Book One: On the Sacred and Apocryphal Books

Chapter Seven: On the Book of Esther

Hitherto we have disputed of the first order of sacred books; now we will discourse separately of the individual books of the second order about which there is greater difficulty. And first the book of Esther presents itself to us, which three most grave authors have placed outside the canon. Melito Asianus in Eusebius Hist. bk.4 ch.16, Athanasius in his Synopsis, and Gregory Nazianzen in the Song he wrote about the genuine Scriptures. There were not lacking also those who thought indeed that Esther should be numbered among the sacred books but denied that the last seven chapters, which are not contained in the Hebrew texts, were genuine parts of it and thought should be cut off from the rest of the body as adulterated and foreign. St. Jerome was of this opinion as is collected from his preface. St. Jerome was followed not only before the Council of Trent by Nicholas of Lyra, Dionysius the Carthusian, Cardinals Hugo and Thomas de Vio, in their commentaries on this book, but also after the Council by Sixtus Senensis in bks.1 and 8 of the Holy Library.

But that this book is sacred and divine is proved with sufficient certainty by all the decrees of the Pontiffs and Councils; and also by the many testimonies of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Fathers which we noted above in the fourth chapter of this book. For if you take away Melito, Athanasius, and Gregory, all the rest agree about the divine authority of this book. But as to what concerns the chapters which are not contained in the Hebrew codices, we confirm that they too pertain to the sacred Canon with the following reasons.

For first it cannot be denied but that the ancient Councils of Laodicea and the Third of Carthage, and the old Greek Fathers, Origen on the first Psalm, Eusebius Hist. 3 ch.25, Cyril Catechesis 4 and Damascence 4 ch.18, and certain Latin Fathers, Hilary on the first Psalm, Innocent epist.3, Ruffinus on the Creed, and Augustine On Christian Doctrine 2 ch.8, when they number the volume of Esther among the sacred books, spoke of the volume which both they themselves and the universal Church were at that time using. But at that time the universal Church was using the sacred books in the edition which St. Jerome in his preface to Esther, and often elsewhere, is wont to call the vulgate, which, as he himself says, was contained in the tongue and letters of the Greeks; and that in this edition those seven chapters, which we are now dealing with, of the book of Esther were not lacking is evidenced first by the Greek texts themselves, which are carried abroad under the name of the Septuagint, and also by St. Athanasius in his Synopsis, where he writes out a summary and the first sentences of the individual books; evidenced also by St. Jerome who notes in several places in his translation that those seven chapters are not contained in the Hebrew texts but have been taken by himself from the vulgate edition. Wherefore, if the Councils and Fathers retained in the sacred Canon the book of Esther that they had been accustomed to read, then certainly they retained the whole book, including these seven adjoined chapters.

What of the fact that the Fathers not only number the book itself among the sacred books but also not seldom seek their testimony from the seven last chapters? See Chrysostom homil.3 to the people of Antioch, and Augustine epist.199 to Edicia? What of the fact that Origen in epist. to Julius Africanus shows this very part of the book of Esther, that is not contained in the Hebrew volumes, to be sacred and canonical? “In the book of Esther,” he says, “neither the prayers of Mardoch nor those of Esther, which are able to edify readers, are found among the Hebrews, nor even the letters, neither the one written by Aman about the overthrow of the nation of the Jews, nor that of Mardoch freeing the nation from death in the name of king Artaxerxes. These things are found in the Septuagint and in Theodotion.” And later: “See then that we do not imprudently and unknowingly remove the exemplars that are possessed everywhere in the Churches, and have a law of fraternity to set aside the sacred books that are in use in them and instead agree with the Hebrews and persuade them to endow us with pure versions and ones that have nothing of invention in them. Has not providence in the holy scriptures given edification to all the churches of Christ? Did it have no care for those who were bought at the price at which Christ died?”

Add to this lastly the decree of the Council of Trent, session 4, in which all the books numbered a little before in the decree itself are approved along with all their parts, in the way they are accustomed to be read in the Church and are contained in the Latin vulgate edition. And although the authority of this Council is held in no regard by the heretics, but it is very ancient for Sixtus and the rest of the Catholics.

