Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book I: On the Canonical Books
Chapter 7: On the book of Esther
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book I: On the Canonical Books of Scripture. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Thus far has it been disputed concerning the first order of the sacred books; now we shall treat separately of the several books of the second order, concerning which there is greater difficulty. And first offers itself the book of Esther, which book three most grave writers placed outside the Canon: Melito of Asia (in Eusebius, book 4 of the History, chapter 26), Athanasius in the Synopsis, and Gregory Nazianzen in that poem which he wrote on the genuine Scriptures. Nor were there wanting also those who judged the book of Esther indeed to be numbered among the sacred books, but denied the seven last chapters, because they are not had in the Hebrew texts, to be true members of that book, and thought they should be cut off as spurious and foreign from the rest of the body. That blessed Jerome was of this opinion is gathered from his preface. St. Jerome have followed, not only before the Council of Trent, Nicholas of Lyra, Dionysius the Carthusian, and the Cardinals Hugh and Thomas de Vio, in their Commentaries on this book; but also after the Council, Sixtus of Siena, in books 1 and 8 of the Holy Bibliotheca.
But that this book is sacred and divine, all those decrees of the Pontiffs and Councils sufficiently prove; and also so many testimonies of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Fathers, which we noted above in the fourth chapter of this book. For if you take away Melito, Athanasius, and Gregory, all the rest agree concerning the divine authority of this book. And as to those chapters which are not had in the Hebrew codices, that they too pertain to the sacred Canon we confirm by these reasons. First, it cannot be denied that the ancient Councils, the Laodicene chapter 59 and the Third of Carthage canon 47, and the ancient Greek Fathers, Origen on the first Psalm, Eusebius book 3 of the History chapter 25, Cyril catechesis 4, and Damascene book 4 chapter 18, and also the Latin Fathers, Hilary on the first Psalm, Innocent epistle 3, Rufinus on the Creed, and Augustine book 2 of the Doctrine of the Christian chapter 8, when they number the volume of Esther among the sacred books, spoke of that volume which then both they themselves and the whole Church used. But at that time the whole Church used the sacred books according to that edition which St. Jerome, in the preface on the book of Esther and often elsewhere, is wont to call the Vulgate, which (as he says) is contained in the tongue and letters of the Greeks; and that in that edition those seven chapters of the book of Esther, of which we now treat, were not wanting, the witnesses are first the Greek texts themselves, which are current under the name of the seventy-two Interpreters; a witness also is St. Athanasius in the Synopsis, where he sets down the sum and the first sentences of the several books; a witness finally is St. Jerome, who in his translation admonishes in several places that these seven chapters are not had in the Hebrew texts, but were taken by him from the Vulgate edition. Wherefore, if the Councils and Fathers referred the book of Esther, such as they were wont to read it, into the sacred Canon, certainly they referred the entire book, with these seven chapters annexed.
What of this, that the Fathers not only number the book itself among the sacred, but also not rarely seek testimonies from the seven last chapters? See Chrysostom, homily 3 to the people of Antioch, and Augustine, epistle 199 to Edicia. What of this, that Origen, in the Epistle to Julius Africanus, demonstrates that this very part of the book of Esther, which is not had in the volumes of the Hebrews, is sacred and canonical? “In the book of Esther,” he says, “neither the prayers of Mardochai nor of Esther, which are able to edify the readers, are had among the Hebrews; nor the letters, nor that which was written by Aman concerning the overthrow of the nation of the Jews, nor Mardochai's deliverance of the nation from death in the name of King Artaxerxes.” But among the Seventy and Theodotion these things are. And below: “See, therefore, lest imprudently and unknowingly we abrogate the copies which are had everywhere in the Churches, and lay down a law to the brotherhood, that they should put away the sacred books which are current among them, and consent to the Hebrews, and be persuaded to impart to us pure ones, and such as have nothing of fiction. Or did not providence, in the holy Scriptures, give edification to all the Churches of Christ? did it not take care of those who were bought with a price, for whom Christ died?”
