The Topic Of Canonicity
There are some
books in the Bible that had a hard time getting there. Esther had the hardest
time of all. A book’s canonicity, whether or not it should be accepted as Holy
Scripture, is an extremely important issue for each book of the Bible. The New
Testament Canon is a much easier subject to discuss than the old because we
know a lot more about how it was formed. There are extensive records of the
development of the New Testament Canon and we can point to many different
Church councils that solidified the New Testament Canon. This is not the case
with the Old Testament.
There are simple tests that can be applied to New Testament books to help support their canonicity that are harder to apply to Old Testament works. Questions about authorship, dating, demonstrated authority, and acceptance by early readers are much easier to answer when one person wrote an entire book, signed their name, and stated their credentials. However, when a book is much older and compiled over several hundred years, such as the Psalms and the Proverbs, these questions become almost unanswerable, and the criteria for determining their canonicity becomes fuzzier. As Childs rightly asserts, “Basic to the canonical process is that those responsible for the actual editing of the text did their best to obscure their own identity. Thus the actual process by which the text was reworked lies in almost total obscurity.”[1] While Childs and I disagree on a lot of conclusions, we agree on this point. The Old Testament Canon has been touched by quite a few fingers down through the generations, so proving its authenticity and divine authority is difficult and important.
The
same is true of Esther. Quite a few fingers have touched this text and obscured
some important pieces of information when discussing canonicity. In essence,
the problems of authorship, dating, and historical verifiability, are the big
issues for the book of Esther. Throughout the centuries, the divine inspiration
of Esther has been doubted here and there, and since so little is known about
the Old Testament canonization process, defending her right to be in the Holy
Scriptures is a tough task.
That,
however, is the task which I am undertaking.
Introduction
In
this paper, I plan to discuss the major arguments against the canonicity of
Esther, and show that they are inconclusive in executing a guilty judgment. I
will then discuss the positive arguments for why Esther should be in the Old
Testament Canon and ultimately defend the position that Esther’s place in the
canon is rightly deserved. The book of Esther is holy scripture, and it should
be treated that way.
Against Canonicity
Introduction
Without
question, the arguments against the canonicity of Esther are formidable. There
are undeniable problems with the book of Esther in relation to the easiest
methods of determining Old Testament canonicity. The things we can point to,
such as universal acceptance, copies from the Dead Sea Scrolls, historical
archeological evidence, and clear theological influence, are sorely lacking
when it comes to Esther. The arguments against canonicity usually fall into one
of two categories: (1) historical and (2) theological.
Arguments
Historical
The historical
arguments against Esther are the most prolific. The most common are as follows:
(1) The names of Xerxes’ wives don’t match. (2) There is no extra-biblical
record of Esther’s rule as queen or the characters Mordecai or Haman. (3) There
are improbable occurrences and customs described in the text. (4) Esther is
missing from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Melito’s canon. (5) The author of Esther
is unknown. (6) There are seeming historical inaccuracies recorded about
Persia.
The Names of Xerxes’ Wives
The first argument
that the names of Xerxes’ wives don’t match is worth some consideration.
Historically, the name that we have from Herodotus and Ctesias for Xerxes’ only
known wife in the time period described in Esther is Amestris.[2][3]
The argument is obvious after that. Since the Biblical text refers to Xerxes’
first wife as Vashti and second wife as Esther and neither name matches
Amestris, the Biblical text must be wrong. The errors in logic are equally
obvious. There are a myriad of possible explanations for this inconsistency
with extra-biblical historical texts.
First,
the extra biblical histories might be wrong. Herodotus, usually regarded the
most reliable history, has been known to mythologize history and mix historical
fact with mythological fiction. Ctesias is even less reliable. It is suspicious
if not dishonest for liberal scholars to judge the ancient Greek histories in
such immutable esteem in regards to the name Amestris, but not in other
contexts.
Second,
some scholars suggest that Amestris is a third possible name for Esther after
the two given for her in the Biblical text. While I don’t use this counter
argument, I can see its appeal. Wright takes this argument as an impossibility
stating, “Since the third son of Xerxes and Amestris, Artaxerxes I, was born
about 483, Amestris cannot be identified with Esther who was not yet married.”[4]
However, this same author goes on to make a strong case for the equation of
Amestris and Vashti, making mostly linguistic points. I see this latter option
as a strong possibility. Amestris and Vashti can certainly be equated and much
of the details we have from Herodotus and Ctesias about Amestris fit nicely
with what the biblical text tells us about Vashti. It is quite likely that
these two characters are the same historical person.[5]
Third,
this is clearly an argument from silence. Simply because some Greek historians
name one queen and her actions, it does not mean that other queens and their
actions did not occur. The events recorded in Esther could well have happened
without Herodotus or Ctesias writing about them. It is completely illogical to
assert that things only happened if they are written down. While no scholar
will make that assertion outright, many have no problem making that assertion
in cloudy and guarded language regarding the events in Esther.
