuchs, 43, 49 f., 120, 148-150,
153, 165, 171, 176, 179, 189, 216,
244, 257, 204.
Euphrates, 130.
Eustochium, 25.
Evil-Merodach, 121 f., 130, 149.
Exegesis, Christian, no commen-
taries for seven centuries, 101;
medieval commentators, 107;
Protestant commentators of the
Reformation period, 107; Catholic
commentators of this period, 108;
compendia of commentators, 109;
post-Reformation period, Prot-
estant commentators, 110; Catho-
lic commentators, 111; modern
critical period, 111; introductory
works, 112; modern Protestant
commentaries, 115; Catholic com-
mentaries, 117.
Exegesis, Jewish, 13; haggada, 97;
halakha, 98; collection of hala-
khoth into Mishna, 98; the Tal-
muds, 99; collection of haggadhoth
into midrashim, 100; midrash in
the Gemara, 100; First Targum,
τοι; Second Targum, 102; Midrash
325
Esther Rabba, τος; Midrash Leqah
Tob, 103; Midrash Abba Goryon,
103; Midrash Megillath Esther,
103; other midrashim, 104; Sa‘adia
and the literal method of inter-
pretation, 104; the Spanish school,
105; RaShI, 105; his followers,
106; rise of the allegorical method,
100; commentators of the Refor-
mation period, 109; post-Ref-
ormation period, 111; modern
period, 118.
Exile, 135, 168, 239.
Extraordinary letters, 6, 284, 302.
Ezra, 53, 60, 202.
FARVARDIGAN, 85-87, 91.
Fast, 49, 59, 95, 189, 215, 225, 227,
250, 280, 301.
Fates of men, 91, 94
Father, του, 276.
Father to the king, 283.
Feast, 48, 49, 142, 240, 276, 280 f.;
see Banquet.
Fiction, 247.
Fiery furnace, 255.
Fifteenth of Adar, 288, 290 f., 293,
305.
First Targum, editions, 18; relation
to Heb., 18; its insertions, τὸς
short recension in Antwerp and
Paris Polyglot, 20; age, 20; sources
20; oral origin, 21; text-critical
value, 21; its exegesis, ΤΟΙ.
Five Mégilloth, 2 f., 103.
Food, 140, 174; of heathen unclean,
43, 175, 189, 229, 271.
Fortress, 126, 136, 165-167, τόρ,
172; LO Zit 270, 75.283} 280;
290; see Acropolis, Susa.
Fortune of the city, 279.
Fountain, 120.
Fourteenth of Adar, 288, 290, 293,
295, 297, 300.
Friends, 255.
GABATHA, 120.
Gabriel 149, 221, 225, 245, 263.
Gallows, 50 f., 74, 89, 163, 191, 240,
246, 257, 264, 266, 270, 284, 287,
205.
Garden, 136, 262.
Garments, 216, 230, 242, 249.
Garments of King, 244, 248, 252 7.,
259, 279.
' Gate of the King, see King’s gate.
326
Gates, 188.
Gemara, xiii, 99 f.; see Talmud,
Babylonian Talmud.
Gentiles, hatred of, 45, 62, 229.
Genuineness of subscription, 30.
Gentinitha, 174.
Gera, 259.
Geresh, 89.
Geshem, 234, 236, 258.
Gezah, 168.
Gibeonite, 295.
Gifts, 79, 294; of food, 185; to the
poor, 59.
Gilgamesh, 82, 89 Καὶ
Gilgamesh Epic, 89, 90.
Girdle, 279.
Girisha, 89.
Girls37 164) 7: 172) 118; 180) see
Maidens, Virgins.
Gladness, 306.
God, 275 f., 298, 306; name in-
tentionally omitted, 44, 94; theory
of anagrams, 95;
skepticism, 95; nor to residence
in Persia, 95; nor to reverence,
95; due to the revels at Purim, 95;
see also 222, 232, 244, 282.
Gog, 56.
Gogite, 70, 191, 194.
Gold, 139 f., 230, 279.
Goliath, 239.
Governors, 208, 272, 283.
Grand vizier, 268, 304.
Graves whitewashed, 86.
Great Synagogue, 60, 169, 190, 202.
Greece, 121, 128, 183, 206, 303.
Greek, 161, 295.
Greek historians, 71.
Greek origin of Purim, 83.
Greek period, 281.
Greek Version, xi, 24, 29; subscrip-
tion to Esther, 30; its genuine-
ness, 30; date of version, 31; re-
cension of the uncials, 31; Codex
Sinaiticus, 32; Codex Alexan-
drinus, 32; Codex Basiliano-Vati-
canus, 32; other similar codices,
32; additions of text of uncials to
Heb., 33; omissions from the text,
33; recension of Origen, 34; the
Hexapla, 34; the Origenic text,
35; recension of Hesychius, 36;
codices, 36; secondary versions,
36; recension of Lucian, 37; its
codices, 37; editions, 37; addi-
tions to Heb., 38; omissions from
not due to |
INDEX
Heb., 38; differences from Heb.,
38; text of Josephus, 39; Old Latin
secondary version, 40; long addi-
tions in Greek, 41; regarded as
canonical, 42; supposed Heb. or
Aram. originals are translations
of Josephus, 42; no internal evi-
dence of Heb. originals, 43; con-
tradict the Heb. text, 43; not a
part of the original Greek ver-
sion, 44; added to supply a re-
ligious element, 44; literature on
the additions, 45; the short addi-
tions in Greek, 46; text-critical
value of Greek, 46; omissions in
Greek, 47; also 100, 102.
Guza, 259.
HABISHA, 126.
| Hadassah, 78, 85, 88 f., 170.
Hadros, 194.
Haggada, 97, 100, 104.
Haggai, 208.
Haircloth, 214, 216, 227; see Sack-
cloth.
Hair cut, 253.
Halakha, 97, 104, 252.
Half of the Kingdom, 233, 236.
Hamadan, 134.
Haman, 43-45, 47-59, 55, 62, 65,
72 ff, 77 7, 81, 86, 88, 92 f., 120;
etymology of name, 69, 85;=
Humman, 69, 79, 88-91, analogies
in Jewish literature, 75; the King’s
favourite, 120; same as M mt-
khan, 154; plots against the King,
190; his origin, 194, 196; pro-
moted by the King, 195; defied
by Mordecai, 196; an Amalekite,
194, 197, 200; angry with Morde-
cai, 199; plans to destroy the
Jews, 200; casts lots, 201; goes to
the King, 203; promises 10,000
talents for the Jews,.205; sends
out edict against the Jews, 208;
his daughter, 231; wishes to slay
Esther, 232; comes to Esther’s
banquet, 235; plans to hang Mor-
decai, 237; wears an idol, 242;
accused by angel, 244; com-
manded by King to honour
Mordecai, 246; executes com-
mand, 252; narrates his disgrace
at home, 255; denounced by
Esther, 257; meaning of his name,
259; sentenced to death, 262;
INDEX
begs Mordecai for mercy, 265;
a Macedonian, 275; duplicate ac-
count of his plot, 295; left hanging
on gallows, 295; is dragon in the
dream, 300.
Hamdan, 231.
Hamlets, 290 αὶ
Hammedhatha, 69, 78, 88, 92, 120,
194, 231, 240, 269, 275, 284, 295.
Hammurabi, 133.
Hananiah, 154, 239, 255, 259.
Handful of meal, 252.
Hanging as death-penalty, 44, 65,
163, 168, 191, 246, 270, 284, 287, |
205.
Harbona, 67, 148, 264.
Harem, 137, 165, 176,
House of the women.
Harness, 252.
Harsum, 231.
Hartford Theological Seminary, viii.
Harum, 231.
Harvard Divinity School, viii.
Hashom, 259.
Hathakh, 49, 70, 217, 221.
Heathen, 280, 296, 300.
Heathen feast borrowed, 83.
Heaven, 282.
Heavenly voice, 259.
Hebrew, 295.
Hebrew consonantal text, xi.
Héghai, or Héghé, 48, 69, 165, 172-
174, 182, 226.
Felix Ianthina, 138.
Helmet, 279.
Heman, 78.
Hemdan, 78.
Hemine, 141.
