De Moor II:13: The Canon of Scripture, Part 3

And these indeed are the Books that among the Jews for ages constituted the Canon of βιβλίων θεοπνεύστων, inspired books; while without reason by some Christians there has been doubt concerning the Divinity of the book of ESTHER:  in favor of its Divine Origin and Canonical Authority, having been written by Ezra, or by Mordecai, or even by another, uncertain author, see GULIELMUS SALDENUS’ Otia Theologica, book III, exercitation V; HOTTINGER’S Thesaurum Philologicum, book II, chapter I, section III, page 494; LEYDEKKER’S de Republica Hebræorum, tome 2, book VI, chapter V; BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section VI, § 8, pages 762, 763, § 12, pages 818-822, tome II; CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros Historicos Veteris Testamenti, chapter XX, § 6, 7, pages 365-372; WOLF’S Bibliothecam Hebraicam, part II, book I, section II, subsection V, pages 90, 91; NONNEN’S[1] Disputationem inauguralem pro canonica Cantici auctoritate, chapter I, § 14, n. 1, chapter II, § 4, n. 2; while most recently both the historical verity and the canonical authority of the book of Esther was defended in an exceptional manner against Oeder,[2] Semler,[3] and Michaelis by JACQUES ALEXANDRE VOS in his Oratione pro libro Estheræ, delivered at Utrecht in 1775.  On the other hand, it could be objected:

              1.  That in the entire Book of Esther, the name of God or Jehovah does not occur.  But SPANHEIM Responds, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, epoch VIII, chapter VI, § I, number 3, column 422:  It should not offend anyone that the name of God is nowhere expressed in this Book; which overtly recounts the remarkable Providence of God in the preservation of the Church, Prayers poured out to Him, the giving of Thanks, a Feast unto His honor, etc.  That is, α.  In the examination of the θεοπνευστίας/ inspiration of a book, it appears that regard is to be had, not so much to the divine Names, the use of which of itself in any book does not constitute a criterion of Divinity, as to the divine matters, which most certainly occur in this Book.  β.  What about the fact that in the entire Song of Solomon also no express Name of God occurs, except יָהּ/Jah in a composite word, Song of Songs 8:6?[4]  γ.  And, although in Ecclesiastes the name אֱלֹהִים/Elohim is found, yet the name יְהוָה/Jehovah does not occur there either.  δ.  If the divine Names were not found in the entire Codex of Scripture, it would be another matter:  and so it is to be observed here, that concerning the Criteria for the Divinity of Sacred Scripture in general it is wont to be noted, that they are to be sought, not in the individual periscopes or parts of the Canon, but in the entire complex of the Canon.  ε.  It does not appear that the reason is to be investigated with over much care, as to why God would wish His Name to be left unmentioned in this Book:  perhaps HOTTINGER, Thesauro Philologico, book II, chapter I, section III, page 494, supposes not incorrectly that this was done because this history of Esther was translated from the Chronicles of the Kings of Persia for the use of the greater part of the people, for the fidelity of the narration.  ϛ.  It suffices that no Hebrew rejected the Book of Esther for this reason; but that they not only enumerated it among the Hagiographa, but received it with equal reverence with the Pentateuch.