Lack of Extra-biblical Evidence of Characters
Much
like the last argument, opponents of Esther’s historicity hold Greek historians
in high regard and see the lack of reference to officials in the Persian Empire
such as Mordecai, Haman, and Esther as serious blows to the books historical
accuracy.
This
argument is, again, an argument from silence. Their lack of appearance in Greek
historical writings does not negate their existence. A lot of people lived back
then and did not make it into the Greek histories. I feel quite confident on
this point, and I wonder if the liberal scholars who oppose Esther’s
historicity on the grounds of such an argument from silence would share my
confidence.
Also,
there are very logical reasons why our records from the time period do not
reflect their existence. Mordecai and Esther are clearly names derived from the
Persian Gods Marduk and Ishtar. The similarities of the names are obvious. Such
names would have been extremely common in the time period, much as the Biblical
names James, Joshua, and John are all popular today. It is very possible that
the mere prevalence of the name has cast specific people who carried it into
obscurity. This likely may have occurred for the Biblical characters in
question.
In
addition, it is quite possible that we simply haven’t found the records yet. A
similar historical question was answered in 1961 with the discovery of what is
now called the Pilate Stone. The Pilate Stone is a limestone rock with ancient
Greek writing on it and in the inscription, the words NTIUS PILATUS can be
seen. Until this time, there was no extra-biblical evidence to support the
existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect involved with the crucifixion of
Jesus of Nazareth. In 1961, any argument against Pontius’ Pilate’s existence
based on an argument from silence appealing to a lack of extra-biblical support
immediately became laughable.
Not
only is this argument against Esther exactly like the one used against Pilate,
it is applied to Persian history from at least 400 years earlier. There is much
more existing evidence of the Roman Empire than there is of the Persian, and
yet, Pilate was an obscure figure until 1961. Keeping proportion in mind, it is
very reasonable to assume that a similar situation is happening with the
characters in Esther. Writing from the Persians is much less prevalent, meaning
that we would not likely have extra-biblical support for these characters. That
by no means suggests that there isn’t evidence out there or that the characters
did not exist.
To
that end, it is worthwhile to point out that some evidence may have been found
to support the characters found in the book of Esther. There has been the
discovery of a cuneiform text that refers to a high-ranking official in the
court of Xerxes I called “Marduka.” Whether or not this was the Mordecai of the
bible is unclear, but it should not be dismissed out of hand. As Harrison
points out, “This text goes far towards establishing the historicity of the
book of Esther, and gives grounds for the expectation that further discoveries
may yet throw light upon the identity of Vashti and Amestris.”[6]
I would heartily agree with this conclusion and add the names of Esther and
Haman to the list as well.
Improbable Events
Some
scholars argue that there are a few improbable occurrences in the book of
Esther. The easiest one to point to is the yearlong pampering that Esther
evidently underwent prior to seeing the king. Esther records that the
regulation for women in that time was to spend twelve months undergoing
different cosmetic rituals to get the woman ready to see the king. It seems
slightly impractical and there are no extra-biblical documents that repeat such
a custom. Another event that bears the same scrutiny is the extreme height of
the gallows, which Naman supposedly constructed in only a few hours. Fifty
cubits (about seventy-five feet) is quite a height to reach in only an hour or
two.
Both of these can
be dealt with by the simple statement, “Improbable does not mean impossible.”
While it seems unlikely that a woman would undergo beauty treatments for a whole
year or that Haman would construct such a massive gallows in so short a time,
that’s what the text says happened. When it comes to the question, “Which is right,
the text or my feelings?” we must side with the text. It is concrete and
objective, but our feelings have no such résumé.
Even still,
dealing with these issues individually, there is room for some arguments on
interpretation. Both of these occurrences may be merely exaggerative figures of
speech. I myself do not hold to such an interpretation, but we need not throw
Esther out of the canon to resolve such an issue. It’s acceptable, though not
preferable, to believe that these are mere hyperbole and that the original
author knew that his readers would interpret it as such. The woman may have
only underwent twelve weeks instead of twelve moths, and Haman may have just
made a “very tall” gallows. [7]
Another possible
explanation of Haman’s gallows is in the definition of what a gallows was in
the time period in question. Some have suggested that it was a mere spike that
the victim was impaled on or that it refers simply to a tree that modifications
were made to accommodate the hanging of a victim.[8]
Both of these suggestions are perfectly reasonable.
Esther is Missing from Melito’s Canon and the Dead Sea Scrolls
A
fourth common objection to Esther’s canonicity is her absence from Melito’s
Canon and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Both of these objections are, in my opinion,
the strongest and most formidable against Esther’s canonicity from a historical
perspective, and will be dealt with individually, but first, it should be
pointed out that this is yet another argument from silence. While I do accept and
use some arguments from silence in my own position, it should not be encouraged
to use a multitude of them. The stronger position is always the one with the
fewest logical fallacies; fewer arguments from silence in one’s position should
always be preferred.
