fall by the sword. The worst feature of all is undoubtedly contributed by Esther herself, who, not content with one day's free licence for slaughter, actually begs of the king the gift of a second.

The last portion of the book seems in some disorder. Some scholars believe that the passage from 'And Mordecai wrote these things down' up to the conclusion of the penultimate paragraph is a later insertion. The second letter' constitutes a difficulty, with its vague allusions to 'lamentation and fasting.' At a later period the thirteenth day of Adar was turned into a fast, and called the Fast of Esther, while the Feast of Purim was kept on the fourteenth day of the month. Some very observant Jews keep this fast even at the present time, but it is gradually falling into desuetude, and even Purim itself is losing its hold. Men's eyes are opening to its lack of historic foundation and of religious worth.

The true origin of the festival, even as the true signification of its name, are still wrapped in much obscurity. It would appear most probable that Purim was originally a Persian or Babylonian festival, which was adopted by the Jews and ultimately provided with an historical basis and setting. The tale to which the festival was wedded rested perhaps on some semi-historical foundation. There may have been some palace plot against the Jews, which was discovered and defeated by a Jewish inmate of the royal harem. Further than this it is impossible to go. There is no trace of the festival being observed or of the Esther story being known till more than three hundred years after the death of Xerxes. For a pseudoor quasi-historical setting being given to an already existing festival there are many parallels in the history of religion. The story provided by the new literary setting is soon believed to have been the veritable cause and origin of the festival, while its original meaning is utterly forgotten.

§ 10. The moral and religious value of Esther.-Having now heard the Book of Esther from beginning to end, what should be our final verdict upon its worth?

It must, I think, be allowed that if a book is rightly called inspired or divine, not because it happens to be included within a particular collection of books, but mainly because it contains great, true and original thoughts or teachings about goodness and God, then the Book of Esther can make little claim to either adjective. I do not say this because of its mere omission to mention the name of God or any religious act. The writer may have had good grounds for this omission with which we are unacquainted, and the whole tenor of his story shows that he believed in the

WHY ESTHER IS NOT INSPIRED

405

overruling providence of God. But the true reasons why we cannot regard the Book of Esther as divine or inspired are, first, because of its spirit of cruelty and of revenge, so that it is not too strong to say with Dr. Adeney that 'its last pages reek with blood '; and, secondly, because there is little compensation for this grave defect in any grandeur or beauty of teaching elsewhere. Dr. Adeney, who shows great impartiality in discussing the moral and religious value of the book, bids us remember that if the Jews indulged in a wholesale bloodshed, not even sparing women and children, exactly the same doom had been hanging over their own heads, and their own wives and daughters had been included in its ferocious sentence.' We may also note that the Jewish revenge was not sordid. 'On the spoil they laid not their hand.' But though these reflections may supply some partial excuse, such 'savage retaliation,' as Dr. Adeney elsewhere calls it, shows no elements of divinity or inspiration. And a writer who tells or invents conduct of such a kind with obvious satisfaction has little claim to be regarded as an ethical teacher of mankind. Nor is it possible for us to be content to regard any book of the Bible as a mere romance. We are bound to consider it in the

light of ethics and of religion.

Taking all these things into consideration, I am inclined to say that if the Bible had not included the Book of Esther, it would have rather gained than lost in religious value and moral worth. It may be asked, Why, then, have I included it in my own Bible for Home Reading My reply is that the book is too well known, and the festival of Purim is still too widely celebrated, for such an omission. I have given it in its entirety, and if I have been too severe in my criticisms, the reader has the same material as I for forming a better judgement.

§ 11. The festival of Purim.-One further question remains. We have heard and criticized the book: what about the festival which depends on it?

Let us note that Dr. Adeney is again in the right when he says that the Book of Esther was valued on national rather than on religious grounds. The feast of Purim was a social and national occasion of rejoicing, not a solemn religious ceremony like the Passover.... Esther is mainly patriotic rather than religious; its purpose is to stir the soul of national enthusiasm through the long ages of the oppression of Israel.'

The festival may thus have had its value and its justification. I again quote Dr. Adeney: The worthiness of the festival will vary according to the ideas and feelings that are encouraged in connexion with it. When it has been used as an opportunity

for cultivating pride of race, hatred, contempt, and gleeful vengeance over humiliated foes, its effect must have been injurious and degrading. When, however, it has been celebrated in the midst of grievous oppressions, though it has embittered the spirit of animosity towards the oppressor, it has been of real service in cheering a cruelly afflicted people. Even when it has been carried through with no seriousness of intention, merely as a holiday devoted to music, and dancing, and games, and all sorts of merrymaking, its social effect in bringing a gleam of light into lives that were as a rule dismally sordid may have been decidedly healthy.'