There accedes lastly the decree of the Council of Trent, session 4, by which all the books numbered a little before in that very decree are approved with all their parts, as they are wont to be read in the Church, and are had in the Latin Vulgate edition: whose authority, although among the heretics it is none, yet among Sixtus and the rest of the Catholics is the greatest and most ancient. But the Council (says Sixtus, book 1) speaks of the true parts of the books, not of additions, such as are the last chapters of the book of Esther. But if that answer of Sixtus were true, many other parts of the sacred books — of Daniel, Mark, Luke, John — would be called into question among Catholics. For what would Sixtus have to say, if, to him casting up the decree of the Council as a wall for the conserving of those parts of the divine volumes, it were answered by the adversaries that the Council spoke of the true parts, but that these are additions, not parts? Then, who could doubt that, certain books being approved by the Council, all the true parts also of those books were approved? To what end, then, does the Council add those words, with all their parts, save that all may understand that those parts also, concerning which there had sometime been controversy, pertain to the Canon of the sacred books? Finally the Council of Trent so clearly explained its opinion in the following words, that no place at all was left for tergiversation. For when it had said, “But if anyone the books themselves entire with all their parts,” it straightway subjoined: “as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church.” But who knows not that from the fourth day after the second Sunday of Lent a lesson is publicly chanted in the Church, amid the very solemnities of the sacred rites, out of the 13th chapter of Esther? and again that a lesson is pronounced out of the same chapter in that Mass which is wont to be read against the Pagans? and lastly that the prayer of Esther is recited out of chapter 14 of the same book, on the 22nd Sunday after Pentecost, the Gospel and Creed being chanted? But it will now be worth while to dissolve the arguments of the adversaries.
They say first, that since the book of Esther was written in the Hebrew tongue, those seven chapters which are not had among the Hebrews ought without doubt to be reckoned supposititious. We answer, with Origen in the place noted, that it is probable that these chapters too were once in the Hebrew text, and afterward by some chance fell out. Certainly Josephus, book 11 of the Antiquities, chapter 6, while he narrates the history of Esther, omits not the two letters of Assuerus and the prayer of Mardochai, though none of these is now had in the Hebrew codices; nor is it credible that these were feigned by Josephus, since he himself says this of himself: “In the very beginning of my history, for the sake of those who make a question or strive to blame it in anything, I have laid down, saying that I would translate the Hebrew books into Greek speech, promising to those who wish to disclose these that I would neither add anything of my own nor subtract.” It can also be answered that the first author of this book, who undertook to write the history of Esther in Hebrew, wrote only the sum of the history; then at another time the same history was written more copiously by some other, and translated into the Greek tongue by Lysimachus, when Ptolemy Epiphanes and Cleopatra reigned in Egypt, as is indicated in this very book, chapter 11. Further, the Hebrew book itself of the former author, but of the latter not the book itself but only the translation, came down to us.
Secondly they object that these last chapters cohere not with the former. For in chapter 2 are narrated the treacheries of the two eunuchs, and their detection by the industry of Mardochai. Then again the same are narrated in chapters 11 and 12; but in the former place the treacheries are said to have been made in the seventh year of Assuerus, and in chapter 6 it is added that Mardochai, who had disclosed them, received no reward at all; but in the latter place they are said to have been made in the second year of Assuerus, and it is added that gifts were given for the discovery. I answer that those seven chapters of the book of Esther, which are last in the Latin Vulgate edition, are not in truth last, but some of them pertain to the beginning of the book, as chapters 11 and 12; some to the middle, as chapters 13, 14, 15, 16; some to the end, as chapter 10. Which is plain both from the Greek codices, where all are placed in their order, and from the annotation of St. Jerome inserted at chapters 10, 11, and following of this book in the Latin Bibles. But the Church suffers those chapters to remain together at the end of the book, where St. Jerome placed them, that we may understand what of this book is, and what also is not, in the codices of the Hebrews. The narration therefore of the treacheries which is had in chapter 12 in the Latin Bibles pertains to the beginning of the book, and there the treacheries are narrated by anticipation, which are again narrated afterward in their place, chapter 2. But they were made in the seventh year, as is had in chapter 2, not in the second year, as seems to be gathered from chapter 11; for those words of chapter 11, In the second year of the reign of Artaxerxes, etc., ought not to be extended even to the narration of the treacheries, but only to those things which are said in that same chapter 11, that is, to the dream which Mardochai saw before Esther was joined to Assuerus. And as to what was objected concerning the reward of the discovery, it has no difficulty. For although Mardochai had not had a reward for the discovery when the king commanded the annals to be re-read to him (as is said in chapter 6), yet he had afterward a most ample reward, which is described in that same sixth chapter, and is signified in chapter 12 by those words, gifts being given for the discovery. You will say perhaps: if these things are narrated by anticipation, why in the Greek texts does there follow, And it came to pass after these things, in the days of Artaxerxes, etc.? for the banquet of King Assuerus is narrated to have been made in the third year of his reign, and the Scripture indicates that it was made after the detection of the treacheries, which we said above were made in the seventh year. We answer that that after these things refers not to those things which were narrated by anticipation, but to the dream of Mardochai, which had been narrated in its place.