Melito’s
canon is the earliest recorded Old Testament canon we have in the Christian
tradition. Recorded in Eusebius’ writings, Melito’s canon gives a picture of
what some considered to be the Holy Scriptures for the early church fathers,
since a New Testament Canon was not yet assembled. Many argue that because
Melito lists all of the books we now accept as canonical except for Esther,
Esther should not be included in the Canon. The question of the formation of
the Old Testament Canon will be dealt with in more detail later, but it should
be pointed out here that there is no conclusive evidence pointing to when the
Old Testament was solidified. The Council of Jamnia is our best guess, but it
was likely stable much earlier than this. Melito’s Canon, dating to the second
century, may have reflected the commonly accepted canon of the time, but it is
more likely that it reflects his own personal opinion on the canon.
It
should also be pointed out that Melito’s canon includes portions of text that
are not considered canonical today. The book of Solomon’s Wisdom as well as
Esdras, (presumably in its entirety, not just the Nehemiah and Ezra that we
have today) were also included in Melito’s list. However, few arguments in liberal
circles ever take place that these books should be added to our canon, using
Melito’s list as a strong basis for support, only arguments that Esther should
be taken out. How conveniently selective this is.
The
second objection, that Esther is absent from the Dead Sea Scrolls, is a more
worthwhile argument for those who oppose canonicity. The Dead Sea Scrolls is
easily the most significant archaeological discovery of the past century, and
possibly millennium. It is the most comprehensive collection of Old Testament
manuscripts discovered to date. Probably the works of an Essene community, they
prove that the Old Testament has remained virtually unchanged over the course
of its existence. There were fragments from every single Old Testament book
found at Qumran, the location of the discovery, except Esther.
This
is quite an indictment on the book. However, two things must be pointed out in
opposition to the argument. First of all, again, it is an argument from
silence. Simply because no fragment of Esther was found at Qumran, it doesn’t
mean there was never a fragment there, or even that there isn’t still a
fragment there that has yet to be found. Second, the fact that the group at
Qumran was likely a group of Essenes plays largely into the discussion.
The Essenes were,
for lack of better phrase, the “religious wackos” of the day. While the
Pharisees and Sadducees represented the more mainstream liberal and
conservative Jewish equivalents of the first century, the Essenes were similar
to the monastic orders of mid Christendom. They separated themselves from
society and set up their own rules to follow in addition to those laid down in
the Law of Moses. Josephus goes into great detail explaining the rituals and
rules that the Essenes followed and the stringent tests that prospective
members had to pass to join their order.[9]
Keeping
this in mind, it is reasonable to suggest that the Essenes had a few mistakes
in their theology. They emphasized works and purification and likely some
mystic rituals involving angels and angel worship.[10]
These near cultic practices make it improper for the true Christian to highly
regard their discernment concerning canonical books. We can thank them for
preserving the books that they did very well, but we cannot take their word if
they claimed that the canon should be different than what was widely accepted
at the time.
It
should also be noted that, based on the evidence at Qumran, the Essenes
followed a solar calendar different than the mainstream Jews and the feast of
Purim did not appear in that calendar.[11]
This suggests that they did not hold the feast or the events in Esther that
established it, in high regard. Again, these were the outsiders of the Jewish
community and since the majority of Jews observed the feast of Purim at the
time we can disregard the Essenes view on this particular issue.
Possible
reasons why the Essenes may not have accepted or liked the book of Esther have
been suggested. They range from the fact that God’s name does not appear in the
text, to Esther’s nearly undeniable sexual impurity. Whatever the reason, it is
reasonable to assume that the Essenes may not have liked the book of Esther,
but that is no reason for us not to. There are some religious sects on the
outskirts of Christendom that believe in self-mutilation, but this will not
cause the mainstream to adopt the practice. There are some people who don’t
like the taste of mayonnaise on their hamburger, but I will not be abandoning
the condiment.
All this to say,
when observed closely, the two strongest arguments against Esther’s canonicity
still do not merit its removal from the canon.
Unknown Author
Yet
another argument from silence presents itself in the form of Esther’s anonymity.
While it is true that we, in Christendom, prefer to know the name of the author
of our canonical books, it is by no means a hard and fast rule. One anonymous
book appears in the New Testament Canon, and as many as ten books in the
traditional Old Testament have no clear author. Anonymity simply isn’t a
worthwhile argument when discussing the canonicity of an Old Testament book. So
many are anonymous and so widely debated that the discussions merely get
tedious and tiresome. Authorship is a much more important issue with New
Testament books but should not be a big part of the decision when discussing
the Hebrew Bible.
Historical “Inaccuracies” about Persia
A
few alleged historical inaccuracies about Persia are often presented in
opposition to Esther’s canonicity. Many of these arguments and counter
arguments are taken directly from J. Stafford Wright’s work in New Perspectives on the Old Testament.
