Esther

THE ADDITIONS TO ESTHER

INTRODUCTION

§ 1. CHARACTER OF THE ADDITIONS

The Additions to Esther consist of six passages (containing 107 verses not in the Hebrew text), inserted in the LXX text by way of amplification of subjects referred to in the canonical chapters.

It cannot be said that these Additions, which are imaginative reconstructions of a forgotten past, are of great interest or importance. Perhaps as much as two centuries separate their date from that of the canonical portions of Esther, and they emanate from a different centre of Jewish life and thought, which possessed no independent sources of historical information.

Any interest, therefore, that these fragments possess lies not in their power to enlarge our knowledge of the story of Esther, but in the reflection they offer of the religious development of the circle in which they originated.

If we are to attach any weight to the postscript found in the LXX (Esther 11:1)—and Ryssel’s reason for rejecting its witness is not sufficient—the translation of canonical Esther dates from not later than 114 b.c.; but it seems unlikely that the Additions were incorporated with the translated portions until after this postscript was appended. The Additions may not all be the work of one author, but they are not translations, and Greek was their original language.1 It is probable that the Additions, with their slightly Egyptian flavour (cf. the use of ἀδελφός in D 9, φίλοι in E 5, the application of the word ‘Macedonian’ to Haman in E 10, and ἐκτιθέναι in E 19), were composed in Egypt, where the veneration for the canonical book was naturally not so high as in Palestine, rather than in Palestine by Egyptian Jews temporarily residing there.2

But were the Additions made immediately upon the reception of the translation of Esther in Egypt, or only after some time had passed, and interest in the book had been awakened, and a desire aroused in the minds of patriotic Jews to hear the story of Esther in greater detail?

The latter hypothesis seems the more probable. Not only is time required for the creative activity of the imagination to get to work; but the postscript, which with its explicit reference to the translation of Esther must have been appended immediately on the introduction of the translation into Egypt, would surely have been worded differently, if the Additions had been already incorporated.

The date of the Additions, therefore, may be placed in the earlier part of the first century, and they may be regarded as contemporaneous with the Book of Wisdom. They can be referred to Maccabean times (as e.g. by Jacob and V. Ryssel) only by a complete rejection of the witness of the postscript.

Wisdom is the work of an Alexandrian Jew keenly distressed by Egyptian idolatry and by the growing laxity and indifference to the national religion on the part of a large number of the Jews resident in Egypt. The writer of Wisdom represents that more conservative section of the Egyptian Jews in whom the forces of reaction were at work, and who became the more ardently patriotic in proportion as they saw the traditions of their religion neglected.

The Additions to Esther may be accounted for in a similar way. The relations between the domiciled Jews of the Diaspora and the natives of the country were at times far from cordial, and in periods of trial and oppression, when the Jews were driven in upon themselves, it was natural for them to take refuge in the study of their sacred books, and of those especially, such as Esther, which told of the subjection of the heathen to the chosen people. It was only natural that elaborations of these favourite narratives should spring up, and in course of time take their place as authentic parts of the original works.

The Additions are free from all trace of Alexandrine doctrine, but there is no reason to suppose that every Jew residing in Egypt surrendered to the influence of the philosophic atmosphere of Alexandria. The practical purpose with which the Additions were composed would cause their author to eschew the introduction of all foreign elements. His hearers would be of the simpler type, not versed in speculation, but familiar only with the religious ideas of the O. T.; his object would be rather to confirm them in the old than to provide a meeting-place for the old with the new. Accordingly, the Additions might be expected to be strictly orthodox and conservative in tone; and this is exactly what we find. The spirit of simple prayer breathes in them, and trust in God and remembrance of God’s mercies to Israel are especially emphasized.

The object of the author is purely practical, and speculative questions are altogether beyond his range. It has been thought that the object of the Additions was ‘to remove the uneasiness arising from the secular tone of the original story’.1 This is a proposition very difficult to accept, suggesting as it does a deliberate effort to correct the canonical book, and thereby an implied censure on its character. The difference between the tone of the canonical book and the additions can be less invidiously accounted for, on the supposition that the latter came into existence to meet an historical need, and that floating legendary material was drawn upon for the purpose of consoling and strengthening a simple-minded people in adversity. If it is true that the Additions have introduced the religious note, it cannot be said that they have a materially higher tone. Hatred of the heathen and thirst for revenge appear in undiminished vehemence.