They object thirdly that these last chapters fight with the other parts of this book, and render the whole book suspect. For in the letter of Assuerus which is had in chapter 16 it is said that Aman was by race and mind a Macedonian, and had wished to transfer the empire of the Persians to the Macedonians; from which words it is gathered that the history of Esther fell in the last times of the Kings of the Persians. For Assuerus could not have feared lest the kingdom of the Persians should be transferred to the Macedonians, unless that kingdom were already of some name. But the kingdom of the Macedonians was most obscure until the times of Philip the father of Alexander the Great (as Justin witnesses at the end of book 6); nor at the beginning of Philip's reign, but only in his twentieth year, did the forces of that kingdom begin to be suspected by the Persians (as Diodorus relates, book 16). But the twentieth year of Philip fell in the twenty-third year of King Artaxerxes Ochus, as can be known from the Chronicle of Eusebius. And it can in no way be that the history of Esther happened after the twenty-third year of Ochus; for I ask, who was that King of the Persians who had Esther to wife? Was it Ochus? But this history was completed not after the twenty-third year, but in the twelfth year of the reign of Assuerus, as is had in the book of Esther, chapter 3. Was it Arses, the successor of Ochus? But he reigned only four years; by which reason neither could Darius, the successor of Arses and the last King of the Persians, be the husband of Esther, seeing he possessed the kingdom only six years. Add that, if the history of Esther pertained to the end of the Persian kingdom, Mardochai would have survived almost to three hundred years. For Mardochai was carried away with Jechonias from Jerusalem into Babylon by Nabuchodonosor King of the Chaldeans (Esther 2 and 11), and certainly had then some years; then he remained in captivity seventy years; and would afterward have survived from the beginning of the reign of Cyrus even to the end of Ochus, which are two hundred and twenty years. Join the seventy years to the two hundred and twenty, and add still some others which he passed before the captivity, and you will find almost three hundred years. And the difficulty is increased also on account of Esther; for since she was the granddaughter of Mardochai, according to Jerome's version, or his cousin, according to the Hebrew and Greek codices, either she was equal to Mardochai or not much younger; and even if she had been a hundred years later, she would have had at least two hundred years of life when she came to the nuptials of Assuerus. But who would believe that most beautiful virgin, whom the King of the Persians loved before all women, to be of two hundred years?
We answer that there are many opinions of writers concerning the time in which Esther lived; and although they are not all equally probable, yet none is so improbable that, if we follow it, we cannot dissolve the proposed objection. Some, then, place the history of Esther before the loosing of the Babylonian captivity, and will have Assuerus to be the father of Darius the Mede (of whom mention is made, Daniel 9), him who married the wife. Which opinion seems to have pleased Melchior Cano, book 11 On Places, chapter 6, and Gerard Mercator in his Chronology; which authors would answer to that objection concerning Aman, who wished to transfer the empire of the Persians to the Macedonians, that Aman wished this not because the kingdom of the Macedonians then so flourished that it contended with the Persians for the empire of the world, but rather the contrary, that, since he himself was by race a Macedonian, he wished to render his nation, in those times obscure, most illustrious, the most noble empire being transferred to himself and his own. Yet this opinion is improbable. First, because the husband of Esther is everywhere called Artaxerxes, which name suits not the Medes, since it is proper to the Kings of the Persians. Second, because the husband of Esther reigned from India even to Ethiopia (Esther 1); but the Medes never possessed so ample an empire. And we speak of the times of the kingdom of the Medes before the Monarchy of Cyrus; for although at that time the kingdom of the Medes was greater than that of the Persians (as St. Jerome witnesses on chapter 5 of Daniel), yet that kingdom of the Medes was not so ample as afterward was the Monarchy of the Persians, or the kingdom of Assuerus the husband of Esther. Third, because the husband of Esther expressly calls himself both a Persian and King of the Persians (Esther, last chapter); but the Assuerus of whom the matter is treated, Daniel 9, was of the seed of the Medes. Fourth, because the husband of Esther recognizes his kingdom from the God of the Hebrews (Esther, last); but nowhere do we read that the Medes worshipped the God of the Jews, whereas of Cyrus and his posterity we read it. For Cyrus says: All the kingdoms of the earth hath the God of heaven given me, and he hath commanded me that I should build him a house in Jerusalem; and in the first of Esdras are read the epistles of Darius and Artaxerxes, Kings of the Persians, by which these Kings acknowledge the God of the Jews, and command sacrifice to be made for themselves and their kingdom. Fifth, because the husband of Esther had his royal seat at Susa (Esther 1); but Susa was not the royal city of the Medes but of the Persians, as Solinus (chapter 58), Diodorus (book 11), and Plutarch (in the Artaxerxes) write. Nor do Justin (book 1) and Q. Curtius (book 4), who write that the royal city of the Persians was Persepolis, gainsay these; for, as Strabo relates (book 15), both Persepolis and Susa were royal cities of the Persians; but Persepolis was therefore called royal, because near it were the treasures and the sepulchres of the Kings; Susa, because in it the Kings themselves dwelt. And Cyrus set his seat at Susa, because, that city being situated on the borders of Assyria, Persia, and Media, from thence the whole empire could most conveniently be defended and ruled. Not therefore was Assuerus the husband of Esther any Mede, but a Persian.