Wright does a fine job of enumerating and defeating these arguments, and I saw
no point in trying to add to his work; it will merely be summarized here. The
arguments are as follows: (1) The rule that a Persian king could not change a
law once made is only found in biblical texts. (2) The amount of satrapies
recorded in Esther conflicts with Herodotus. (3) A Persian king was not allowed
to choose a Jew for a wife.
First, the rule that a Persian King’s law must
remain unchanged by anyone, including himself, is a key point in the story of
Esther. Supposedly, King Xerxes made a decree that the Jews in Persia could be
legally murdered by anyone in the empire. A point of struggle becomes the fact
that, even after Haman is defeated, the law must remain unchanged. We see the
exact same law cause trouble for Daniel in his prophetic book which gets him
thrown in the lion’s den by king Darius. In both of these biblical books, the
point is made that the law in question cannot be changed, even by the emperor.
The problem is that we have no extra-biblical evidence directly supporting this
fact about Persian lawmaking. Opponents of the book see this as a clear
indication that the account is fictitious and did not really occur.
Yet
again, the argument from silence makes an appearance. Yet again, I must point
out that simply because the no extra evidence has been found suggesting the
law, it does not mean that the law never existed. It should also be pointed out
that two independent books of the bible reference this law. This argument from
silence is against two independent witnesses giving similar testimony, which
makes the complaint against Esther even weaker.
On
top of all of this, there actually is
extra-biblical support for this law. While not conclusive, there is a
suggestion of such a law in Diodorus Siculus’ writings.[12]
The phrase, when translated to English, reads, “It was not possible for what
was done by the royal authority to be undone.” In the context of Persia, this
seems like a strong case for the biblical view of laws in Persia. Wright
discusses the possible problems with this interpretation, but explains that he
does not accept those problems as valid and does take this text as
extra-biblical support for the finality of laws in Persia:
“One must grant that the context
offers the possibility of a different translation. The comment concludes the
story of how Darius III in a rage ordered the execution of a certain
Charidemus. After Charidemus has been led away, we are told, ‘When the King’s
anger abated, he at once repented and blamed himself for having made the
greatest mistake, but…’ and then follows the above sentence. Diodorus may
therefore mean that it was too late now, because Charidemus was dead, and the
sentence could be differently divided: ‘But what was done could not be undone
by the royal authority.’ On the whole, I think the previous translation is
better.”[13]
Wright
then goes on the explain the linguistic support for his belief that the first translation
is better, and ultimately that there likely was a rule in Persia that a law
could not be changed once made by the Emperor.[14]
Second,
the inconsistency with Herodotus regarding the number of satrapies in Persia is
considered a point of contention for some.
Herodotus claims that there were only 20 satrapies in Persia at the time
of Esther, but twice, Esther refers to 127 satrapies. This is a category
mistake. Empires were often subdivided into smaller units, while using the same
word. This fact is seen in other historical literature.[15]
Herodotus could easily be referring to the larger units and Esther the smaller
with no linguistic gymnastics being performed.
Third,
the suggestion that the Persian king was not allowed to have a Jew for a wife
is a point of contention for some. Some commentators misread Herodotus and
suggest that the Persian king was only allowed to choose a wife from one of
seven families. This is merely a complete falsehood created from careless
commentators copying each other’s commentaries. One made a mistake and they all
carried it over. When one reads Herodotus more carefully, he finds countless
examples of the king taking wives from other families than these seven, and no
qualms are made in regards to it. Xerxes himself was the offspring of a
marriage from outside those seven families and Amestris was not from the
families either.[16]
Theological
The Theological
arguments against Esther should not be ignored. The brunt of the assaults
against Esther from liberal scholars is aimed at her historicity and not her
theological content. I view this as somewhat comical, since the arguments
against her theological content are stronger than those against her historical
verifiability. Where historical arguments from silence come against Esther,
they use the silence of history to disprove Esther’s canonicity. As has been
shown above, this is weak argumentation, because history has many secrets from
us in the present, and appeals to these secrets can easily be made to refute
such arguments. However, arguments from silence against Esther’s theological
content appeal to the lack of content in the book of Esther itself. These are
much more damning arguments, since its appeal is to an established and
unchanging text. We in the conservative realms can’t refute these arguments
simply by pointing out that they are from silence, because the silence is
concretely locked within the pages of the book. Ancient scholars saw this same
difficulty and added the missing theological content because the arguments were
so strong.
With this facts in
view, these theological arguments should be considered much more carefully.
They are as follows: (1) No New Testament author quotes from or alludes to
Esther. (2) The name of God does not appear in Esther. (3) The Mosaic Law and
the returns to Jerusalem are not mentioned in Esther.
No New Testament Reference
The
fact that no New Testament author quotes from or alludes to the book of Esther
is quite a blow to its canonicity, particularly as it relates to the Christian.
