the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai, whereunto the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?" Some passages display an acquaintance with Persian customs. The well-known one hundred and twentyseven provinces of Persia are mentioned; the eunuchs of the seraglio, the absence of females at the feast, the magi, (i. 5, 10, 15, 19;) the unchangeableness of the royal edicts, (verse 19, and viii. 8;) the use of lots in divination, (iii. 7;) the prohibition of all approach to the king without permission; the manner of publishing decrees, (iii. 12—15, viii. 14;) and others, (i. 5, ii. 9, iv. 11.) Besides, there is no theocratical spirit, or any fondness for Palestine. All these circumstances would favor the opinion that the author wrote in the Persian empire. An explanation is sometimes given of Persian customs and history; viii. 8, "seal it with the king's ring," says the monarch; and the writer adds, "for the writing which is written in the king's name, and sealed with the king's ring, may no man reverse." Chap. i. 13. "Then the king said to the wise men, which knew the times, (for so was the king's manner toward all that knew law and judgment;") and, Chap. i. 1. "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned from India even unto Æthiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces.)" These explanations would lead us to the time after the destruction of the Persian monarchy. The bloodthirsty spirit of revenge and persecution displayed in the book refers to the time of the Ptolemies and Seleucidæ ;" Bertholdt, p. 2449, sqq. Gesenius, in Allg. Lit. Zeit. for 1818, No. 54, p. 432. Hävernik puts it in the time of Artaxerxes. a at all events, the language belongs to a very late period." [Augustine, Isidore, and Origen, refer the book to Ezra; Mr. Horne inclines to the same opinion; forgetting that he died before the date of the alleged events. Some of the Jewish rabbins, with the PseudoPhilo, refer it to Jehoiachim, a high priest of the Jews. Other Jewish writers, whom Huetius follows, ascribe it to the men of the Great Synagogue. R. Isaac Ben Aramah goes so far as to add, that Esther entreated these worthies of the Great Synagogue to write the book, taking the facts from the Persian records. Aben Ezra, and the greatest part of the Jewish and Christian scholars, refer it to Mordecai. Clement of Alexandria was of this opinion. Spinoza thinks it was written by some Jewish scribe, after the restoration of the temple by Judas the Maccabee. An author in Leclerc's Biblio- Bibliothèque theca-supposed to be Leclerc himself—says the book embraces figments collected by Hellenistic Jews; while the grave authorities, Nicolius Serrarius and Oliver Bonartius, consider it the joint work of Esther and Mordecai. More modern writers, with better judgment, affirm only their ignorance of the authorship.] • The following examples are selected only from chap. i. Persian words: [♫7, verse 8, and often ;] 2,3; D, 20.-Later words, forms, and usages: 177, 5; 77,6; 7, 11; 7, 15; 2, with sense of command, 10, 17; 7, 1, and often; 2,5; 1, 2, and often; "", honor, 20; zi, marble; 7, 8; by i, 19. § 200. ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF ESTHER. The Alexandrian version and the Itala, besides other less important variations from the Hebrew text, contain some additions to the book of Esther, which Jerome, in his Latin version, has placed at the end of the book, and Luther has placed in the Apocrypha. Josephus, also, is acquainted with these." Antig. XI. 6. 1, et Lego From the contradictions between these fragments and the rest of the book, it appears they are not genuine. xi. xi. [In the English version of these passages, (*. 2, x. 1, افت &; XV. in the. sh, Eng sqq.,) it is said Mordecai discovered the conspiracy against the monarch in the second year of Artaxerxes. Now, from Esth. ii. 16, it appears Esther became queen in the seventh year, and at that time Mordecai sat at the king's gate, and "in these days, while he sat 1. A dream of Mordecai, which, in the Alexandrian version, is prefixed to i. 1; in the Vulgate and English version, it appears after xi. 1–xii. 6. It is chap. vii. in Luther's Bible. 