But the Council, said Sixtus bk.1, speaks of true parts of the books, not of additions, such as are the last chapters of the book of Esther. But if the response of Sixtus were thus true, many other parts of the sacred books of Daniel, Mark, Luke, John would be called into doubt among Catholics. For what would Sixtus have to say if, when he puts up the decree of the Council as a wall for preserving those parts of the sacred volumes, the response is made by adversaries that the Council spoke of true parts, but that the parts in question are additions and not parts?

Next who could have doubted that when certain books were approved by the Council all true parts too of those books were approved. Wherefore does the Council add those words (“with all their parts”) save that all may understand that those parts too, about which there had once been controversy, pertain to the canon of the sacred books?

Lastly the Council of Trent so clearly explained its opinion in the following words that no place is left for subterfuge. For when it said: “if anyone [not accept] the complete books along with all their parts” it always added “in the way they are accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church.” But who does not know that in the fourth day after the second Sunday of the 40 days of Lent, a reading from Esther ch.13 is intoned publicly in the Church among the solemn liturgies? And again that from the same chapter a reading is proclaimed in the Mass that is wont to be said against the Pagans? And lastly that the prayer of Esther is recited from ch.14 of the same book, on the 22nd Sunday after Pentecost, when the Gospel and Creed are intoned? But it will be worth while to resolve the arguments of adversaries.

They say first, since the book of Esther was written in the Hebrew tongue, that those seven chapters, which are not possessed by the Hebrews, must without doubt be considered spurious. We reply with Origen in the cited place that it is probable those chapters were once in the Hebrew text and then by some chance fell out. Certainly Josephus Antiquities 11 ch.6 tells two stories of Esther, and does not omit the two letters of Assuerus, and the oration of Mardoch, although none of these is now contained in the Hebrew codices; nor is it credible that these were made up by Josephus, since he himself in bk.10 ch.12 says this about himself: “At the beginning of my history,” he says, “on account of those who raise questions or strive to blame me in something, I set out saying that I will translate the Hebrew books into the Greek tongue, and promising that for those who wish to open them I will neither add anything separately nor take anything away.”

It can also be replied that the first author of this book, who undertook to write the history of Esther in Hebrew, wrote only the sum of the story; then at another time the same history was written more copiously and translated into Greek by Lysimachus, when Ptolemy Epiphanes and Cleopatra were reigning in Egypt, as is show in this very book in ch.11. Further the Hebrew book of the first author but not the book but only the translation of the second author has come down to us.

Secondly, they object that the later chapters do not cohere with the earlier ones. For in chapter 2 are narrated the plots of the two Eunuchs and the detection of the same by the efforts of Mardoch. Next again the same things are narrated in chs.11-­‐12, but in the prior place the plots are said to have happened in the seventh year of Assuerus, and in ch.6 is added that Mardoch, who exposed them, did not receive any reward; but in the later place they are said to have happened in the second year of Assuerus, and it is added that money was given for revealing them.

I reply that those seven chapters of Esther that are last in the Latin vulgate are not really last but some of them pertain to the beginning of the book, as chs.11 and 12. Some to the middle as chs.13-­‐16. Some to the end as ch.10, as is plain both from the Greek codices, where they are all collected in their proper order, and from the note of Jerome, inserted in chs.10-­‐11 and following of this book in Latin Bibles. But the Church allows the chapters to stay together at the end of the book, where St. Jerome placed them, so that we may understand what of this book is in the Hebrew codices and what is not.

The story of the plots, then, that are in ch.12 in Latin Bibles, pertain to the beginning of the book and there by way of anticipation the plots are narrated which are again narrated later in their own place, ch.2, but not in the second year, as seems to be collected from ch.11 if indeed the words of ch.11 are in the second year of Artaxerxes and should not be extended up to the narration of the plots, but only to the things that are said in ch.11 itself, that is to the dream that Mardoch saw before Esther married Assuerus.

As to the objection about reward for revealing the plots, there is no difficulty. For although Mardoch did not have a reward for revealing them, when the King ordered the annals to be read to him, as is said in ch.6, yet he did afterwards have a most ample reward, which is described in the same ch.6 and it is indicated in ch.12 in the words “reward given for revelation”.

You will say perhaps that if these things are narrated by way of anticipation, why in the Greek texts do the words follow “And it happened after this in the days of Artaxerxes etc.” for it is narrated that the banquet of King Assuerus was in the third year of his reign, and Scripture indicates that it happened after the discovery of the plot, which we said above happened in the seventh year. We reply that the words “after this” are not referred to what is narrated by way of anticipation but to the dream of Mardoch, which had been narrated in its proper place.