Obviously, a lack of Christian reference to the book bears no weight on the
book’s place in the current Hebrew Bible, except as far as it suggests that the
Hebrew Bible was not officially canonized until after the writings of the New
Testament. This suggestion is most likely false, which will be discussed later.
For the Christian,
however, it should cause us unrest to find that no New Testament author quotes
from Esther. Esther is the only book other than Song of Solomon to have this
distinction. Ezra is also left out of New Testament references, but Nehemiah is
not and since the two were regarded one book at the time of the New Testament
writing, I did not include it. Needless to say, Esther’s absence from the New
Testament authors’ pens, or quills, should provoke the question: Why?
There are various
answers available. The first of which is the liberal answer because the book is not canonical, and
wasn’t considered canonical by the church fathers. Obviously, I do not take
this view. A second option would be simple happenstance. The authors of the New
Testament were under no obligation to reference all the books of the Old
Testament, and they didn’t do it. This seems incredibly reasonable, far more reasonable
than the suggestion that they did not view the book of Esther as scripture.
Another possible reason, and likely factor, was that the Old Testament canon
was not yet solidified. As will be discussed shortly, the Canonization process
for the Old Testament was not strictly official until after the time of the New
Testament writings. The Canon was, however, widely accepted, which will play
into my argument for Esther’s canonicity. This last argument may leave the door
too far open for the opposition, and so the previous argument is the preferred
one to take. Mere happenstance is the best response to this difficulty. Jesus
didn’t leave any final instructions along the lines of, “And be sure to quote
often from every scriptural source, so that the liberal scholars of the
nineteenth century will have no reason to remove some books from the canon,
thus sayth the Lord,” as he ascended into heaven. Hopefully you, the reader,
are chuckling to yourself right now at the absurdity of such a fictitious
quotation, but it is just such a quotation that liberals must subconsciously
hold to in order to use this argument against Esther’s canonicity.
The Name of God Does Not Appear in Esther
The fact that the
name of Yahweh does not appear in Esther is extremely important. This, I
believe, is the strongest argument against Esther’s canonicity, bar none.
However, it is still easily explained in a way that does not merit its removal
from the canon. Some scholars try to argue that this is not so. In fact, there
are scholarly works that claim an acrostic form of Yahweh’s name may be found
in the pages of Esther.[17]
I do not usually pay attention to such claims as they are a bit hard to defend.
The main piece of evidence against this argument is in the actual content of
the book. A few of Esther’s and Mordecai’s actions suggest a real faith in God.
In chapter four, just before Esther goes in to see the king, Esther fasts and
instructs Mordecai to fast for her. Apocryphal additions to Esther include
prayers that Esther and Mordecai say at this period of time.
In the inspired
text, Mordecai also expresses an assurance of faith that the Jews will be
preserved. In 4:14, he says, “If you remain silent at this time, relief and
deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place,” which suggests he has
faith in God’s promises to sustain the Jews through all circumstances.
This is not rock
solid evidence, and I very much wish the name of Yahweh did appear in the
inspired sections of text. This is a sentiment I obviously share with the Jews
who came along later and added sections to include Yahweh’s name. However,
given the fact that the characters display reliance on the sovereignty of a
higher power and perform acts that were common among the God-fearing Jews, it
is reasonable to say that they were acting on the will of their God and not
purely out of self-preservation. More than that, we can easily identify
admirable characteristics such as courage and kindness that are virtues created
by God and teach us about His nature. All of this together makes it reasonable
to suggest that there is systematic and practical theological material in the
book of Esther which merits its preservation in the canon.
Absence of Mosaic Law and Returns to Jerusalem
The opposition
argues that, because the Mosaic Law is not referenced, the book cannot be
canonical; the Jews were dogmatic followers of the Mosaic Law. In addition,
since the Jews were supposed to be going back to Jerusalem at this time, the
characters cannot be true God-fearers because they were not doing as they
should and going back to Jerusalem as well.
This argument is
very much like the previous one; it relates loosely to theological content.
While I agree that the Jews had taken at least one group back to Jerusalem at
this time, not all of them had gone. To make the argument that all who stayed
in Persia during the first return were not God-fearing Jews, you would have to
say that Nehemiah and Ezra, who led the second and third returns, were also
“bad” Jews. This is ludicrous to even suggest.
The truth is very
likely that God kept Esther and Mordecai in Persia specifically so that they
could work against Haman’s plan to wipe out the Jews. It would not be outside
of God’s character at all to place a specific person in a specific situation
that seems bad, only to use that person for noble purposes later. Joseph and
Daniel are two examples that spring to mind.
In that sense, the
argument then works against itself, actually supporting a stronger theological
content than a weaker one. In essence it supports the doctrine of the
sovereignty of God, and what Paul says in Romans rings all the more true in our
21st century ears. “God works all things together for the good of
those who love him and are called according to his purpose.”