Herod, 134, 233.
Hesychius’ recension of the Greek,
ΧΙ, 31, 36; its codices, 36; secon-
dary Coptic and Ethiopic ver-
sions, 36.
Fexapla, 34.
Hezekiah, 125, 194.
Higher Criticism, 47, 111.
Historical character of Est., vii,
wishes to be regarded as history,
64; so regarded by the Jews, 64;
some of its statements confirmed,
64; correct idea of Persian cus-
toms, 65; Persian words, 65; most
of its statements unconfirmed, 66;
proper names unknown elsewhere,
66; proposed Persian etymologies,
67-71; statements of Est. con-
70; ΞΕΕ
327
tradicted by Greek historians,
71; contrary to Persian custom,
72; inner inconsistencies, 73;
statements historically improbable,
73; analogues in apocryphal liter-
ature, 75; analogues in the Ara-
bian Nights, 76; conclusion, can-
not be regarded as historical, 77;
see also 79, III.
Hoddt, 132.
Hokhma, 106.
Holiday, 280, 286, 290, 293.
Holophernes, 75.
Holta, 174.
Holy House, 198; see Temple, Sanc-
tuary.
Holy Spirit, 191, 230.
Homai, 76.
Honours, 50, 248 f., 254, 280.
Horses, 209, 244, 248 ff., 252 7., 259,
277.
House of the concubines, 179.
House of father, 223.
House of Haman, 270.
House of the King, 143, 173, 179;
see Palace, Royal house.
House of the Kingdom, 143.
House of the women, 137, 143, 165,
173, 176, 179; see Harem.
Hrungner, 79.
Humbaba, 82, 89.
Humban, 69, 89.
Humman, 67, 69, 89 Κα
Harpitha, 174.
Husband, 155, 158, 161.
Hushim, 168.
Hymns, 293.
IPOD IO}, 190}. 217, 225; 211, 222.
I gigi, οἵ.
Impaling, ΤΟΙ.
Imperfect with Waw consec., 60.
Improbabilities in Est., 73, 240,
244 Ἢ; 256, 287, 289, 304; see
Historical character.
Indians 54507725) Τ22.7.,,ὄ 132.
MOO} (200, 210, 272: 2785.
Indus, 123.
Infinitive absolute, 285, 291, 299.
Inner court, 220 f., 230.
Inscriptions, 160.
Inspiration of the Book of Esther,
182, 247.
Intercalated month, 300 /.
Interpreter, 258.
Introductions to Book of Est., 112.
152,
328
Irene, 81 f.
Irnina, 89.
Isaac, 240, 242, 255, 250.
Ishtar, 67, 69, 78 δ, 88-93, 170.
Ishtar-feast, 93.
Islam, 104.
Islands of the Mediterranean, 54, 303.
Israel, 168, 281.
Issachar, sons of, 151 f.
Istahar, 170.
IStar, 78 f.; see Ishtar.
Ithaca, 81.
Iyar, 201.
Jacos, 168 7., 197 f., 200, 220, 242,
255, 259.
Jair, 119, 167, 259.
Jamnia, Synod of, 97.
Jeconiah, 51, 120, 168.
Jehoiachin, 51, 53, 73, 121, 168.
Jehoiakim b. Joshua, 60.
Jehoram, 168.
Jemshid, 79.
Jerahmeel, 67, 78.
Jerahmeeli, 78.
Jerome’s Latin Version, 5, 10, 24;
prologue, 24; aim to give a literal
version, 25; additions to Masso-
retic text, 26; omissions from text,
27; differences from Massoretic
text, 27; general similarity to Mas-
soretic text, 28.
Jerubba‘al, 168, 259.
Jeruham, 250.
Jerusalem, 140, 169, 194, 208, 279,
300.
Jerusalem Talmud, xi, 99, τοι.
Jewish commentators, 13, 97, 101-
107, 109, III, I17, 161.
Jewish Theological Seminary, viii.
Jews, 49, 73, 136, 167, 175, 198, 200,
203, 290; 200_ ΙΝ, ΤῊ, 22, 22
255, 270, 273, 275 f-, 280, 282 f., |
286, 290, 293 f., 297, 305.
Job, 82.
Jotunheim, 79.
John Hyrcanus, 79.
Jonathan, 79, 82, 168, 250.
Joseph, 95, 169, 239, 248.
Joseph, the tax-gatherer, 83.
Josephus’ recension of the Greek,
additions, omissions, and varia-
tions, 39.
Joshua, 169.
Joy, 280, 290, 293, 306.
Judean, 166, 255.
INDEX
Judah, 166.
Judaism, 97.
Judas Maccabeeus, 61, 78 7., 81.
Judith, 75, 79, 97.
Kallatu, 89.
Karaites, 104.
Karcum, 196, 253.
Karkas, 68, 148.
Karshena, 68, 152.
KaSSe, 132.
Kassite, 161.
Kefer Qargum, 196, 253.
Kethibh, 13.
Khorsabad, 137.
Khshayarsha, 53, 305.
Khshatfa, 273.
King of Persia, 94.
King’s business, 283.
King’s gate, 137, 188 f., 197, 214,
2175 237; 239) 250, 2544 200.8270:
King’s house, 230, 246, 283, 288;
see Palace.
King, not approached without sum-
mons, 43, 49, 72, 220, 269.
Kirisha, 70, 89.
Kish, 119, 168, 194, 259.
Kurigalzu II, 133.
Kush) 1225) 172 /e2 50272.
KuSu, 132.
Kutir Lahgamar, 133.
Kutirnahunte, 133.
Kuza, 194.
LAMENTATION, 215.
Lamentations, Book of, 82.
Language, 59, 62, 160, 208, 273.
Latin version; see Old Latin.
Latin version of Jerome; see Jerome.
Law of Moses, 142, 167, 189, 203,
Pig 217; Yt GTO). 299; PASI
Laws of the Medes and Persians, 72,
141, 040) 1410) 19. 7. us ieee os
217; 220, 270, 270; 252.) 280 7:
were unchangeable, 43,'75, 150,
157, 270, 207.
Lebanon, 122.
Leprous, 149.
Letters, 51, 210, 293, 297, 300, 306;
of the King, 44 δ; of Mordecai,
44, 274 f.; see Message.
Levi, 169.
Levites, 298, 306.
Light, 280.
Linen, 144 f., 270.
Longest verse, 273.
INDEX
Loos, 93.
Lots, 49, 55, 74, 77, 79, 84, 86, 91,
93, 200 f., 276, 295, 300.
Lower criticism, I11.
Lucian’s recension of the Greek, xi, |
37; its codices, 37; editions, 37; |
additions to Heb., 38; omissions |
from Heb., 38; differences from |
Heb., 38; see also 44, 52, 85 f-, 100.
Lucky and unlucky days, 65.
Lydian, τότ.
Lyre, 240.
Lysimachus, 30, 300.
MA‘ADAN, 194.
Macedonian, 43, 53, 194, 275 7.» 279-
Magi, 200.
Magic, 177.
Maidens, 73; see Girls, Virgins.
Maids, 174, 216, 226, 230, 232, 258.
Mainland, 303.
Malachi, 169, 208.
Malachite, 145.
Manasseh, 239, 255.
Manéoth, 79.
Mantle, 279.
Manuscripts, 5; of the Babylonian
family, their origin, 14; state-
ments concerning them, 14; their
characteristics, 15; best ms. for
Esther, 16.
Manuscripts, of the Tiberian fam-
ily, their number, 5; catalogues, 6;
characteristics, 6; consonantal var-
iants, 7; Aramaic additions in
some, 8; acrostics of YHWH, 8;
variants in vocalization and ac-
centuation, 9; descended from a
single prototype, 9.
Marble, 139 f., 145.
Marchesvan, 202.
Mardochaios, 88.
Mardonius, 68.
Marduk, 67, 77. 79; 82, 88-91, 93:
Marduk, Feast of, gr.
Mares, 278.
Market-place, 217.
Marséna, 68, 152,
Mashti, 88.
Masistes, 240.
Massacre, 201, 209, 287; see Slaugh-
ter.
Massora, xi, 6, 12-14, 16, 248.
Massora Magna, τι.
