for it is not saints, but deliverers of the Jews, that the book presents to us.

II. That Esther could not long conceal her kindred, as she was directed to do by Mordecai, is readily admitted for in fact it was not long concealed, but c. vii. 4. viii. 6. she confesses herself a Jewess, and takes it for granted that this was previously known from somo other source. If any should suppose that Haman would not have formed his sanguinary schemes against the Jews, if he had been acquainted with the queen's extraction, they are mistaken; for his insight into character would have taught him that Esther, raised to the very summit of honour by the king of Persia, would have become indifferent to the fortunes of her nation; and, apparently in the same view, we find Mordecai warns her not to think herself permanently. secure if she should neglect the fate of her kindred and nation.

III. The reason of Mordecai's refusal to adore or prostrate himself to Haman, is not indeed given; but no doubt a sufficient one existed. It seems that Mordecai knew him to have been a party in the conspiracy against the king, or at least privy to it. See the apocryphal book of Esther, xii. 6.

IV. Haman's design of revenging the insolence or rusticity of Mordecai upon all his nation, shows indeed an extraordinarily vindictive disposition; but it is not on that account to be considered as either false or improbable; it were to be wished that history afforded us no similar instance.

V. A very obvious reason can be assigned for Haman's postponing his revenge from the first to the last month of the year; namely, the superstitious practice, common even yet in the East, of doing nothing without previously determining by lot the time most favourable for the undertaking. Having therefore ascertained in this manner the month and day most suitable for the destruction of the Jews, he deferred his revenge until the destined time arrived.

VI. The narrative, it must be confessed, does not state that the Jews prepared to fly from the impending massacre, but only that they lamented. But neither does it state that they did not prepare to fly, and who can deny that the cause of their lamentation may have been the necessity to which they were subjected of changing their place of residence ?—To suppose that the Jews would take up arms in self

defence, would be to confound the hardy soldiers of the Maccabees under the tottering kingdom of Syria, with the feeble Jews under the very powerful empire of Persia.

VII. The prohibition to approach the king uncalled is by no means singular; for it prevails even now in Asia.

VIII. There is no force in the objection that as Esther's intention was to allure the monarch by her charms, a three day's fast would have diminished the probability of her success, by discolouring the lips, making the cheeks pale and causing an unpleasant breath. For in the warm climate of Persia fasting makes no such inroads on the personal appearance; especially such fasting as is practised by the orientals, who merely abstain from food from sunrise to sunset, and then satisfy their hunger, which in hot climates is never very great during the day, with copious repasts.

IX. That Esther, when questioned by the king as to the object of her wishes, should not immediately, or even at the first banquet, prefer her petition in behalf of the Jews, but merely invite the king to sup with her, was without doubt the effect of a real or assumed modesty, which so well becomes a person of her sex, and would contribute not a little to fix upon her the affections of the monarch, and render him propitious to her requests, however great.

X. Lastly, that none of the Jews were slain in the conflict with their enemies, is not incredible, since they would certainly avoid attacking a stronger party. But there is no objection to supposing this statement to be hyperbolical; such often occur in other histories, where great battles are said to have taken place without any loss on the side of the victors.[a]

These solutions are drawn from the manners of the orientals and from the circumstances of the history. It would be unreasonable, therefore, to say that they do not render the narrative probable, but merely prove its possibility.Although this is enough; since the testimony of the writer, and his reference to the royal archives, abundantly attest the truth of the facts which he relates.

[a) The author might have given a readier answer to this objection, namely, that the book of Esther does not say any thing which should lead to the conclusion that the Jews were entirely exempt from loss. Tr.]

§ 68. Author and age of the Book of Esther.