Conclusion
As has been shown
above, the evidence and arguments against Esther’s canonicity are weak. Most of
the arguments are historical, as opposed to theological, and most of the
arguments rely on the fallacy of historical silence. The result is a weak case
against Esther that is completely full of holes. If even a slightly worthwhile
argument can be made in defense of Esther’s place in the canon, it should be
concluded that the book is canonical and has no reason to be removed from the
canon. All in all, the arguments against Esther end up being quite a bit weaker
than they first appear, and few should be taken seriously; even fewer should be
accepted and used.
For Canonicity
Old Testament Canonicity Process
Prior
to discussing the arguments in Esther’s favor, a discussion of how the Old
Testament was canonized is seriously in order. As has been stated many times
previously in this paper, this topic needs to be covered. As also has been said
previously in this paper, we don’t know as much about the process as we would like.
However, a brief history of what we do know can be compiled.
Practically
nothing about an official canonization process is known prior to approximately
400 B.C. This date is chosen because of references made in the Babylonian
Talmud. In it, we read, “Our Rabbis taught: Since the death of the last
prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachai, the holy Spirit departed from
Israel.” [18]
[19]What
this means is that the writers of the Talmud firmly believed that the
scriptural inspiration stopped with Malachi, indicating that the books commonly
accepted as canonical during the intertestamental period are the books that the
authors of the Babylonian Talmud considered canonical. Not only that, it
suggests that these books have always been considered canonical, even from the
time of the prophets in question. The question is: which books were commonly
accepted as canonical?
The
earliest known explicit list of canonical books can be found in Josephus’s Against Apion:
“For we have not an innumerable
multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another:
[as the Greeks have:] but only twenty two books: which contain the records of
all the past times: which are justly believed to be divine. And of them five
belong to Moses: which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of
mankind, till his death. This interval of time was little short of three
thousand years. But as to the time from the death of Moses, till the reign of
Artaxerxes, King of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the Prophets, who were
after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times, in thirteen books. The
remaining four books contain hymns to God; and precepts for the conduct of
human life. ’Tis true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very
particularly; but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former
by our forefathers; because there hath not been an exact succession of Prophets
since that time. And how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own
nation, is evident by what we do. For during so many ages as have already
passed, no one has been so bold, as either to add anything to them; to take anything
from them; or to make any change in them.”[20]
This
unfortunately necessarily lengthy quotation makes a few important points about
the canon which should be addressed. First, it names the 39 books that we have
today, when one makes a few reasonable assumptions. First, the double books
(1&2 Kings, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Chronicles) were all considered one
book each, The minor prophets were considered a unit, and Judges-Ruth,
Ezra-Nehemiah, and Jeremiah-Lamentations are each considered one book.[21]
These differences would be commonplace to the first century Jew, and indeed
considered the correct way to number the books in question.
The
second thing to note is that Josephus, like the Babylonian Talmud, confirms
that Malachi is the last inspired book for the Jews “because there hath not
been an exact succession of prophets since that time.” The Jews of the first
century AD, the time of Josephus’ writing, held firmly to the belief that those
books were the only inspired works, and that they were complete.
Thirdly,
Josephus emphatically states that this is nearly common knowledge, and has been
ever since the books were written. The Jews of his day knew what the scriptures
were, and according to Josephus, all the Jews since the last prophet, Malachi,
knew and zealously guarded the inspired books as just that, inspired.
A
third major point in the canonization process that should be pointed out is the
earlier Talmudic material, such as Baraitha. It also lists the same canon as
Josephus, and this record of the canonical books dates to around 200 AD.[22]
Finally,
many scholars point to the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD as the official
canonization moment for the Old Testament. Again, the Rabbis attending this
council affirmed the 39 books that we have today as the Holy Scriptures, and
this affirmation includes Esther.[23]
These
are some of the important points in the canonization process of the Old
Testament. It should be admitted that much of the canon was merely assumed by
the Jews up until the council of Jamnia, and even possibly after, but it should
also be admitted that many major listings of the canon did not even question
Esther’s place in it. This uneasiness about Esther did not have any real
representation or support until after the Council of Jamnia. This fact alone
makes its place in the canon harder to question. A general rule to follow is to
trust those who lived closer to the context of the writing of the document. This
fact will be taken into consideration when discussing the arguments for
Esther’s canonicity.
Introduction
It
should be noted up front, that historicity and canonicity are not the same
thing. Many of the arguments against the canonicity of Esther, are actually
arguments against its historicity. That is, the arguments merely support the
idea that Esther was not an historical figure who really lived on earth during
the Persian Exile. At most, these arguments can merely suggest that Esther is a
book of fiction instead of non-fiction. I don’t like the idea of a book of
fiction being canonical, but I would prefer it to the alternative which says we
that have the wrong canon. Often, resistors to the canonicity of Esther view a
lack of historicity as sufficient grounds for Esther’s dismissal from the
canon.
While
I don’t believe that Esther is a book of fiction, if it were, then it might
still be properly cited as canonical. I grant that historicity should play a
part in determining canonicity, but it is not the be-all end-all of canonicity.