Massora Parva, τι.
Massoretic Hebrew text, xi, 27, 47.
Massoretic summaries, 12.
Massorites, 6.
Maul-clubs, 283.
Medians 25545) 27, 154, 05.35, 150;
304.
Median, 279.
Medieval Christian interpretation,
107.
Medieval Jewish Commentaries,
104.
Mediterranean, 303.
Medo-Persian migration, 134.
Méghilla, presupposes consonantal
text, 28; additions to the text, 20.
Méehiman, 67, 148.
Meloch, 168, 259.
Memnonium, 136.
Memtkhan, 48, 69, 152, 154-160,
168, 194.
Mephibosheth, 259.
Meres, 68, 152.
Merimoth, 168.
Merrymaking of Purim, 95.
Mesopotamia, τότ.
Message, 297, 300; see Letter.
Messianic hope, 62.
Method of recording variant read-
ings, v.
Micha, 168, 259.
Michael, 168, 221, 225, 242, 244,
250.
Midrashim, 13, 43, 100-109.
Miriam, 86.
Mishael, 154, 239, 255.
Mishna, 98 f.
Mithra, 137.
Moab, 152.
Mock-king, 92.
Money-changer, 188.
Months, 2οι.
Moors, 105.
Moral teaching of Est., 96; estimate
of Alexandrian Jews, 96; of N. T.
writers, 97; of Church Fathers,
97; of later Judaism, 97; also 108,
ΤΩ:
Mordecai, 43-45, 48-50, 52 f., 60,
62, 66 f., 72-74, 81, 93, 102, 108,
120; analogies in Jewish litera-
ture, 75;=Marduk, 77, 79, 88-
gt; etymology of name, ὃς; moral
character, 96; his dream, 119;
not present at Xerxes’ feast, 138;
his personal history, 166-172; bids
Esther conceal her origin,
visits Esther, 176; sits in
1753
the
909
King’s gate, 188, 189; bids Esther |
conceal her origin, 188; discovers
the plot of the eunuchs, 190; re-
fuses to bow to Haman, 195, 237; |
address to the courtiers, 197; de-
nounced to Haman, 200; hears of
Haman’s edict, 213; communi-
cates with Esther, 216; proclaims
a fast, 9220; ‘his "prayer, 227;
answers reproaches of Jews, 242;
remembered by the King, 244;
honoured by King, 252; ordered
to execute Haman, 265; put in
place of Haman, 267; sends out
dispatches, 272; his royal attire,
279; his power, 283; not author of
Est., 293, 300; commands to keep
Purim, 293; subsequent history,
303; is dragon in the dream, 306.
Mordecai of Ezr. 2?, Ne. 7!, τόρ.
Morning-star, 305.
Mosaic, 140.
Moses, 86, 98, 203, 255.
Mother-of-pearl, 140, 145.
Mourning, 65, 214 f., 228, 254, 293.
Murex Brandaris, 145.
Murex Trunculus, 145.
Myrrh, 178, 180, 279.
NABOPOLASSAR, 127.
Nadab, 75.
Nana, 133 f.
Napkin, 262.
Nations, 306.
Nauréz, 79.
Nebuchadnezzar, 51, 75, 120, 122,
125, 130, 139 7. 142, 148 f,, 164,
168 f., 255.
Nebuchadrezzar, 168.
Negar, 194, 231.
Nehardea, 14.
Nehemiah, 53, 170.
Nehoritha, 174.
Nestorians, 97.
Neuruz, 84.
New Year feast, 93.
Nicanor, 61, 78-82.
Nicanor’s day, 61, 79, 80, 92.
Night, 241.
Nineveh, 127, 132 7.
NIN-IB, 89.
Nisan, 91-93, 119, 183, 200 f.
Nubia, 123, 133.
OBEISANCE, 65.
Occidental ss. xi,
INDEX
Occidentals, 9.
| Officials, 126, 155 f., 163, 184, 208,
| 249, 272, 283.
Ointments, 228, 230.
Old Latin version, 24, 100; codices,
40; relation to Greek version, 40;
additions not found in Greek, 40;
their origin, 41; omissions, 41;
differences in the codices, 41.
Omanos, 88, 92.
Omissions in Greek, 33, 47; in
Lucian, 38; in Old Latin, 41; in
Jerome, 27.
Omphacinum, 18o.
Ophir, 122, 230, 279.
Oral tradition, 98, 100, ror.
Oriental Mss. xi.
Orientals, 9.
Origen’s recension of the Greek, xi,
32, 34; the Hexapla, 34; the sepa-
rate Origenic text, 35
Origin of Purim, 74.
Orosangai, 245.
Outer Court, 221, 246.
Outline of the book, 47.
PAGES, 164, 245, 247.
Palace of Xerxes, 65, 126, 136 f.,
ΤΠ. 108. 72; ἸΘῸΝ 2 2022710;
283, 2860; see House of the King,
Royal House.
Palestine, 161.
Panbabylonisten, vii.
Parar, 78.
Park, 136.
Parmashta, 7, 70, 194, 231, 284, 288.
Parshandatha, 7, 70, 284, 287.
Parthian, 85, 279.
Passover, 92, 204, 226, 230, 252.
Paula, 25.
Pearl, 145, 230, 250, 279.
Penuel, 259.
People of the land, 28r.
Peoples of the earth, 280.
Perfect with Waw connective, 60,
L472) 20250208.)
Perfumes, 73, 178.
Periphrastic form of verb, 294.
Peros, 194, 231.
Persepolis, 125, 160.
Persia, 52, 65, 95, 127, 134, 153, 156,
160, 192, 205, 304.
Persians, 129, 131, 140 f., 195, 201,
255, 264, 276.
Persian customs, 64 f., 72, 84, 125,
143, 149, 220.
INDEX
Persian king, “4.
Persian ianguage, 63, 65 f., 84, Old
Persian, τόο.
Persian monuments, 53.
Persian New Year’s festival, 79.
Persian origin of Purim, 84.
Persian source of story of Esther, 76.
Persian spring festival, 85.
Persian year, 84, 87.
Peshat, 104-106.
Peshitto, editions, 16; groups of texts,
17; relation to Heb. in Est., 17.
Pethahiah, 169.
Pethuel, 168.
Petition, 233, 236, 257, 286.
Phedyma, 221.
Pharaoh, 241, 255.
Pharaoh the Lame, 125.
Phoenician, 161, 273.
Phourdaia, ὃς f.
Phraortes, 51, 127.
Phrourat, 85 f., 306.
Phylactery, 279 f.
Pillars, 139.
Pirge Rabbi Eliezer, 102.
Pitcher, 148, 254.
Pithah, 259.
Pithoigia, 84.
Pithon, 168.
Pithqa, 141.
Place of Est. in Greek Bible, 3; ar-
rangements in codices and in
Fathers, 4-5.
Place of Est. in Heb. Bible, 1; vari-
ous arrangements of the codices
and editions, 2.
Platea, 183.
Pleiades, 198.
Plot, 49, 102, 190; see Conspiracy.
Plunder, 209, 274, 284, 288 f.
Poison, 190.
Pomegranates, 249.
Poor, 294.
P6ratha, 70, 284, 287.
Porphyry, 140.
Portions, 79, 174, 208.
Post-reformation period, 110.
Prayers, 280, 201.
Prayer after fasting, 225.
Prayer-mantle, 253.
Prayer of Jews, 241.
Prayers of Esther, 44, 102, 173, 228,
231.
Prayers of Mordecai, 8, 42, 44, 102,
227.
Precious stones, 230, 279.
331
Priestly Code, 74, 83.
Priests, 227, 279, 298, 306.
Princeton Theological Seminary, viii.
Printed editions, 3; based on Ti-
berian MSs., 10; edition Naples
(1486-1487), το; Naples (1491-
1493), 10; Brescia (1492), 10;
Complutensian Polyglot, 10; Bom-
berg (1516), τι; Bomberg (1525),
11; Montanus (1571), 12; other
editions, 12.
Prison, 239.
Proclamation before one, 249, 254.
Proper names, 66.
Property, 267 7.
Prophets, 204, 241.
Proselyting, 61, 95, 226, 281 f., 295,
297.