Some have inferred from Esth. ix. 20, that Mordecai wrote the book, not observing that the passage does not relate to the whole book, but merely to the letters which Mordecai addressed to the Jews respecting the observance of the feast of Purim. Others, who have ascribed the book to Ezra, have not attended to the extraordinary dissimilarity of the style. The great synagogue, to which some have attributed it, is nothing but a fiction of the Talmudists. Whoever may have been the author, the work has this peculiarity; that, contrary to the universal practice of the Hebrews, it does not refer the reader to the Deity, or even mention his name. [a] The age of the author is unknown; but from his referring to the annals of the Persian kings, it is certain that he wrote before the overthrow of that monarchy. The most probable opinion is that the book was written a short time after the transactions which it records, since the author was acquainted with several minute circumstances relating to them; Esth. v. 10. ix. 7-10. The subscription of the Alexandrine version of this book, which speaks of a certain Dositheus bringing the letter of Mordecai respecting the festival of Purim to Egypt during the fourth year of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, is, like all other subscriptions of books by later hands, very suspicious, and no proof that the author lived in a recent age. [b]

[a) On this account DE WETTE, who objects to all the other books their Theocratico-mythological spirit, condemns this for its want of religion! Tr.]

(b) DE WETTE supports the opinion that the work professes to be written by Mordecai, bringing c. ix. 32. comp. v. 20, as proof. He supposes that the real author lived in the Persian empire, as is shown by his acquaintance with its history and customs, (i. 1, 10, 14, 15, 19. ii. 8. iii. 7. iv. 11. i. 1. ii. 9,) by his reference to its annals (x. 2.), and by the absence of all notice of Judea and Jerusalem. He adds that the explanations of ancient manners and customs (viii. 8. i. 13. i. 1,) fix the age of the author subsequently to the downfal of the Persian monarchy. Tr.]

The Hebrew text of this book does not indeed exhibit manifest errors, nor are its various readings more numerous than those of other

books; but it differs in many places from the Alexandrine version, which not only relates some things differently, but also has long additions. These the other Greek interpreters seem to have copied from that version; for which reason Jerome, in his preface to Esther, complains that the book has been corrupted by its various translators. [a]

[a) The additions contained in the Alexandrine version were placed by Jerome at the end of his translation of the book. By Luther and other protestants they are ranked as a separate apocryphal book. They were known to JOSEPHUS; Ant. Jud. XI. vi. 1.- -For an account of

their contents, &c. see § 232. ss. Tr.]

§ 70.

Whether the Book of Esther is canonical.

P.

It has already been stated (Part. I. § 28), that the book of Esther is omitted in the canon of MELITO, bishop of Sardis. This is the case also in those of GREGORY NAZIANZEN (Opp. T. II. p. 98), of AMPHILOCHIUS (in Iambis ad Seleuc. int. Opp. Greg. Naz. T. II. p. 194), of ATHANASIUS (Epist. fest.), of the author of the Synopsis improperly ascribed to Athanasius, of LEONTIUS, of JUNILIUS, and of both the NICEPHORI. Comp. Germ. Introd. 316. This led SIXTUS SENENSIS, in his Bibliotheca Sacra, to place Esther among the deutero-canonical books. But since JOSEPHUS introduces the contents of the work together with many additions into his Antiquities, and AQUILA, SYMMACHUS and THEODOTION have translated it as a canonical book of the Jews, and ORIGEN, CYRIL of Jerusalem, EPIPHANIUS, and JEROME attest that the Jews admitted it into the canon; the opinion of SIXTUS has not received the sanction of the learned. See Du PIN, Proleg. B. I. c. i. § 5.

SECTION II.

OF THE PROPHETS.

CHAPTER I.

OF PROPHECIES.

71. Of Prophecies in general. [a]

PREDICTIONS of future events were formerly received with reverence everywhere, and by every nation, and obtained at length the approbation even of philosophers. Divination was distinguished into two kinds, artificial and natural:* the former was derived from natural objects, such as omens prodigies, entrails of victims, monsters, thunder and lightning, stars, lots, &c. ; the latter was thought to proceed from some divine inspiration and influence. In the one, the Deity was supposed to announce future events by matters of fact; in the other by revelation. Both, therefore, were attributed to the immediate agency of the divinity; for in the first kind, the use of art was merely to interpret a revelation made through matters of fact, by observing their signification during a long course of time: CICERO de Divinat. I. 6, 18, 30. Hence other conjectures concerning the future, which were made from mere natural indications, such as those of physicians respecting the recovery or the death of a sick man from

[* Or rather not artificial, arɛxvos; for both were considered as supernatural.]