              2.  Moreover, it could be objected, that some of the Ancients, when they enumerate the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, either omit the Book of Esther; or even segregate it from the Canonical Books, and refer it to the Books that were wont only to be read to catechumens:  on behalf of which appeal is made to Melito,[5] Gregory Nazianzen,[6] Junilius,[7] Athanasius,[8] and the Author of the Synopsis of Sacred Scripture found in the works of Athanasius:  see SALDENUS’ Otia Theologica, book III, exercitation V, § 3; BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section VI, § 12, page 820, tome II.  But I Respond, α.  Perhaps in the list of Melito, by a mistake of the copyist, on account of the similarity of the names Esdras and Esther, the latter was omitted; which defect others in turn were able to perpetuate, who in the enumeration of the Biblical Books had the list of Melito before their eyes.  This is made all the more probable, given the fact that in Melito’s list of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, as EUSEBIUS exhibits the same, Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chapter XXVI, it seems that the number of Books appears to be twenty-one, rather than twenty-two, of which, nevertheless, in accordance with the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet, the Ancients are found to be fond in this matter.  It is not the case, what SALDENUS, Otiis Theologicis, book III, exercitation V, § 3, accepts, that this is not able to be inferred from the writing of Melito, seeing that he, by the testimony of EUSEBIUS, does not even make any mention of Ezra:  since, at least in Valois’ edition of EUSEBIUS’ Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chapter XXVI, Ἔσδρας/Esdras expressly appears in the Canon of Melito immediately after Ezekiel as the last of all.  β.  Those that leave the Book of Esther unmentioned in the index of Canonical Books were also able tacitly to comprehend the same under another book, presumably under Ezra, whom many hold to be the author of the same; lest they should exceed the number of the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet, to which number they desired to render that number of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament equal; as it is in the Synopsis of Sacred Scripture, opera Athanasii, tome 2, page 58, Ὁμοῦ τὰ κανονιζόμενα τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βιβλία εἴκοσι δύο, ἰσάριθμα τοῖς γράμμασι τῶν Ἑβραίων·  τοσαῦτα γάρ εἰσι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὰ στοιχεῖα, The canonized books of the Old Testament are twenty-two in all, equal to the letters of the Hebrews:  for just so many are their elements/sounds/ letters.  Again, page 59, Τινὲς μέντοι τῶν παλαιῶν εἰρήκασι κανονίζεσθαι παρ᾽ Ἑβραίοις, καὶ τὴν Ἐσθήρ·  καὶ τὴν μὲν Ροὺθ, μετὰ τῶν κριτῶν ἑνουμένην εἰς ἓν βιβλίον ἀριθμεῖσθαι, τὴν δὲ Ἐσθήρ, εἰς ἕτερον ἕν·  καὶ οὕτω πάλιν, εἰς εἴκοσι δύο συμπληροῦσθαι τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν κανονιζομένων παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς βιβλίων, They say that, indeed, such of the ancient Books are canonized among the Hebrews, even Esther:  and that Ruth, united with Judges, is reckoned as one book, but Esther as another one:  and that thus again the number of their canonized Books is brought up to twenty-two.  γ.  On the other hand, when they proscribed the Book of Esther from the order of Canonical Books, they were able to understand either the entire Book of Esther together with the Apocryphal appendix of six chapters, which chapters are not found in the Hebrew Codex, but only in the Septuagint Version, and thence translated into the Vulgate; or this appendix considered separately:  one may gather this from the same Synopsis of Sacred Scripture just now mentioned, page 58, where, while it was related that Ἐκτὸς δὲ τούτων εἰσὶ πάλιν ἕτερα βιβλία τῆς αὐτῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης, οὐ κανονιζόμενα μὲν, ἀναγινωσκόμενα δὲ μόνον τοῖς κατηχουμένοις ταῦτα, besides these there were again other Books of the Old Testament that were not canonized, but were only read to those were being catechized, among the Books of the latter sort is also mentioned Ἐσθήρ, οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ·  ἔτους δευτέρου βασιλεύοντος Ἀρταξέρξου τοῦ μεγάλου, τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ Νεισᾶν, ἐνύπνιον εἶδε Μαρδοχαῖος ὁ τοῦ Ἰαείρου  τοῦ Σεμεεὶ τοῦ Κισαίου, ἐκ φυλῆς Βενιαμίμ, Esther, of which this was the beginning:  in the second year of the reign of Artaxerxes the Greek, on the first of Nisan, Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, beheld a dream.  Now, this is not the beginning of the Canonical Book of Esther; indeed, those words are not found anywhere in this entire Book:  but in the Apocryphal Appendix of the Book of Esther, Esther 11:2 according to the Vulgate Version, which the Dutch Version follows:  while in the Septuagint in the London Polyglot Bible these words do indeed constitute the ἀρχὴν/beginning of the Apocryphal appendix of the Book of Esther.  δ.  Whatever the case may be, those Fathers that did not reckon Esther among the Canonical Books were men liable to error, against whom one may oppose the authority of others, namely, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Hilary, Jerome, etc.; see GERHARD VAN MASTRICHT’S[9] Canonem Sacræ Scripturæ, secundem seriem Seculorum Novi Testamenti in the Bibliotheca Bremensis, classis VII, fascicule I, chapter I, pages 2 and following; and WOLF’S Bibliothecam Hebraicam, part II, book I, in the Appendix of Section I, pages 54-60.  ε.  But, indeed, in this cause the authority of the Hebrew Canon of the Jews ought to prevail over all, having been approved by the Lord and His Apostles, in the midst of which the Book of Esther was beyond all doubt always recognized.

[1] Nicolaus Nonnen (1701-1772) was a Reformed theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology (1729-1749), and then Professor of Practical Philosophy (1749-1772), at Bremen.

[2] Georg Ludwig Oeder (1694-1760) was a German Lutheran pastor and theologian.

[3] Johann Salomo Semler (1725-1791) was a German Lutheran theologian, and served as Professor of Theology at Halle.  He was an early proponent of a purely historical handling of the Scripture, separating matters of history from dogma.  He challenged the doctrine of the providential preservation of the Scripture in purity and integrity, and the divine authority of the canon.

[4] Song of Songs 8:6:  “Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm:  for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave:  the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame (שַׁלְהֶבֶתְיָה, a Jah-flame, a flame of the most powerful kind).”

[5] Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chapter XXVI.  Melito (died c. 180) was Bishop of Sardis, near Smyrna in Asia Minor.  Melito provides what may be the earliest surving list of the Christian canon of the Old Testament which closely parallels that received by Protestants, excepting its omission of Esther.

[6] Carmina Dogmatica, book I, section I, carmen XII.

[7] Junillus Africanus (flourished in the mid-sixth century) served as an officer in Justinian I’s court.  He is remembered for his Institutis regulariis divinæ legis, a work of Biblical exegesis, mediating the thought of the school of Antioch to Western Christendom.  He discusses matters pertaining to the Historical Books in book I, section 3.

[8] Easter Letter of 367.

[9] Gerhard von Mastricht (1639-1721) was a German lawyer.