Prostration before high officials,
195; see Bowing.
Provinces, 122-124, 128, 132, 155,
173, 184, 203, 208, 220, 269, 272,
274 f., 280, 282 f., 286, 289, 293,
298, 301.
Pseudo-Smerdis, 52.
Ptolemy, 30, 306.
Ptolemy IV Philopator, 83.
Ptolemy V (Epiphanes), 30.
Ptolemy VI (Philometor), 30, 77.
Ptolemy VII (Physcon), 30, 77, 81.
Ptolemy VIII (Lathuros), 30.
Puhrd, 86, gt.
Puhru, gt 7.
Pur, 55, 74, 84, 86, 200 f., 205.
Piura, 78, 83.
Purdeghan, 85.
Purim, viii, 33, 44, 48, 51, 54 7., 56,
57, 59, 61, 64; theories of Jewish
origin, 77; Willrich’s theory, 77;
Cheyne’s theory, 77; Michaelis
holds equals Nicanor’s Day, 78;
Haupt’s theory, 79; difficulties,
Purim does not fall on Nicanor’s
Day, 80; Esther has nothing to
do with the victory over Nicanor,
81; no connection between the
feast and its legend, 81; does not
explain the name Purim, 82;
theories of Greek origin, 83;
theories of Persian origin, 84;
Meier’s theory, 84; Hitzig’s theory,
84; Fiirst’s theory, 85; Meij-
boom’s theory, 85; von Hammer’s
theory, 85; Lagarde’s theory, 85;
Schwally’s theory, 86; difficulties
with Persian theory, 86; thecries
332 INDEX
of Babylonian origin, 87; Baby- |
lonian counterparts to personages |
of the book, 88; Jensen’s theory,
89; Gunkel’s theory, 90; Zim-
mern’s theory, 90; Winckler’s
theory, 90; Babylonian counter-
parts to the feast of Purim, Zim- |
mern’s theory, 91; Meissner’s
theory, 92; Frazer’s theory, 92; |
ensen’s theory, 93; Johns’ theory,
MASK )
93; summing up, 94; Purim an |
annual merrymaking, 93, 95, 99,
276, 289; origin of two days, 292;
commanded by Mordecai, 293;
adopted by Jews, 294; manner of
keeping, 295; name derived from
pur, 290; made unchangeable by
Jews, 297; confirmed by Esther,
300; connected with Mordecai’s
dream, 300.
Purple, 138, 145, 249, 252, 254, 279.
Purpose of Est., to justify feast of
Purim, 54; unity of plan, 55; no
allegorical purpose, 56; no pur- |
pose to justify Hellenizing party,
572
Pfirti, 79.
Piru, 93 7.
Pythius, 129, 206.
Θέ; 12.
Queen of Persia, 72, 165, 184.
Queen of Sheba, 125.
RABBIS, 252.
Races, 155, 276, 283.
Rahab, 149, 171.
Rationalists, 111.
Reading before the King, 74, 244.
Reading the Roll of Esther, 6, 98 7,
273, 290, 295, 207.
Reclining at table, 140.
Red Sea, 255.
Reformation Period, 107.
Rego‘itha, 174.
Rehoboth-Ir, 132.
Release, 142, 184.
Religion, absent from Est., supplied
by Greek additions, 44, 62, 214 7.
Remuth, 259.
Rending garments, 213, 227.
Resen, 132.
Rest of Jews, 293.
Revenue, 205.
Revival of learning, 107.
Rewarding of benefactors, 245, 250.
Riches, 267; see Weakdh.
Ring, 268, 273.
Robes, 231; see Garments.
Rods, 138, 145.
Rohashitha, 174.
Roll of Esther, 119, 295.
Rome, 223.
Roq‘itha, 174.
Roses, 140, 146.
Royal garment, 259; see Garments of
King.
Royal house, 142, 182, 231; see
House of the King, Palace.
SABBATH, 147, 189, 201, 204, 280,
295.
Sabouchadas, 39, 257.
Sackcloth and ashes, 49, 72, 252,
254; see Haircloth.
Sadda, 194.
Saddle, 252.
Sakea, 88, 92 f.
Salome. 233.
Samson, 240.
Samuel, 222.
Sanballat, 234, 236, 258.
Sanctuary, 122, 140, 152, 169, 194,
224230) 271); 258. 6 200smmsce
Temple. ;
Sandals, 230.
Sanhedrin, 189, 250, 254, 305.
Sanskrit, 160.
Sarah, 122; 140, 170 f:, 202, 240.
Sarchedonus, 75.
Sargon, 70.
Sason, 259.
Sassanian rule, 134.
Satrapies, 72, 124.
Satraps, 208, 272, 283.
Saturnalia, 92.
Saull735, ΤΟ 7:, Το4, 222, 250, 298:
Sceptre, 189, 220, 232, 269.
Scissors, 253.
Scribes, 208, 244, 272, 288.
Script, 208, 273. ‘
Scriptures, 204, 295. _
Scythians, 133, 200.
Sea, 303.
Seal, 206, 208, 270, 273.
S¢ebhirin, 13.
Second gathering, 186.
Second Targum, editions, 21; rela-
tion to Heb. 22; additions to the
text, 22; age, 23; sources, 24; see
also tor f.
Secretary, 244 f., 272.
INDEX
Sedharim, 6.
Segar, 194.
Seleucia, 180.
Seleucus Nicator, 85.
Self-defense, 274, 283.
Sennacherib, 75, 125, 241.
Separation of women, 189.
Septuagint; see Greek version.
Serpentine, 145.
Seven, 148.
Seven counsellors, 152.
Seven eunuchs, ΟἹ, 149.
Seven princes, 65.
Seven viziers, 91, 153, 163.
Seventy years of exile, 128.
Sha‘ashgaz, 69, 179.
Shahrazad, 76.
Shalmaneser II, 134.
Shebat, 202.
Shecarith, 168.
Shechorah, 168.
Sheep, 227.
Shegar, 231.
Sheharim, 259.
Shehorah, 259.
Shehriyar, 180.
Shema, 204.
Shemida, 168, 259.
Shephatiah, 168, 259.
Shéthar, 68, 152.
Shifregaz, 250.
Shimei, 119, 167, 259.
Shimmeshe, 288.
Shimri, 168, 259.
Shinar, 132.
Shishak, 125, 168.
Shush, 126.
Shushan, 48; see Susa.
Shushinak, 133
Shutruk-Nahunte, 133.
Sibyl, 256.
Signet-ring, 206, 268, 270, 273.
Signs, 306.
Silk, 230, 249.
Silver, 49, 139 f., 205, 217.
Simon, 134.
Single prototype of Heb. mss., 9.
Siris, 70, 89.
Sitting as an official posture, 125,
188 f.
Sivan, 201, 272.
Skeptic, 95.
Slaughter, 283, 287; see Massacre.
Slaves, 258.
Sleeplessness, 241, 244.
Smerdis, 52, 178, 221.
Oo
Go
Oo
| Smiths, 240.
| Socks, 279.
Solar-heroes, 90.
Solomon, 167, 248.
Sons of Haman, 238, 240, 262, 265f,,
270, 279, 284, 286 f., 295.
Soothsayers, ΟῚ; see Astrologers.
Sorrow, 203.
Source of Esther, 292.
Spain, 105.
Spartans, 120.
Sperthies, 197.
Spring festival, 84.
Square, 217.
Stable, 250, 252.
Stacte, 180.
Stall, 252.
Stallions, 278.
Standard Codex of O. T., 9, 29.
Stateira, 150.
Statue, 184.
Steeds, 273, 276.
Steward, 283.
Stirrups, 252.
ΘΕῸ, 272; 27ηὃ-
Subscription to Greek Esther, 30,
306.
Sumerian, τότ.
Summons to go to King, 43, 49, 72,
220, 269.
Stimaar, 231.
Suppliants, 263.
Sura, 14, 99, 104.
Susa, 44, 48-51, 54, 65, 757.: 80, 84,
92, 120, 125 f., 131, 133 f, 139,
137, 139, 165 f., 167, 169, 172,
176, 183, 188, 194, 208, 211, 217,
270, 275 7. 276, 279 J.» 283, 286-
290; history of the city, 133 f-
Susa the fortress; see Fortress.