It has been assumed so far that we are justified in speaking of these six passages as additions, which first took shape in Greek. It is true that they are not all homogeneous, and that some of them are more Hebraic in character than others. But of two (Adds. B and E) it may be said2 that any re-translation of these rhetorical and florid pieces into Hebrew would be impossible, while of the rest it is enough to say that the Hebraisms they contain are fully accounted for by the fact that the Jew who composed them could not divest himself altogether of the idioms of his people.3 A somewhat paradoxical contention has been put forward by Langen, Kaulen, and Scholz, who are concerned to prove the authenticity of the Additions, the effect of which would be to show that the LXX form of Esther is the original, and the Hebrew only an abbreviated edition of the book. This hypothesis rests on the existence of various Midrashic compilations,4 and especially of an Aramaic piece known as ‘Mordecai’s Dream’, containing the Dream and the Prayer of Mordecai and the Prayer of Esther, of which the so-called Additions to Esther are ex hypothesi the Greek form.

But there is much more reason to regard these diffuse Aramaic fragments as being indirectly based on the LXX Additions than vice versa;5 and, further, inasmuch as not more than one of these pieces can be proved to have existed as early as even the middle of the fourth century, they are quite valueless as proofs of a Hebrew original earlier than that known to St. Jerome.

Almost equally baseless is the argument that the older and fuller Hebrew text was deliberately expurgated of the name of God, in order that it might not suffer dishonour when the Esther-roll was read during the course of the rather secular festival of Purim. Such editing of the book is far more difficult to credit than the hypothesis of subsequent additions.

One of the surest arguments against the original integrity of the book in its LXX form lies in the many discrepancies between the canonical Esther and the so-called Additions.6 Some of these may be noted here:—

(1). A 2. Mordecai is represented as holding a high position at court in the second year of Artaxerxes; but Esther 2:16 speaks of the seventh year.

(2). A 13. Mordecai himself informs the king of the conspiracy of the eunuchs; but Esther 2:21–23 says that Esther told the king in Mordecai’s name.

(3). A 16. Mordecai is rewarded for his services, but Esther 6:3, 4 shows that Mordecai had been forgotten.

(4). A 17. The reason for Haman’s grudge against Mordecai is that Mordecai had caused the death of the eunuchs, but in Esther 3:5 it is that Mordecai will not bow before Haman.

(5). C 26, 27. Esther protests her hatred of the position of queen to an uncircumcised alien. But the Hebrew makes no such suggestion.

(6). E 10. Haman is called a Macedonian, but in Esther 3:1 his father’s name is Persian.

(7). E 22. The Persians as well as the Jews are required to keep the feast of Purim; but in Esther 9:20–28 the Jews alone are charged to observe it.

The Additions are six in number, distinguished by Dr. Swete in his edition of the O. T. in Greek by the letters A to F in accordance with a suggestion made by the late Prof. Hort. As they stand in A.V. and R.V., they are practically unintelligible.1 Jerome’s relegation of the Additions to an appendix, in which their relation to the canonical chapters was altogether obscured, is responsible for this.

Not finding them in the Hebrew, he desired in his translation to mark the distinction between them and the authentic portions; and this arrangement was carried over into A.V. and R.V.2

Their contents are as follows:—

A. Mordecai’s Dream, and the conspiracy of the two eunuchs (a double of Esther 2:21–23). Precedes Esther 1:1.

B. The king’s Edict commanding the destruction of the Jews. Follows Esther 3:13, and expands 3:8–13.

C. Prayer of Mordecai, and Prayer of Esther. Follows Esther 4:17.

D. Esther’s appearance before the king. Follows D, and is an amplification of Esther 5:1, 2.

E. The king’s second Edict in favour of the Jews. Follows Esther 8:12.

F. Interpretation of Mordecai’s Dream. Follows Esther 10:3.

§ 2. MANUSCRIPTS

The current and unrevised text of the third century is more or less closely represented by the uncials:

B. Vaticanus, cent. 4.

A. Alexandrinus, cent. 5.

א. Sinaiticus, cent. 4.

N. Basilio-Vaticanus, cent. 87–9; and by many cursives, of which the most important are (as numbered by Holmes and Parsons, …