If, in some future world, Esther were shown to be one-hundred percent, beyond
the shadow of a doubt, fiction, and not actual history, the job of proving that
it is not scripture would still be
unfinished. The strength of my stance is that it is immune to attacks on
historicity, because historicity does not outright refute a book’s canonicity.
That
being said, I will still play the game established by my opponents and argue
for the book’s historical accuracy; I simply wanted to point out that I don’t
have to. The following arguments for Esther’s canonicity will deal with issues
of acceptance as well as historicity.
Arguments
Arguments from Acceptance
The
arguments for Esther that deal with acceptance are: (1) Esther was widely
considered canonical through the majority of Jewish and Christian history since
its composition. (2) The canon was used and not adjusted by Jesus in the first
century. (3) The Jews have always read Esther as one of the five Megillot.
Generally Wide Acceptance
The
first argument is by far the most important. No major religious leader in the
Jewish or Christian traditions outright condemned Esther as unreliable or
non-canonical until Athanasius mentions it in a list of apocryphal books in his
39th Festal Letter. The church fathers were fairly unanimous in the
acceptance of Esther into the canon, or at least if they weren’t they stayed
pretty quiet about it. This particular fact of acceptance is crucial, because
the question of canonicity is entirely a matter of acceptance. If those who
established the church found certain books to be worthy of the status of
scripture, we do not have the authority to dispute them. Our knowledge is, by
necessity, more second hand and farther away. We must take their word over our
suppositions if there is to be any kind of unity or progress in the church.
Constantly doubting the reliability of the earliest church fathers views on
essential doctrines such as “what is the word of God?” is the surest way to
allow relativism in its most brutal forms to overrun the church. But I digress.
Jesus’s Lack of Disapproval
The
second argument is very worthwhile to note. It is the one major argument from
silence that I do use to defend my own position. The fact that Jesus did not
comment on the incorrectness of the accepted canon in his day very strongly
suggests that it was the right canon. Dr. Loken sums this point up well.
“Christ Himself seems to validate
the Hebrew canon and subsequently the book of Esther, when He refers to the Old
Testament with the phrase ‘from the blood of righteous Able to the blood of
Zechariah, the son of Berechiah whom you murdered between the temple and the altar’
(Matt 23:35). This reference alludes to the book of Genesis and 2 Chronicles,
the first and last books of the Hebrew canon.”[24]
If
the Hebrew Canon as it stands today is the wrong one, it seems almost
impossible that Christ would have let it slip by. The Son of God through whom
everything was made, certainly would have ensured that any errors in the texts
being used to teach God’s will would be corrected. Indeed, when the Pharisees
and Sadducees quoted their extra commentaries as scripture, Jesus would routinely
rebuke them and remind them of what the actual scriptures says. Surely, he
would have done the same with Esther if anyone was improperly viewing it as
scripture when it wasn’t.
One of the Five Megillot
The
final argument from acceptance is the annual use of the book of Esther in
ceremonial purposes. The five Megillot are read yearly by the Jews at different
feasts. Esther is one of these five, being joined by Song of Songs, Ruth,
Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes. Jewish officials at the various yearly feasts
read these five short books. It is highly unlikely that they would include any
of these books in such a ceremony if they considered them to be less than
scripture. Esther’s inclusion in the five Megillot indicates that it was very
widely accepted as scripture for a very long time.
Arguments from Historicity
The arguments from
historicity are equally important in establishing Esther’s canonicity. It is
not enough to merely show the fallacies of the oppositions arguments. We must
also show logically consistent arguments in Esther’s favor. To that end, they
are as follows: (1) Esther’s portrayal of Persian court customs is very
accurate. (2) Esther begins with the same historical phrases as other
historical literature. (3) Esther repeatedly invites the reader to search the
histories.
Accuracy of Persian Court Customs
The first argument
is the strongest in terms of positive arguments from historicity. While the
book has many supposed inaccuracies, as described above, liberal scholars
cannot deny the book’s remarkable accuracies as well. Many scholars on both
sides of the argument affirm the author’s intimate knowledge of the Persian
courts as well as Xerxes character. It lines up perfectly with the Xerxes
written of in Herodotus.[25]
These details would not be privy to someone not involved in the court of
Persia, and easily lends itself to the view that Mordecai penned the book of
Esther. These details make it necessary at the very least that the author had
intimate knowledge of the courts and fitted his “fictional” story into it
almost impossibly well, and at the very greatest that the author merely
recorded actual history. The second is more logically sound, for the following
reason.
If the author
intended it to be a work of fiction, then he would have had to be a Jewish
official high ranking in the Persian courts. Only a Jew would have used the
character choices, theme choices, and choice of purpose (an explanation of the
Purim celebration) that he did. If there were such a Jew who wrote the book
intentionally fictionally, there would be absolutely no chance that he would
allow his fellow Jews to regard it as an historical record worthy of scripture.