Susian, 160.
Sword, 190, 249, 265, 279, 283, 288.
Synagogue, 204, 297.
Syria, 161.
Syriac Version, 16, 42; see Peshitto.
Syrian Christians, 97.
TABERNACLE, 138.
Tabernacles, 202.
Tablets of fate, gr.
Tail, 149.
Talents of silver, 49, 74, 205, 217,
253, 279.
Talmud, 28, 42, 60, 102, 162, 273,
287, 290; see Babylonian Talmud,
Jerusalem Talmud, M¢ghilla.
99.
Talyon, 231.
Tammuz, 201.
Tammuz-Ishtar myth, go.
Targums, vi, 42, 101; see Furst
Targum, Second Targum.
Tarsee, 190.
Tarshish, 68, 152.
Tatnai, 238.
Tébhéth, 182, 202.
Tell-el-Amarna Letters, 162.
Temple, 126, 128, 130, 134, 139, 145,
208, 253.
Tendenz, 44.
Teresh, 69, 189, 244.
Text of Esther, v, 5.
Next ΟΡ Θ᾿, ταῦ:
Text of the Sopherim, 29.
Text of the uncials, 44.
Textus receptus, vi, 12.
Tharra, 120.
Thirteen as an unlucky number, 202.
Thirteenth of Adar, 79 f., 202, 209,
275 f., 282, 287, 289 f., 295, 297,
301.
Threshold, 190.
Throne, 125, 153, 184, 189, 195, 231,
248.
Throne of Solomon, 125.
Tiamat, 82.
Tiberian Mss., 5.
Tiberias, 6, 99.
Time of Purim, 297.
Tiribazos, 248.
Tishri, 201.
Title of book, 119.
Tobiah, 234, 236, 258.
Tobit, 75, 97.
Tora, 2g0.
Towns, 297.
Treasurer, 267, 304.
Treasury, 49, 205, 217, 240, 252.
Trees, 260.
Tribute, 303, 305.
Tritechmes, 206.
Trumpets, 227, 270.
Trumpets, Feast of, 74, 201.
Tunic, 279.
Turban, 148, 184, 248, 279.
Twelfth of Adar, 295, 297.
UKNU, 126, 227.
Uncial codices, 31.
Uncircumcised, 229.
Union Theological Seminary, viii.
Unity of the book, v; unquestion-
able as far as 919, 57; independence
INDEX
of 9?°10%, 57; refers to an inde-
pendent source, 57; duplicate to
3-7, 58; contradicts earlier narra-
tive, 58; different language, 59.
Unrevised Greek text, 31.
Unwalled towns, 291, 295.
Uzza, 259.
Uzziah, 168, 259.
VALUE of Book of Est., 96.
Vanic, 161.
Variants in accentuation, 9.
Variants in the consonantal text, 7.
Variants of vocalization, 9.
Vashti, 485555, ὃς ἡ, 72.}.. 775 70:
85, 88-91, 93, 108; prevents build-
ing of Temple, 122; her wedding,
136; makes a feast for the women,
142; form in the WVrss., 147;
stripped Heb. maidens, 147; sum-
moned by Xerxes, 148; one of the
four beautiful women, 149, 171;
refuses to come to the King, 150;
tried by the council, 153; de-
nounced by Daniel, 154; by
Memitkhan, 155; remembered by
King, 163; put to death, 163; a
successor sought, 164; superseded
by Esther, 184; reason for her
death, 231.
Veiling of women, 72, 149.
Vengeance upon enemies, 276, 287.
Venus, 88, 170.
Verd-antique, 145.
Verse numbers, 12.
Versions of Esther, v, xi; see Greek,
Hesychian, Jerome, Josephus,
Lucian, Old Latin, Midrashes,
Origen, Peshitto, Talmud, Tar-
gums.
Vessels, 140.
Villagers, 292.
Vinalia, 83.
Violet, 138, 144, 279.
Virgin Mary, 56, 108. :
Virgins, 164 f., 173, 186; see Girls,
Maidens. i
Visions, 241.
Viziers, 151-160, 163, 195.
WAILING, 95.
Walled cities, 291 f., 295.
Wayzatha, 7, 71, 194, 231, 284, 288.
Wealth, 268; of the Persian King,
129.
Wedding-feast, 184.
INDEX 335
Wedding-gift, 179.
Weeping, 215, 269.
Westerns, 15.
White, 2709.
Wife, 155, 161, 265 αὶ
Wife of Mordecai, 171, 176.
Wine, 122, 141, 143, 147, 149, 189,
211, 229, 236, 256, 262.
Wise men, I51, 255, 300.
Women, 142 f., 147, 155, 158, 189,
204, 274, 205-
Wonders, 306.
Wool, 279.
World to come, 226.
Writing, 270, 296 f., 302.
XERXES I, 52-55, 64/., 71, 73, 96;
personal history, 121; description
of @?, 122; extent of his empire,
123; beginning of his reign, 124,
126; legend of his throne, 125;
his conquest of Egypt, 126; his
first banquet, 126-131; his wealth,
129; his second banquet, 135;
dispute with the kings, 147; takes
counsel concerning Vashti, 151;
follows the advice of his viziers,
160; remembers Vashti, 163; con-
sults pages, 164; gathers maidens,
172; receives them in the palace,
178; makes Esther queen, 181-
186; assassinated by servants,
190; gives Jews to Haman, 206;
issues edict, 208; receives Esther,
232; grants her request, 235;
offers a second petition, 236; is
reminded of Mordecai, 244; com-
mands Haman to reward Morde-
cai, 247; sentences Haman _ to
death, 262; issues a new edict,
270; grants second slaughter, 286;
imposes tribute, 303.
Xerxes IJ, rar, 124.
YAHWEH, 8, 95; anagram of name,
235s salem age at
Yale University, vill.
Yim, 79.
ZABDI, 168.
Zagmuk, 91-93.
Zebadiah, 168, 259.
Zechariah, 208.
Zeresh, 70, 89, 240, 238 f., 255, 265,
288.
Zeror, 168, 259.
Zerubbabel, 75, 169.
Zethar, 68, 145.
Zibdi, 259.
Zoganes, 93.
IV. INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES.
Genesis 218, 132; 2186, 219; 43, 180;
8!, 165; τοῦί., 132; 108-12, 132; 117,
285; 12, 219; 138, 285; 14, 133;
14}, 121; 14%f-, 284; 185, 226; 188,
235; 181, 178; 1913, 148; 1927, 148;
ΖΒ ΤΟ; 2115 271: 227 ΤΟ) 257;
23f., 281; 25%, 180; 2729, τοῦ;
288, 219; 2812, 215; 29%, 180; 3138,
178; 33°, 154; 33", 190 f., 197, 198;
35°, 280; 36%, 78; 37”, 190; 37%,
214; 37%, 214; 3878, 154; 39%, 267;
Arts, 240; 41%, 206; 41", 248;
43", 226; 441, 267; 445, 267; 445,
256; 44", 270; 457, 224; 4621, τόρ;
50%, 180; 5079, 224.
Exodus 11, 131; 2'6, 132; 2%, 132;
5, 281; 618, 223; 112, 157; 12, 226;
15}, 250; 179) 735194; Τὴν: 2092;
17; 256; -20%, 285; 26%, 130;
267, 139; 27°, 139; 27", 120;
73030 25 135; 25.) 135;
30-13, 205; 36%, 130; 3658, 130.
Leviticus 11, 131; 457, 281; 58, 154;
126, 143; 1714, 210; 20", 281; 20%,
281; 21181.. 164; 2327f-, 215.
Numbers 11, 131; 2%, 154; 2%, 205;
53, 302; 6%, 223; 8%, 219; 10%, 278;
12!, 132; 14%, 281; 22%, 226; 247,
72-73, 104; 2470, 256; 26%, 74.
Deuteronomy 3°, 291, 292; 4°-§, 203;
410, 285; 449, 285; 63, 285; 11%, 280;
2223, 166; 243, 155; 25'7, 104;
2517-19, 256; 2618, 199; 2810, 282;
29", 207.