Objection is made third that the last chapters are in conflict with other parts of this book and make the whole book suspect. Since indeed in the letter of Assuerus, which is contained in ch.16, it is said that Aman was in race and mind a Macedonian and wanted to transfer the kingdom to the Macedonians, from these words is collected that the history of Esther happened in the last years of the Persian Kings, for Assuerus could not have been afraid that the kingdom of the Persians would be transferred to the Macedonians unless that kingdom were already of some renown. But the kingdom of the Macedonians was most obscure right up to the time of Philip, father of Alexander the Great, as Justin testifies at the end of bk.6; and not at the beginning of Philip’s reign but not until the 20th year did the strength of his kingdom begin to be suspicious for the Persians, as Diodorus says in bk.6. But the 20th year of Philip happened in the 23rd year of King Artaxerxes Ochus, as can be seen from Eusebius’ Chronicle. But in no way could it happen that the history of Esther took place after the 23rd year of Ochus, for I ask, who was the king of Persians how had Esther as wife? Ochus? But this story was completed not after the 23rd year but after the 12th year of king Assuerus, as is seen in Esther ch.3. Was Arses the successor of Ochus? But he reigned only four years; for which reason neither could Darius, Arses’ successor, and last king of Persians have been spouse of Esther; since he had the kingdom for only six years.

Add the fact that if the story of Esther belongs to the end of the Persian kingdom, Mardoch would have lived almost 300 years. For Mardoch was taken along with Jechoniah from Jerusalem to Babylon by Nabuchodonosor, king of the Chaldees, Esther chs.2, 11, and certainly he was then of some age. He then remained in captivity 70 years. He would have survived afterwards from the beginning of the reign of Cyrus to the end of that of Ochus, which are 220 years. Join 70 years with 220 and add still the few other years before the captivity and you will find almost 300 years; and the difficulty is increased because of Esther; for since she was the granddaughter of Mardoch, according to Jerome’s version, or cousin, according to the Greek and Hebrew codices, she was either Mardoch’s equal or not much younger; and even if she was 100 years later she would have been at least 200 years old when she married Assuerus. But who can believe that an old woman of 200 was that most beautiful virgin whom the King of the Persians loved before all women?

We reply that there are many opinions of writers about the time when Esther lived, and although they are not all equally probable, yet none is so improbable that, if we follow it, we can dissolve the proposed objection.

Some therefore set the story of Esther before the end of the Babylonian captivity, and they want Assuerus, father of Darius the Mede, of whom mention is made in Daniel ch.9, to be spouse of Esther. This opinion seems to have pleased Melchior Cano On Places bk.11 ch.6, and Gerard Mercator in his Chronology; these authors, in response to the objection about Anan, who wanted to transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians, would reply that Anan did not want to do this because then the kingdom of the Macedonians was so flourishing that it was in contention for the empire of the earth; but on the contrary, rather, because he was, an together with his race, a Macedoni, he wanted to make his race, then obscure, most illustrious, by transfer of the noblest kingdom to himself and to his men.

However this opinion is improbable. First because the husband of Esther is everywhere said to be Artaxerxes, which name does not agree with the Medes, since it is proper to the kings of the Persians.

Second because Esther’s husband ruled from India up to Ethiopia, Esther ch.1. But the Medes never possessed so ample an empire. We are speaking of the times of the kings of the Medes before the monarchy of Cyrus. For although at that time the reign of the Medes was greater than that of the Persians, as St. Jerome testifies on Daniel ch.5, yet that kingdom of the Medes was not as ample as was afterwards the monarchy of the Persians, or the kingdom of Esther’s husband.

Third because Esther’s husband expressively calls himself a Persian and King of the Persians, Esther last ch. But Assuerus, of whom Daniel 9 treats, was of the seed of the Medes.

Fourth because Esther’s husband acknowledged his kingdom from the God of the Hebrews, Esther last ch. But we never read that the Medes worshipped the God of the Jews; but of Cyrus and his successors we do read this. For in I Chronicles last ch. and in Ezra 1.1, Cyrus says: “the God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has commanded me to build a house in Jerusalem,” and Ezra 1.6-­‐7 letters are read from Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of the Persians, in which these kings acknowledge the God of the Jews, and order sacrifices to him for themselves and their kingdom.