The Jews regarded their holy books as remarkably holy and historically
accurate. This fact is plainly evident by their meticulous record-keeping and constant
literal interpretation, in the early years, of all other Hebrew scriptures.
Since the document was so widely regarded as scripture, likely as early as 200
years after its composition, it is highly unlikely that it would be a work of
fiction.
Similar Literary Structure to Historical Literature
The
second argument, that Esther uses the same phrases as the other historical
literature, is simply unavoidable fact. The waw-consecutive followed by the
verb “to be” was an extremely common way of beginning a work of historical
literature. “This fact places the book squarely among other Old Testament
historical narratives, the historicity of which is commonly accepted (e.g.
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Samuel). The book also contains numerous chronological
references (e.g., 1:1, 3; 2:16; 3:7).”[26]
Dr. Loken neatly summarizes the point. If the book is a work of fiction, it is
a very shrewd work of fiction, masking itself as literal history for a Jewish
audience with methods of deception that are as old and effective as the phrase,
“surely you will not die.”
Appeals to Search the Histories
A
final point, again made well by Dr. Loken, is that the book contains repeated
pleas to search the historical records. It is almost as if the author knew that
people would question if these events really happened and he was trying to take
precautions to make sure that his story was supported. The implicit invitations
can be found in 2:23, 6:10 and 10:2. These invitations were, again, common
features to literal historical literature. As Dr. Loken points out, “This
invitation would scarcely have been given if the book were not historically
accurate. Obviously, the author of Esther considered his narrative to be just as
accurate as the other biblical accounts.”[27]
Conclusion
Based
on these arguments for Esther’s canonicity, both from historicity and
acceptance, as well as the refutations of the arguments against Esther, it can
clearly be seen that Esther deserves her place in the Canon. The arguments
against Esther are not strong enough to merit the removal of Esther from the
canon. Too many are based purely on arguments from silence, and many are
downright academically dishonest, betraying a clear bias in the construction of
the argument. The simple fact of Jewish acceptance is enough reason to regard
the book of Esther as scripture. No book in the Hebrew Bible has ever been
placed there unfairly or without cause and it is only due to the advent of
liberal skepticism that any question has even been raised. It is at this point
that we must remember the words of the God-Man, “Do not let your hearts be
troubled. Trust in God, trust also in Me.” Jesus Himself raised no fuss about
Esther being in the wrong place, and neither should we. Jesus acceptance of the
Hebrew canon is more than enough evidence to ignore its detractors. I’ll take
Jesus’ opinion over theirs any day of the week.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baldwin, Joyce G. Esther: An
Introduction and Commentary. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984.
Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the
Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
Ctesias. Persica.
Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old
Testament; with a Comprehensive Review of Old Testament Studies and a Special
Supplement on the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.
Herodotus. Histories.
Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion.
Josephus, Flavius. Wars of the Jews.
Loken, Israel P. The Old Testament
Historical Books: An Introduction. United States: Xulon Press, 2008.
Moore, Carey A. Daniel, Esther, and
Jeremiah: The Additions. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977.
Newman, Robert C. The Council of Jamnia and the Old
Testament Canon. Hatfield, Pa.: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research
Institute, 1982.
Paton, Lewis Bayles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Book of Esther. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1908.
Reid, Debra. Esther: An Introduction
and Commentary. Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2008.
Wright, J. Stafford. "The Historicity
of the Book of Esther." In New Perspectives on the Old Testament,
edited by J. Barton Payne, 37-47. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1970.
[1]Bervard
Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament
as Scripture (Philidelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979), 78.
[2]
Herodotus, The Histories, vii 61,
113.
[3]
Ctesias, Persicas, xii 24.
[4]
J. Stafford Wright, “The Historicity of Esther” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J Barton Payne. (Waco,
TX: Word Books, 1970), 40-41.
[5]
Wright, 41-42.
[6]
R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old
Testament, (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 1097.
[7]
Wright, 38.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii 8.
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
Information learned from personally visiting Qumran and being taught the
information from the tour guide while there.
[12]
H. H Rowley, Men of God, (London:
Neslon, 1963), 238.
[13]
Wright, 39-40.
[14]
Ibid.
[15]
Ibid, 38.
[16]
Ibid, 38-39.
[17]
Israel Loken, The Old Testament Historical
Books: An Introduction, (United States: Xulon Press, 2008), 316.
[18]Robert
C. Newman, The Council of Jamnia and the
Old Testament Canon, (Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute,
1982), 1-10.
[19]
Robert Newman quoting from the Babylonian Talmud with commentary on how this
information is interpreted.
[20]
Josephus, Against Apion, i 8.
[21]
Newman, 1-10.
[22]
Newman, 1-10.
[23]
Ibid.
[24]
Loken, 316-317.
[25]
Loken, 317.
[26]
Loken, 317.
[27]
Loken, 318.
No comments:
Post a Comment