Joshua 1', 131; 4%, 282; 58, 135; 677,
285; 9%, 285; 10%, 283; τοῖν, 285;
Tol’, 233; rol?, 143; 1518, 233; 211%
154; 2114, 283; 2145, 252; 23", 283.
Judges 1, 131; 219; 252; 7., 262; 9%,
233; 1189. 180; 165, 251; 21!2, 166.
336 INDEX
i ΘΑΠΊΠΕΙ wil tears τὸν ΤΠ: sult, ἸΡΘΣ
ais) τη8᾽; 4) 214 51}. 153» Ol 10»
7: 0; 72; τά: ZO ΠᾺΡ; 167;
15, 79 167, 256, LS ees 194, 1555
2, 735) τοῖν ΤΟ Bor Π57; ΤΠ.
121; 184, 248; 183°, 159; 207, 263;
20%, 263; 2373, 207; 247, 190; 24%,
196; 24!!, 159, 190; 258, 281; 2517,
2085254, 2035/2580 207; 25.) 257)
2817, 157; 3110, 287.
2 Samuel 11, 131; 1%, 214; τϑ- 2565
123: 171: 1265, 225... siete mea,
14. 153s 1255, TSO AS) Mos ἘΠ»
255; Lote LAs MOOS OT 291; ἘΠ;
atl na 2310 585; 245, ΤΩΣ eats
285.
τ Kings) τ΄, 121) τὸ, τὴ τὸν rod.
133. 948; 28, 167; 233, 200; 236-40, 167;
243, 219; 5’, 154; 5%, 273, 2773 5%
127; 7.) 130; 7% 130; 7°, 1393 7.
130: 8:5, 252; wh 292; OF, ues
ΤΟΙΣ τάτὶ τοῦ, eran τὴ ee OAR tae.
207; 1333, 25τ; 1419.1τ2. B04, race
ἘΟΟ 1229. 594. τοι; ΤΟ ΤΡ ον ΠΩ
ΤῈ} 192; 1577, 100; 10%, το: ἸΘο;
154; 2015, 257; 20!, 133; 20", 133;
2011; 1332; 209. Τοῦ eos ΣῊ
20316" 2124: 21, 25Π|: soma mon,
PUES 528. 2129: 21: ΡΟΣ ΤΣῊ
2,29. 22.155
2) Kangs) τὶ, τοι, 25. 1545; 45; SOs
427, 263; 63°, 214; 8, 190; g!, 190;
11, 2075, 1510, 1903057, 190; Toles
212... 10 Ὁ; 127} 103; 122» ΤΟΥ» ΠΟΘ᾽
2133, 190; 245:7, 168; 24,2, 176;
BI, MAR
Tsaiaht 218 146; 318) 120; 125, 291;
TO! 172: 208, 1122: 2; 2819 TSO 72025
144; 37°, 1333 44%, τοῦ 45%, 1305
A710, ST 52: B55 152. Ὁ:
541, 281; 5513, £70; 619, 300.
Jeremiah 43°, 160; 6%, 285; 144, 255;
1413, 160; 1018, 154; 2211, 132; 241,
τόϑ; 2515; 143; 2750, 168: 284, 168;
202; 60; 2010; 125; 2120 GQ eal
PAROS Binley 213) 2.2.5; ΘΙ ΔΌΣ Ἐ 27.
ΔῸΣ 185; 407, 127; 408, 127;
4g'*!-, 160; 4055, 172; 49%-%, 134;
ΠΟΙ 160;, 50%, 151.
Ezekiel αἰ 1521; 55, asec soar
8%, 136; 138, 294; 1617, 135, 165%,
135; 198, 133; 23%, 135; 271%, 62;
2718 palm 2755 eA eee OO τ)
31”, 282; 374, 62; 38, 70; 38-39,
194; 4017:-., 145.
Hosea 2186. τοῖο 125, 219; 12315, 160.
| Jioel 14, 225.
Amos 5!!, 185; 64, 139 f.; 97, 132.
Obadiah 15, 296.
|) Joma αἴ το; 39592207 55) 21:
Micah 113, 273, 277.
Nahum 1!°, 160; 23, 160.
Habakkuk 37, 132.
Zephaniah 115, 225; 3'°, 133; 32%, 282.
Zechariah 11°, 170; 73-5, 215; 88, 160;
83, 2815 8.9. rss oll), 206:
Psalms 7 aa (), 206; 22 TOA N33" u0R)s
348, Ἐν Bye αὐ πο θέ πόθι
859, 306; 330 62; 971, 280; 10538,
280; 11978, 294; 119!%, 294; 137%,
160; 139!, 281.
Proverbs 127, 198; 207!, 62.
Jioby τὸ 2577781029) 2075101o 2Θ 7; Ὁ»;
210; το}, 219; 1035, 302; 2228, 280;
30%, 280; 39%, 159.
Canticlesm54 563501454 50s eras
6, 144.
Ruth 21, 1315, τὰς, ΠῚ 3°, 2433 147,
204.
Lamentations 1!, 133; 354, 62.
cclesiastesp284 93, 25. 2... sos 2.»
63; 2%, 63; 3" 63; 3.1, 166; 3%,
166; 3%, 223; 51, 62, 1773 57, 133;
65, 62, 26x: ‘73, TOO 73... 02. ἘΠῚ:
78, 63; 89, 63; 810, 63; 10, 63;
WOH TAR τ τ, 1035: Aya 125 05;
129; (ORS 12) eae
Esther (except passages discussed
in regular order in the commen-
tary).
Esther 17 7, 10; 22) 25), 27; 33; 39;
48, 52, 54, 59, 61, 63, 72 ἢ, 119,
208, 240, 273; I? IQ, 22, 27, 54,
59, 62 f., 211, 231, 242, 283;
13f-, το, 25, 41, 59, 04f., 208, 251,
278, 290, 304; I4, 22, 27, 41, 59,
63, 128, 240, 243, 246, 280; 1°, 22,
25, 27, 38, 48, 59, 62, 126, 179,
225, 250; σ0, 9,25; 2h: 538: 2.7;
65, 279; 17, 22, 25, 27, 159, 177)
ΤΟΣ; 18, 22) 20/2, ΟΣ 92 ΖΊΩΝ 287;
19, 38, 48, 66, 72, 150, 224 f., 2315
110, 22, 26 f.,-38, 48, 66-68, 165,
TOTES 7257 OAs) Τὴ} ΤῸ. 22) 720,
63, 66, 89, 184, 279, 281; 1%, 22,
26, 38, 66, 73; 113, 26 f., 38, 48, 61,
722385 14) ΤΩ; 22) 20 fens 25500,
65 f., 68, 194, 304; 1, 27, 59, 63,
ὍΟ, 102, 512, 217. 2:1: 185225138,
48, 54, 66, 73; 17, 59, 62, 66, 159,
223; 118, 22, 26f., 62; 1%, 19, 2017.»
2S NAS 2,65 Os 0, 72, 225... 2530,
INDEX 337
269, 271, 278, 286, 298, 304;
TS TS Boy ἀ50) 220; a ike. Ἐ77;
240, 265; 1”, 26 f., 38, 59, 63, 72,
147, 208, 269, 273, 298; 2!, 19, 22,
38, 48, 62, 66, 73, 266; 25, 45, 72,
245; 25, 26 f,, 38, 66, 69, 126, 155,
L7 Ἐ74; 180) LOO, 2502" 2017.»