Fifth, because Esther’s husband had his palace in Susa, Esther ch.1. But Susa was not the seat of the Medes but of the Persians, as Solinus writes ch.58 and Diodorus bk.11 and Plutarch on Artaxerxes. Nor is Justin bk.1 contrary to this or Quintus Curtius bk.4 who write that the palace of the Persians was at Persepolis. For as Strabo reports, bk.15, Persepolis and Susa were the royal cities of the Persians. But Persepolis was called royal because in it were the treasures and tombs of the kings; but Susa was where the kings themselves dwelled. Cyrus established his seat at Susa, because since the city there was located on the borders of Assyria, Persia and Media, the whole kingdom could be more easily defended and ruled. So Assuerus the husband of Esther was not a Mede but a Persian.

The opinion of others is that the husband of Esther can be no other than Cambyses, who is also called Assuerus, Ezra 1.4. Which opinion of the Jews is found in their Chronology, and Gilbert Genebrardus follows it in his chronology.

Further the Jews number only three kings of the Persians, Cyrus, Assuerus, and Darius, who was conquered by Alexander the Great. Wherefore no question remains about the age of Mardoch and Esther, or about Aman and the kingdom of Macedon. But that there were only three kings of the Persians is proved by two testimonies of Scripture. One is Daniel 11 where Daniel, after he has said that there will be three kings in Persia after Darius the Mede, immediately continues about Alexander: “But a strong king will arise and will dominate etc.” The second is in Ezra 2.12 where Nehemiah numbers the great priests from Joshua the son of Josedech to Iaddus who it is clear performed his priesthood in the times of Alexander the Great. From which it seems to follow that there were rather few kings of the Persians, since Nehemiah, who was scarcely mature at the time of Cyrus the first king, reached the times of Alexander the Great who destroyed the monarchy of the Persians.

But we do not at all approve of this opinion of the Jews. For Assuerus the husband of Esther reigned 12 years, Esther 3. But Cambyses lived only in a reign of seven years and five months, according to Herodotus bk.3, and only for six years, if we believe the Hebrew Josephus, Antiquities 2.2, with whom all other writers agree. Nor can the Jews says that there many years besides in which Cambyses ruled with his father Cyrus, although the same Jews want Cyrus to have ruled for three years.

Next Cambyses in the whole of his rule pursued the Jews with hatred, nor did he ever permit the temple to be built at Jerusalem, as is plainly collected from Ezra 1.4. Who then would believe that Cambyses was the Assuerus who, after the death of Aman, was most friendly to the Jews? What of the fact that our Assuerus in Esther last ch. indicates that he is far distant by a long interval from the times of Cyrus, when he says that by the kindness of God was the kingdom given to his ancestors and has been preserved to his own times, which words certainly do not fit Cambyses who was next after Cyrus.

Nor is the foundation of the Jews about the three kings of the Persians a solid one, since it is not only contradicted by all the Greek and Latin histories and by Josephus himself, a Hebrew by nation and religion, but also by Daniel and Ezra. For Daniel ch.11 after the words “Behold still three kings will stand in Persia” there follows, “And a fourth will be wealthy with riches beyond all others; and when he is strong with his riches he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of the Greeks.” In these words is Xerxes openly described, who came to Greece with an innumerable army.

But in Ezra 1 ch.4 mention is made of Cyrus, who ordered the temple to be built; of Assuerus or Artaxerxes who prohibited it; and of Darius who again commanded the temple to be built. Next, ch.6, after Darius is put another Artaxerxes who is also named in Ezra 2 ch.2. But the reason that Daniel immediately passes after Xerxes to Alexander the Great is, as St. Jerome writes on that place, because Daniel had not proposed to put together a history of kings, but to foretell the changes of kingdoms. Therefore he numbered the kings of the Persians up to Xerxes, who waged war against the Greeks, to indicate that thence afterwards occasion was taken for the Greeks to be armed against the Persians and ultimately to despoil them of the kingdom under the leadership of Alexander.

The other argument about the number of the High Priests is dissolved by Beda bk.3 on Ezra ch.32, where he says Nehemiah enumerated the genealogy of the High Priest Joshua up to Iaddus, because he reached the infancy of Iaddus. For as we have it in 2 Ezra last ch. at the time of Nehemiah the supreme Pontiff was Eliasib, grandson of Joshua and great grandfather of Iaddus, who at the time of Alexander was already an old man bearing the high priestly office; but between the end of Artaxerxes Longimanus and the beginning of Alexander there are 95 years. Therefore it could very well happen that Iaddus who was an old man at the time of Alexander was an infant at the time of Nehemiah.