2. The decree of Haman, referred to in iii. 12, sqq. In the Alexandrian version, this is placed after iii. 13. It is xiii. 1–7 in the Vulgate and English Bible, and chap. i. in Luther. 3. A prayer of Mordecai and Esther, which, in the Seventy, is put after iv. 17; in the Vulgate and English, xiii. 8—xiv. 19; and ii. and iii. in Luther's version. 4. An embellished account of the scene between Esther and the king, v. 1, 2, in the Seventy; xv. 4—19, in the Vulgate and English; and iv. in Luther. 5. The edict of Mordecai, alluded to in viii. 9. In the Septuagint, this occurs after viii. 12; in the Vulgate and English, xvi. 1-15; Luther, vi. 24 6. An explanation of Mordecai's dream, and an account of the manner in de known which the feast of Purim was celebrated in Egypt. In the Alexandrian, Vulgate, and English versions, this is placed after x. 3; and in chap viii. in Luther's version. at the gate," discovered the conspiracy. The names of the two conspirators differ in the two accounts. In the first, they are 'Bigthan and Teresh, (ii. 21;) in the second, Gabatha and Tharra, (Apoc. xii. 1.) In one, Haman is angry because Mordecai will not do homage to him, (iii. 5;) in the other, on account of the eunuchs of the king, (xii. 6.) In ix. 20 and 32, Mordecai sends letters commanding the Jews to keep the feast of Purim, and Esther confirms these letters; but in xvi. 22, the king himself orders, not merely the Jews, but all his subjects, to keep it, "among their solemn feasts, a high day, with all feasting."] From its religious tone, it is probable it is of Hel- Mistrancíalenistic and Alexandrian origin.* This appears, also, tion ne from the party-colored and bombastic language, and different the transformation of Haman into a Macedonian, (xvi. <e. Greek, 10 and 14.) Bertholdt thinks the fragments were not, as the first added as supplementary notes, and has based this genuine for. tion, Hebrew. opinion on the incompleteness of these fragments in the Hebrew manuscripts, and in the Syriac and Arabic versions in the London Polyglot." Eichhorn, Einl. in die Apocryphen, p. 488, sqq. De Rossi (Specimen Varr. Lectt. sacri Textus et Chaldaica Estheris Additamenta; Tub. 1783) thinks the original book of Esther was a larger work, written in Chaldee by Mordecai, containing the present apocryphal additions, and the present book of Esther has been extracted from it. He founds this opinion upon a Hebrew MS. containing some of these chapters SD. in the Chaldee language. But Bertholdt (p. 2457, sqq.) has satisfactorily answered the claims of this hypothesis. See, also, Usseri, Syntagmata de Græcæ LXX. Interprett. Vers. cum Libri Esth. Editione Origenica, et vet. Græca altera, in the appendix. я і * This mistranslation appears to have and Mr. WrightCyclz, of Bibl. Lib. I. 664, end of into error. art. on See Kitto's Apeer. Additions to Esther. the 350 BOOK II. THE THEOCRATICAL INSPIRED BOOKS. tunes § 201. THEIR RELATION TO THE FOREGOING. WHILE the historical books show in what manner the relate its for theocracy originated, and point out its destiny, to warn and admonish later generations, here the present condition of the theocracy, and the future consequences of this condition, are treated of for the warning and admonition of the people. Here, as there, the same religious ideas are applied to the circumstances of the Jewish nation, and the same view of the world is taken. But the spirit and disposition" of the theocratic historian and that of the inspired prophet are different in this respect: The former, occupied with quiet contemplation of the past, gives rather the true picture of affairs than his own view of them; but the latter, impelled by his sympathy active participation in the present, and in the yet unformed future, living in the fire of inspiration and of holy zeal, expresses his own thoughts, demands, and wishes, cares and hopes, rather than paints the history of his time. This difference displays itself in their style.* Besides, the Hebrew historians pay little regard to with with Fando |