3858005725077. 240: 205; 25; 22;
48, 63, 66, 73, 104, 126, 147, 176,
188, ΤΟΊ, 195, 239, 255; 2°f-, 19,
23, 27, 38, 51, 52; 27, 23, 20f., 38,
69, 93, 224; 28%, 23, 26 f., 38, 66,
72. οὐ 120: 1251. 252} 25. 1Τ0} 23,
26, 7, 38, 45; 48, 50, 62 f2, 148,
180, 226, 260, 278, 290; 210, 19,
26, 38, 72 f., 96, 147, 199, 218 f,,
200 81278;, 211; 726,72) f:, τόν,
175, 188, 199, 214, 216, 239, 250;
5 fey 48: 73, 1055 172,. 180,
212, 240; 215, 20.7.;} 165, 174, 231;
244, 15, 26 f., 66, 69, 247, 251, 258;
215, 27, 43, 45, 95, 71, 73, 143, 159,
17251501200, 225) 2321, 271: 21: ΤΟ,
23) 59; 63, 66, 72, 151, 177) 233)
279, 281; 218, 26 f., 38, 45, 63, 136,
141; 219, 26, 38, 49, 167, 181, 195;
214, 217, 237, 239, 250, 254;
229, 19, 45, 59, 93, 73, 96, 216,
269; 271, 19, 23, 26 7.; 43, 54, 66,
176, 188, 237, 239, 245, 250, 272,
282; 2%, 264; 273, 58 f., 74, 162,
193, 245 7., 250, 302, 304; 31f-, 19,
23, 38, 43, 45, 48 f., 66, 69, 72 7.»
193, 197, 206, 238, 256, 260, 269,
295, 304; 3”, 19, 26, 38, 49, 62,
65, 73, 90, 127, 167, 188, 193,
237-239, 250; 33, 23) 26 ifs 38,
188, 197, 230; 3', 27, 41, 73, 175;
101, 196, 255, 278; 3°, 7, 26, 43;
3°, 26 f., 49, 73 7.» 191, 199, 255,
272, 282; 37, 23, 26 f., 38, 55,
5.7.5 64.7:,.71,.72.7.5. 0451003) ΘΚ;
208, 243, 255; 3°, 23, 26.}.;.387.40,
58 f., 61, 63, 74, 85, 155, 163, 175,
177, 192 212; 3°, 19, 23, 38, 59
60, 62 f., 74, 157, 159, 209, 217,
219, 236, 238, 240, 251, 268, 271,
283; 3'°, 26, 59, 194, 260, 268, 295;
31, 23, 26, 73, 250, 265, 268;
3, 38, 54, 62, 64, 72, 124, 160,
226, 240, 269, 272, 273, 283, 298;
3", 33, 59, 65, 162, 201, 206 7.)
269, 272-275, 278, 282 f.; 34, 27,
38, 40, 219, 251, 276; Sh 23) 26 7.)
38, 59, 63, 74, 126, 208, 215, 256.7.;
273, 278, 280, 287; 4}, 19, 23, 26,
22
38, 49, 63, 73, 147, 215, 280; 45, 23,
Ὧ5; ΘΌΣ 72, Χ7ῸΣ τϑϑν ἡ 20 7. 35)
59, 63, 95, 215, 225 f., 243, 26ο,
280, 282, 284, 301; 41, 26, 38,
40 f., 49, 59, 63, 239, 298; 45, 19,
20, 38, 41, 66, 70, 210, 219, 223;
45, 41, 70, 188, 280; 47, 41, 52, 63,
213.) 250) 271} 422759305) 41) 02,
258; 4°, 41, 70, 258; 41°, 38, 49, 79,
219; 411, 23, 26 f., 59, 61, 63, 72,
127, 189, 219, 231, 233, 247 fs
269, 278; 412, 19, 27, 38; 413, 26 1,
59, 62, 126, 223, 246; 414, 267., 38,
63, 94f., 226, 260, 282 f.; 4%, 26f,,
38; 418, 7, 20f., 40 7., 63, 73, 95.»
ISI, 282, 291; 417, 75 22: 33, 49};
5!, 7, 19, 23, 26 f-, 33, 49, 63, 143,
147, 159, 194, 223, 225 f., 263,
269, 283; 5%, 27, 44, 63, 177, 223;
5°, 19, 62, 257, 286; 5%, 8, 38, 43,
74, 149, 157, 159, 236, 257 f., 269;
55, 27, 41, 50, 252, 265; 59, 27 f.,
62, 233, 257, 262, 286; 5’, 6, 207,
G2, 745 234; 248; 58) 22; 38, 027»
157, 159, 257 7.) 269; 5%, 19, 26,
38, 41, 50, 63, 188, 239, 250;
51, 26, 38, 59, 66, 70, 88 f., 239,
2557-2573 5": 7; 2017:; 38, 59, 127,
268, 304, 305; 512, 38, 257; 5%, 8,
102, £75, LOS LOL, 237250,
255; 544, 19, 23, 28, 38, 59, 95, 70,
74, 88, 177, 191, 247, 255, 257,
264; 61, 19, 23, 26, 28, 38, 44, 48,
50, 58, 74, 76, 162, 192 f., 223,
250m 202) 202, 30 Ἵν ΟΣ 20; 2. 7:
28, 52, 204, 272; 2783) 08, Ζθ, 25,
38, 41, 43, 59, 135, I91, 250;
64, 26, 38, 43, 50, 74, ΤΟΊ, 219,
223; 6, 27; 6%, 7, 26 f., 63, 135,
246, 252; 67, 27; 68, 26-28, 38, 63,
65, 75, 151, 159, 190 f., 225, 279,
281 .6Ὁ; 27.7., Τ35;. 270; 280; 285;
610, 23, 28, 73, 188, 191, 235, 237,
239; 254, 205; ous 7) 23) 26 f., 38,
50, 126, 191, 279;. 612, 63, 188,
213, 237, 239, 264; 613, 23, 26 f.,
59, 70, 73, 217; 238, 271; 71; 27)
50, 58, 211; 7%, 27 f., 38, 62, 181,
233, 236f., 262, 286; 7%, 62 f., 73,
157, 159, 234, 236, 269; 71, 26, 28,
38,02) 7;, 260, 2693, 75), 27) 7.5138,
265; 7°, 19, 26, 59, 62, 73, 745
77, 8, 26, 28, 50, 62, 137, 144, 219,
230), 288) 78, 20, 28, 38, 58,62;
74, 93, 96, 126, 255, 269, 296;
7°, 23, 27, 38, 59, 66, 157, 191,
338
268, 296; 71°, 38, 44, 59, 191, 270,
287, 296; 7%, 33; 81, 28, 50, 59,
260, 274, 279, 297; 8, 7, 28, 38,
73, 206, 304; 8%, 26 f., 38, 50, 59,
219, 263, 295, 296; 84, 26-28, 38,
63, 223; 85, 7) 26-28, 38, 59; 63,
ΤΕ) Τῷ, 2320; 335 7» 28; 28: (0.
200; 87, 26-28, 38, 44, 101, 230,
287; 88, 26, 28, 38, 43, 61, 72, 157,
206, 208, 269, 285, 298; 89, 7, 26-
28; 54; 7251190, 122 7: Ττ22, GO}
206, 208, 21:2, 223, 282, 208, 304;
810, 26-28, 54, 65, 162, 208 f., 269;
8", 7, 26 f., 59, 63, 74, 96, 206,
209, 276, 282 f., 286, 289; 812, 23,
26 f., 38, 44, 59; 813, 27, 38, 41,
162, 212, 274, 291; 84, 26 f., 62f.,
120; 17,75) 298; 213; 250; 2001 273;
815, 10, 26-28; 50; 02:5, 126,738;
159, 196, 225; 248, 251, 254, 304;
8'5, 27, 62, 135; 817, 26, 28, 50,
61, 63, 95, 225, 260, 282-284,
289 f., 293, 297; 91, 26, 28, 38, 50,
59, 63, 225, 260, 274, 293; 9%, 7,
26 f., 74, 96, 272, 280, 289; 93, 26,
28, 60, 124, 212, 283, 304; 91, 26-
28, 38, 147; 9°, 27 f., 62, 289;
9°, 26 f., 126, 290; 97, 6, 66; 98, 7of.;
9°, 7, 71, 138; 9!°, 26, 59, 62, 238,
260, 268, 280; ΟἿ 23, 27, 38) 51,
120; 015, 7; 20-28; 50} (O25) 126,
233, 237; ΘΙ 74; οὔ, 157, 191;
9", 7, 19, 59, 62, 191, 223, 284,
296; οἷδ, 27, 38, 41, 59, 62, 206,
225, 289; 91, 7, 26-28, 51, 59,
62 f., 274, 283; 9!7, 26, 38, 55, 59,
80, 84, 290, 293; οἱ, 7: 26--28,
59, 290; 9'%, 27 f., 58 7., 63, 79,
95, 98, 174, 281, 297; Ὁ") 7, 26-
28, 44, 48, 51 δ, 55, 57-61, 74,
162, 269, 272, 292, 297, 300, 301;
9”, 7, 59, 50, 63, 79, 95, 174, 215,
281, 290, 301; 028; 7, 26, 51, 59,
298, 301; 9%, 8, 23, 26 f., 38,
41, 58-60, 91, 260, 298; 9%, 26-
28, 58-60, 162, 191, 269, 295, 298;
9%, 26, 28, 51, 55, 59, 60, 63, 74,
84, 225, 260, 302; 957, 8, 19, 27-
32, 38, 59, 60 f., 63, 74; 95> 147,
159, 199, 204, 298, 301; 978, 26-
28, 59 f.5 9°, 7, 26, 28, 38, 51,
59 f-, 63, 66, 138, 181; οἷ, 26 f.,
41, 54, 56, 59, 162, 269; 9%, 27 f,,
59 f., 63, 147, 215, 300; 9%, 28,
57, 59-61, 63, 162, 192; τοὶ, 28,
41, 48, 51, 54, 50s, 186; 10%, 27)
INDEX
42, 57-60, 63, 128, 162, 192, 217,
21051202.) 3025) 10%, 25; 52) 509.»