The opinion of others is that the husband of Esther was Darius Hystaspes, who succeeded Cambyses. Which is the opinion of John Cario in his Chronicle and of John Benedict in his marginal notes to the book of Esther; and although it is more probable than the two previous, yet it seems to me it must be rejected for the very reasons that they themselves bring in its favor.

They say that they consider Darius Hystaspes to be our Assuerus, both because he had two wives, Atossa and Artystona, and also because he dwelt in the city of Susa, which two things are reported about our Assuerus in the book of Esther. But Herodotus bk.3 says that Atossa and Artystona, the wives of Darius, were the daughters of Cyrus, which certainly does not fit our Esther. But living in Susa is not peculiar to Darius but common to the kings of the Persians, as we said above from Strabo.

Another and indeed very celebrated opinion is that Artaxerxes Memnon was the husband of Esther; so Eusebius teaches in his Chronicle, whom Beda follows in his book On the Six aAges and many other writers.

But against this opinion there are two serious arguments. First, Josephus writes in his first book Against Appion that the books which were written after the time of Artxerxes Longimanus are not held among Hebrews in the canon of sacred books. Since Ezra composed the canon of the sacred books, whose life did not extend beyond the time of Longimanus, while the book of Esther was always in the canon of the Hebrews, as is gathered from Josephus in Antiquities II ch.6 and in book 1 Against Appion, then the history of this book is not to be referred to the times of Memnon.

Second, Plutarch carefully wrote the life of Artaxerxes Memnon and yet he found none of the things contained in the book of Esther, but rather the opposite is got from him. For Plutarch narrates that Artaxerxes Memnon had two wives, Statira and Atossa, neither of whom can be Vathi or Esther who were the wives of our Assuerus. For Vathi was repudiated, Esther 1, while Statira was killed by poison while still queen, and to the great grief of the king. But Atossa was never repudiated but lived with Artaxerxes up to his death. But Esther was of Hebrew race and was taken by Artaxerxes in marriage in the seventh year of his reign, Esther 2. But Atossa was not Hebrew but Persian, and was daughter of Artaxerxes, while Statira was not taken for wife in the seventh year of the reign but was married by Artaxerxes before he began to reign.

The last opinion therefore, and in my opinion the most probable, is that of Josephus bk.2 ch.6, and of Sulpicius bk.2 of the Sacred History, and of Nicephorus of Constantinople in his Chronicle, and of many others whom Eusebius reports without their names in his Chronicle, who teach that Assuerus the husband of Esther can be no other than Artaxerxes called Longimanus, which opinion we also follow, both because the arguments which we used to refute the other opinions have no force against this opinion, and also because if one should trust anyone in the matter of this story it should most of all be Josephus, who was both Hebrew and a priest most skilled in Hebrew affairs. It is also likely that Nehemiah the Hebrew could for this reason have been official of so great a king, because Queen Esther was Hebrew and Mardoch, the prefect of the palace, was also Hebrew.

But, they say, if Mardoch was carried with King Joachim from Jerusalem to Babylon, how could it come about that he survived to the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus? I reply that it is not altogether incredible; for from the beginning of the Babylonian captivity up to Longimanus there were about 165 years. But it is not incredible that Mardoch at that time had passed 165 when long afterwards St. Paul the Hermit attained to the age of 115, on the evidence of Jerome, and we ourselves saw an old man of 105 as robust and vigorous that he seemed he was going to survive many more years.

Next, that the Scripture says that Mardoch was carried to Babylon with King Joachim can rightly be understood even if Mardoch was not yet born. Since he could have been carried there, not in himself, but in his parents or his ancestors, the way Zorobabel and Joshua are said to have returned to Jerusalem from captivity which Nabuchodonosor carried out, 1 Ezra ch.7, and yet Zorobabel was born in captivity, Matthew 1, and the same is likely true of Joshua, son of Josedech. And in Genesis 4.6 and Deuteronomy 10 we read that seventy souls entered Egypt with Jacob, in which number are included the two sons of Joseph who were born in Egypt; not can they be said to have entered Egypt for any reason other than that Joseph, in whose loins they were, had entered Egypt.

Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME