Esther
(From the Hebrew meaning star, happiness); Queen of Persia and
wife of Assuerus, who is identified with Xerxes (485-465 B.C.).
She was a Jewess of the tribe of Benjamin, daughter of Abihail,
and bore before her accession to the throne the name of Edissa (i,
myrtle). Her family had been deported from Jerusalem to Babylon in
the time of Jechonias (599 B.C.). On the death of her parents she
was adopted by her father's brother, Mardochai, who then dwelt in
Susan, the capital of Persia. King Assuerus being angered at the
refusal of his wife Vasthi to respond to his invitation to attend
a banquet that he gave in the third year of his reign, divorced
her and ordered the most attractive maidens of the kingdom brought
before him that he might select her successor from among them.
Among these was Esther, whose rare beauty captivated the king and
moved him to place her on the throne. Her uncle Mardochai remained
constantly near the palace so that he might advise and counsel
her. While at the gate of the palace he discovered a plot of two
of the king's eunuchs to kill their royal master. This plot he
revealed to Esther, who in turn informed the king. The plotters
were executed, and a record of the services of Mardochai was
entered in the chronicles of the kingdom. Not long thereafter,
Aman, a royal favourite before whom the king had ordered all to
bow, having frequently observed Mardochai at the gate of the
palace and noticed that he refused to prostrate himself before
him, cunningly obtained the king's consent for a general massacre
in one day of all the Jews in the kingdom. Following a Persian
custom, Aman determined by lot (p�r, pl. p�r�m), that the massacre
should take place a twelvemonth hence. A royal decree was
thereupon sent throughout the Kingdom of Persia. Mardochai
informed Esther of this and begged her to use her influence with
the king and thus avert the threatening danger. At first she
feared to enter the presence of the king unsummoned, for to do so
was a capital offence. But, on the earnest entreaty of her uncle,
she consented to approach after three days, which with her maids
she would pass in fasting and prayer, and during which she
requested her uncle to have all the Jews in the city fast and
pray.
On the third day Esther appeared before the king, who received her
graciously and promised to grant her request whatever it might be.
She then asked him and Aman to dine with her. At the banquet they
accepted her invitation to dine with her again on the following
day. Aman, carried away by the joy that this honour gave him,
issued orders for the erection of a gallows on which he purposed
to hang the hated Mardochai. But that night the king, being
sleepless, ordered the chronicles of the nation to be read to him.
Learning that Mardochai had never been rewarded for his service in
revealing the plot of the eunuchs, he asked Aman, the next day, to
suggest a suitable reward for one "whom the king desired to
honour". Thinking it was himself that the king had in mind, Aman
suggested the use of the king's apparel and insignia. These the
king ordered to be bestowed on Mardochai. At the second banquet,
when the king repeated to Esther his offer to grant her whatever
she might ask, she informed him of the plot of Aman which involved
the destruction of the whole Jewish people to which she belonged,
and pleaded that they should be spared. The king ordered that Aman
should be hanged on the gibbet prepared for Mardochai, and,
confiscating his property, bestowed it upon the intended victim.
He charged Mardochai to address to all the governors of Persia
letters authorizing the Jews to defend themselves and to kill all
those who, by virtue of the previous decree, should attack them.
During two days the Jews took a bloody revenge on their enemies in
Susan and other cities. Mardochai then instituted the feast of
Purim (lots) which he exhorted the Jews to celebrate in memory of
the day which Aman had determined for their destruction, but which
had been turned by Esther into a day of triumph. The foregoing
story of Esther is taken from the Book of Esther as found in the
Vulgate. Jewish traditions place the tomb of Esther at Hamad�n
(Ecbatana). The Fathers of the Church considered Esther as a type
of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In her poets have found a favourite
subject.
BOOK OF ESTHER
In the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint the Book of Esther bears
only the word "Esther" as title. But the Jewish rabbis called it
also the "volume of Esther", or simply "the volume" (megillah) to
distinguish it from the other four volumes (megilloth), written on
separate rolls, which were read in the synagogues on certain feast
days.
As this one was read on the feast of Purim and consisted largely
of epistles (cf. Esth., ix, 20, 29), it was called by the Jews of
Alexandria the "Epistle of Purim". In the Hebrew canon the book
was among the Hagiographa and placed after Ecclesiastes. In the
Latin Vulgate it has always been classed with Tobias and Judith,
after which it is placed. The Hebrew text that has come down to us
varies considerably from those of the Septuagint and the Vulgate.
The Septuagint, besides showing many unimportant divergencies,
contains several additions in the body of the book or at the end.
The additions are the portion of the Vulgate text after ch. x, 3.
Although no trace of these fragments is found in the Hebrew Bible,
they are most probably translations from an original Hebrew or
Chaldaic text. Origen tells us that they existed in Theodotion's
version, and that they were used by Josephus in his "Antiquities"
(XVI).
St. Jerome, finding them in the Septuagint and the Old Latin
version, placed them at the end of his almost literal translation
of the existing Hebrew text, and indicated the place they occupied
in the Septuagint. The chapters being thus rearranged, the book
may be divided into two parts: the first relating the events which
preceded and led up to the decree authorizing the extermination of
the Jews (i-iii, 15; xi, 2; xiii,7); the second showing how the
Jews escaped from their enemies and avenged themselves (iv-v, 8;
xiii-xv).
The Book of Esther, thus taken in part from the Hebrew Canon and
in part from the Septuagint, found a place in the Christian Canon
of the Old Testament. The chapters taken from the Septuagint were
considered deuterocanonical, and, after St. Jerome, were separated
from the ten chapters taken from the Hebrew which were called
protocanonical. A great many of the early Fathers clearly
considered the entire work as inspired, although no one among them
found it to his purpose to write a commentary on it. Its omission
in some of the early catalogues of the Scriptures was accidental
or unimportant. The first to reject the book was Luther, who
declared that he so hated it that he wished that it did not exist
(Table Talk, 59). His first followers wished only to reject the
deuterocanonical parts, whereupon these, as well as other
deuterocanonical parts of the Scriptures, were declared by the
Council of Trent (Sess. IV, de Can. Scriptur�) to be canonical and
inspired. With the rise of rationalism the opinion of Luther found
many supporters. When modern rationalists argue that the Book of
Esther is irreligious in character, unlike the other books of the
Old Testament, and therefore to be rejected, they have in mind
only the first or protocanonical part, not the entire book, which
is manifestly religious. But, although the first part is not
explicitly religious, it contains nothing unworthy of a place in
the Sacred Scriptures. And any way, as Driver points out
(Introduc. to the Lit. of the Testament), there is no reason why
every part of the Biblical record should show the "same degree of
subordination of human interests to the spirit of God".
As to the authorship of the Book of Esther there is nothing but
conjecture. The Talmud (Baba Bathra 15a) assigns it to the Great
Synagogue; St. Clement of Alexandria ascribes it to Mardochai; St.
Augustine suggests Esdras as the author. Many, noting the writer's
familiarity with Persian customs and institutions and with the
character of Assuerus, hold that he was a contemporary of
Mardochai, whose memoirs he used. But such memoirs and other
contemporary documents showing this familiar knowledge could have
been used by a writer at a later period. And, although the absence
in the text of allusion to Jerusalem seems to lead to the
conclusion that the book was written and published in Persia at
the end of the reign of Xerxes I (485-465 B.C.) or during the
reign of his son Artaxerxes I (465-425 B.C.), the text seems to
offer several facts which may be adduced with some show of reason
in favour of a later date. They are:
� an implied statement that Susan had ceased to be the capital of
Persia, and a vague description of the extent of the kingdom (i,
1);
� an explanation of Persian usages that implies unfamiliarity
with them on the part of the readers (i, 13, 19; iv, 11; viii, 8);
� the revengeful attitude of the Jews towards the Gentiles, by
whom they felt they had been wronged, and with whom they wished to
have little to do (iii, 8 sqq.);
� a diction showing many late words and a deterioration in
syntax;
� references to "the Macedonians" and to the plot of Aman as an
attempt to transfer "the kingdom of the Persians to the
Macedonians" (xvi, 10, 14).
On the strength of these passages various modern critics have
assigned late dates for the authorship of the book, as, 135 B.C.,
167 B.C., 238 B.C., the beginning of the third century B.C., or
the early years of the Greek period which began 332 B.C. The
majority accept the last opinion.
Some of the modern critics who have fixed upon late dates for the
composition of the book deny that it has any historical value
whatever, and declare it to be a work of the imagination, written
for the purpose of popularizing the feast of Purim. In support of
their contention they point out in the text what appear to be
historical improbabilities, and attempt to show that the narrative
has all the characteristics of a romance, the various incidents
being artfully arranged so as to form a series of contrasts and to
develop into a climax. But what seem to be historical
improbabilities are in many cases trivial. Even advanced critics
do not agree as to those which seem quite serious. While some, for
instance, consider it wholly improbable that Assuerus and Aman
should have been ignorant of the nationality of Esther, who was in
frequent communication with Mardochai, a well-known Jew, others
maintain that it was quite possible and probable that a young
woman, known to be a Jewess, should be taken into the harem of a
Persian king, and that with the assistance of a relative she
should avert the ruin of her people, which a high official had
endeavoured to effect. The seeming improbability of other
passages, if not entirely explained, can be sufficiently explained
to destroy the conclusion, on this ground, that the book is not
historical. As to artful contrasts and climax to which appeal is
made as evidences that the book is the work of a mere romancer, it
may be said with Driver (op. cit.) that fact is stranger than
fiction, and that a conclusion based upon such appearances is
precarious. There is undoubtedly an exercise of art in the
composition of the work, but no more than any historian may use in
accumulating and arranging the incidents of his history. A more
generally accepted opinion among contemporary critics is that the
work is substantially historical. Recognizing the author's close
acquaintance with Persian customs and institutions, they hold that
the main elements of the work were supplied to him by=20tradition,
but that, to satisfy his taste for dramatic effect, he introduced
details which were not strictly historical. But the opinion held
by most Catholics and by some Protestants is, that the work is
historical in substance and in detail. They base their conclusions
especially on the following:
� the vivacity and simplicity of the narrative;
� the precise and circumstantial details, as, particularly, the
naming of unimportant personages, the noting of dates and events;
� the references to the annals of the Persians;
� the absence of anachronisms;
� the agreement of proper names with the time in which the story
is placed;
� the confirmation of details by history and arheology;
� the celebration of the feast of Purim in commemoration of the
deliverance of the Jews by Esther and Mardochai at the time of the
Machabees (II Mach., xv, 37), at the time of Josephus (Antiq of
the Jews, XI, vi, 13), and since.
The explanation of some that the story of Esther was engrafted on
a Jewish feast already existing and probably connected with a
Persian festival, is only a surmise. Nor has any one else
succeeded better in offering an explanation of the feast than that
it had its origin as stated in the Book of Esther.
(See also HERODOTUS, History, VII, 8, 24, 35, 37-39; IX, 108)
A.L. MCMAHON
For Esther Woodall
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright � 1996 by
New Advent, Inc.
Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an
effort aimed at placing the entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to
contribute to this worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-
mail at (knight.org/advent). For more information please download
the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
FTP: ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
Email address: sysop@ ewtn.com
EWTN provides a Catholic online
information and service system.
-------------------------------------------------------