63, 66, 72.
Daniel 13, 135; 15, 174, 236; 18, 236;
FIA ere eet Ἐ5Ὶ: 2.0) ΤῚΣ» 2.7 75)
3), 1235 5.» 14055 753 58) 1515
578,285 15.» 75: 5. 240; 107);
L235 O88) 5; 09 (8); 7.2, 125; ΤῊ»
159; 6! (2), 128, 157; GI {15} 128;
64, 177; 6, 75; 33, 126, 133, 134;
811, 1025) 2025/9870 283) 64) ..235;
85, 63; οἱ, 51, 52; 93, 63, 214, 225;
9’, 294; ταῦ, 63; 1117, 63; 11%, 62;
133; 11%, 144; 121, 274.
Ezra 1, 131; 21, 124, 133; 277-, 169;
28%, 224; 3°, 282; 45, 281; 45-7, 52;
4°, 122; q!!, 212; 41%, 192; 433, 212;
44, 52; 55, 212; O'-, 134; 7°, 62;
W202 7, ΤΡ... 9533), ΘΖ 210;
825, 143; 858, 146; g!f-, 282; 011, 282;
10%, 282.
Nehemiah 1!, 126, 134; 15, 133;
H
24, 62, 219; 25, 157; 2°, 63, 149;
25. Gecyle alibi Stone ΒΕ 200:
518, 63; 77, 1343 7% 124; 77%, 169;
7%, 225; 81, 62, 131; 81°, 174;
82, 174; 9, 62, 246; 9°, 282;
1079, 282; τοῦτ, 282; 113, 124;
1214) 63; τ 58: On.
Chronicles 416{-ς, 168; 431, 62;
443:., 194; πο 282; 833, 167; 9”,
147; 12%, 151; 134, 62; 151%, 62;
oT MOgsw 2Tle O22 δος 62, 7202;
225, 62,02, 24032210235 225,
219; 285, 133; 20', 134; 29%, 139,
145; 29°, 207; 2010; 134; 2011; 136.
2 Chronicles 11, 131; 118, 246; 213, 62;
3", 62; 51%, 62; 6%, 282; 718, 133;
12. 150; 128%, (152; 15°, 282;
14%8-, 132; 1413, 62; 1712, 285; 188,
235; 20%, 63; 2116, 132; 247, 199;
25%, 304; 2618, 63; 267°, 62, 63, 213;
2671, 62; 287, 304; 28%, 304; 2971,
62; 2977, 62; 295°, 62; 314, 62;
31", 62; 321%, 282; 32%, 304; 33",
62; 34, 136; 357, 62, 177-
1 Esdras 32, 123.
Pobit pays 5i τὸ) 3045 2.5, 75;
1118. 75; Τὴ 70; 10; 76:
Rest of Esther, A!-!7, 119; Α', 92,
172; Α2:, 43; Allt., 192; A, 192;
Al A7, 41; A's, 43, 193; aS; 193;
A™, 193; ΑἸ 43, 191, 108;
ΑΔ 43, 195; Bi, 123; C'-99, 227;
Cr, 175; C87, 45; C7, τοῦ; Cv-™,
173; ΟΝ, 43; C*-27, 43; C27-29, 453
INDEX 330
D333) . 5. 550; ἘΠ 253; ἘΠῚ 122;
Bt 84g; be, 44; iM) Sa; ἘΠῚ, 42;
ἘΠῚ ror; i, 44; ἘΛῚ 33, ° 300;
Fu, 30; τὸ; 05; 10115, 33, 306;
II, 90; I1!, 30; I1?, 33, 90, 110;
11.1.1; re 42; 12; 42;.1.2}. 43;
125, ὯΔ; Eas Ὁ 33; 13. 1410; 33,
227.) 12. 0. an 12. 100; 144; 42;
ἘΠ 10. ΑΞ ΤΑ, 4; 15. 5. 33»
161-24) Rae 1610, 433 τό", 535 16!7,
43; 1618, 44; 16%, 44.
Ecclesiasticus 44-49, 61, 66.
1 Maccabees 134; 615, 206; 739-50, 78;
AO} 78; abe 78; Ay 61, 78, 80; 817,
223-) 10%, 185; 12. 223.
2 Maccabees 1520-8, 78; 1558, 61, 78,
80, 91.
Matthew 152, 98; 181°, 153; 2315, 61;
2715, 185.
Mark 6%, 233; 7%, 98; 7°, 98.
Luke 147, 239, 259.
John 749, 282; 1119-42, 256.
Acts 5%, 259.
Hebrews, 7°', 169.
ἀν
ἘΝῚ Νὴ ὌΝ Ν ᾿ ae ἝΝ
“Ὁ
ἫΝ ᾿ oh Ν ΕΥ̓ we wr) ~~
‘Ra! τὰ, ἐὲξν arom] ἐγ κὰν ὧν Δ ΨΥ" ῃ αἱ
(By thers eal ia μα μιν
eae ee aan sa ae ΑΝ
: εἰ os eS ΦᾺ τ }
ἂν 1 Wer ee πο) DE "
ἐπι ὶ».} ; Ὁ 1} ,
: ; ον ee rs
iG i ooh Wu)
Ἷ ν᾽: hig re
: \ ave, |
ἫΝ
i |
1}
Ps
Ὕ
. '
‘
*
Pa)
ΟῚ
Paton, Le. Be —
Book of Esther.
iy
AHN)
i A ies
ΤΉΝ ὌΨΙ 1} |
ftten tbat
Νὴ
seas
FAS
} :
Wwe
ἢ
48
a
Ls
aii
u ἦν ,
γεν}
nests
‘
Δ
athe
s
mac aana owen
ἣ
sf ty
‘ nthe
Age
yf ‘
MAPS
i
Hy
SOAR IRAP
= =
eae
«ide it
ty ἡ ce i
᾿ ἢ
ΔΉ ΡΝ vied
ΗΝ ihe
Υ
‘
if
ey
ἡ hOG
ἐν ¢
TEE AES
Ν ἤν τς, ἣν i i
as ANY
4
4 At
ἀφ iii
Sen Let
<
ce
i
i
{πὰ
‘
SAY
Νὰ
que ἢ
σὴν
in
ἢ
Haas ΩΝ
i
‘ deat "
Ai HAN
i
ἢ τ ΜΗ
ἮΝ VIELEN eed!
ἡ ἢ ΔῊ
CEA LR
ἡ ἀμ ἢ, ἮΝ
HY
ἘΣ τ τ τος
ἐν
Whee ἐν ξένε
“ἢ:
Ne
il ite bi ony
See
ΞΞΞΞΞΞ
anid 1M
‘ fn} Ae Ni
; nt)
ae
ety
she
piste
if
th
Ὑ{}
ΝΗ
Ὁ
“ἰδὲ
ΤῊΝ
Do
Wied
δὴ
DEES
a
BA Nh
᾿
ἢ
ἢ
ἣν
ἢ
ΠΝ