On the other hand, in lands of liberty the observance of Purim may justifiably be neglected.

For, first, modern Judaism does not and should not desire to celebrate any exclusively national festival. We Jews are a religious community and not a nation, and our greatest religious institutions-the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement-are precisely those which are fitted for men of every race to observe. Secondly, there is no need of Purim in order to celebrate a festival of liberty and of emancipation. For these ideas are pre-eminently associated with the Passover, which supplies us with all, and more than all, that Purim, even if it were historical, can possibly offer. Thirdly, there is no good reason for keeping up the observance of a narrow and national festival which rests on what is in all probability a wholly unhistorical foundation. Fourthly, directly our eyes are opened to the moral and religious defects of the Book of Esther, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the festival. For religious and moral difficulties are then superadded to the three other objections already mentioned.

§ 12. Purim and charity.-There is, however, one feature connected with the observance of Purim which it is a real pity to forgo. I refer to the practical charity which has always been associated with it. It is a day, according to the words of the story, 'for sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor.' The Rabbinic law declared these 'gifts' to be a necessary and integral portion of the festival's right observance. As codified by the great philosopher Maimonides, the law runs thus: Everybody must send two portions of meat or of vegetables, or of other kinds of food, to a neighbour, even as it is said, "sending portions one to the other, and gifts to the poor." And whoever increases the portion is praiseworthy. And if any have not enough to send, let two men exchange their dinners with each other, to fulfil the words, "sending portions one to the other." Moreover, one is bound on Purim to send gifts to the poor. One must not give to less than two, and to each must

SHOULD OBSERVANCE OF PURIM CONTINUE? 407

be given a money gift together with portions of some kind of food; for it says, "gifts to the poor," i. e. not less than two persons and two gifts. Moreover, at Purim you must not closely inquire (into the applicants), but you must give to all who ask. It is better to increase one's gifts to the poor than one's own Purim banquet, or the portions to one's neighbours, for there is no greater or nobler joy than to rejoice the heart of the needy, the orphan, the widow, or the stranger, since they who make the heart of the mourner to rejoice resemble God, as it is said, I revive the spirit of the humble and the heart of the contrite.'

If any of us, for the reasons I have already given, neglect the observance of Purim, let us at any rate not neglect the charity connected with it. Let us make in this respect a Purim of Passover or of that festival of Chanukah, of which we shall presently hear. Most of those who now celebrate Purim celebrate it without an unkindly or uncharitable thought to any man. They celebrate it in simple gratitude to God for a great deliverance; they use it as an opportunity for welldoing.

If fuller knowledge and a more awakened and critical habit of mind make such pious and simple celebrations impossible, no knowledge need make our love of God less ardent, just as no criticism can prevent charity and benevolence being still the best service of God to which man can attain. Only if the free and spontaneous charity of those who neglect Purim equal and even excel the charity of those pure and pious souls who still observe it, may we regard the passing away of its observance without compunction or pang.

CHAPTER II

THE BOOK OF JONAH

§ 1. Date and origin of the story of Jonah.-We now turn with a certain feeling of relief from the story of Esther to the story of Jonah. I have already given an extract from the Book of Jonah in speaking about the Day of Atonement.

The date of Jonah, as was mentioned in the previous chapter, is uncertain, but it may perhaps be roughly assigned to the age of Nehemiah.' It is a story or parable about a prophet, and therefore it has found a place in the collection of prophetical writings, but it was not meant by its author to be regarded either as history or as prophecy. In the Book of Kings there is a single allusion to a prophet called Jonah, who lived and prophesied in the reign of Jeroboam II of Israel. Our author adopted the name; but beyond the name the tale is all his own. There may have been stories about this prophet in existence akin to the story which our author tells. Or there may have been current strange tales of strange deliverances, which were adapted and adopted by the writer; but it is also possible that for the framework, as for the purpose of the story, he may be entirely responsible. The question is subsidiary and unimportant.

§ 2. Outline of the plot.-The outline of the tale can here be reproduced in Professor Driver's words. 'Jonah, commissioned to preach at Nineveh God's judgement against the great city, seeks to avoid the necessity of obeying the command, fearing that God might in the end be moved to have mercy upon the Ninevites, so that his predictions of judgement would be frustrated. Accordingly he takes ship at Joppa, with the view of escaping to Tartessus in Spain. A violent storm overtakes the ship; the sailors, deeming that one of those on board is the cause of it, cast lots to discover who it is; the lot falls upon Jonah, who consents to be cast into the sea. Thereupon the sea becomes calm. Jonah is swallowed by a