The opinion of others is that the husband of Esther can be no other than Cambyses, who is also called Assuerus (1 Esdras 4). Which opinion is that of the Jews in that Chronology which is entitled Seder Olam, that is, the Order of the Age; and the same Gilbert Genebrardus follows in his Chronology. Now the Jews reckon only three Kings of the Persians, Cyrus, Assuerus, and Darius, who was conquered by Alexander the Great; wherefore no question remains to them concerning the age of Mardochai and Esther, or concerning Aman and the kingdom of Macedonia. And that there were only three Kings of the Persians they prove by two testimonies of the Scriptures. One is Daniel 11, where Daniel, after he had said that three Kings should be in Persia after Darius the Mede, straightway subjoins concerning Alexander: But a strong King shall rise up, and shall rule, etc. The other is in the second book of Esdras, chapter 12, where Nehemias enumerates the high priests from Josue the son of Josedech even to Jaddus, who is agreed to have exercised the priesthood in the times of Alexander the Great. From which it seems to follow that the Kings of the Persians were very few, since Nehemias, who in the time of Cyrus the first King was a man of ripe age, reached the times of Alexander the Great, who destroyed the Monarchy of the Persians. But this opinion of the Jews can in no way be approved by us. For Assuerus the husband of Esther reigned above twelve years (Esther 3); but Cambyses lived in the kingdom only seven years and five months, according to Herodotus (book 3), or only six, if we believe Josephus the Hebrew (book 11 of the Antiquities, chapter 2), to whom all the other writers assent. Nor can the Jews say that Cambyses reigned many years besides with his father Cyrus, since the same Jews will have Cyrus himself to have reigned only three years. Then Cambyses, throughout the whole time of his empire, pursued the Jews with hatred, and never permitted the temple to be built at Jerusalem, as is openly gathered from the first book of Esdras, chapter 4. Who then would believe that Cambyses is that Assuerus, who after the death of Aman was most loving of the Jews? What of this, that our Assuerus, in the book of Esther, last chapter, indicates that he is distant by a long interval from the times of Cyrus, when he says that by the benefit of the God of heaven the kingdom was given to his ancestors, and preserved even to his own times? which certainly suit not Cambyses, who was next to Cyrus. Nor is the foundation of the Hebrews concerning the three Kings of the Persians solid, since not only all the Greek and Latin historians whatsoever contradict, and Josephus himself, by nation and religion a Hebrew, but also Daniel and Esdras. For in Daniel, chapter 11, after those words, Behold there shall stand yet three Kings in Persia, there follows: And a fourth shall be enriched exceedingly above all; and when he shall be grown mighty by his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece. By which words is plainly described Xerxes, who came with an innumerable army into Greece. But in the first book of Esdras, chapter 4, mention is made of Cyrus, who commanded the Temple to be built; of Assuerus or Artaxerxes, who forbade the same; and of Darius, who again commanded the Temple to be built. Then, in chapter 6, after Darius is placed another Artaxerxes, who is also named in the second book of Esdras, chapter 2. But why Daniel, after Xerxes, straightway passes to Alexander the Great, the reason (as St. Jerome writes on that place) is that Daniel had not proposed to weave a history of the Kings, but to foretell the changes of kingdoms. He numbered therefore the Kings of the Persians even to Xerxes, who waged war against the Greeks, that he might indicate that thence afterward the occasion arose that the Greeks were armed against the Persians, and at length, Alexander being their leader, spoiled them of their empire. That other argument concerning the number of the Pontiffs, Bede dissolves, book 3 on Esdras, chapter 32, where he teaches that Nehemias enumerated the genealogy of Josue the Pontiff even to Jaddus, because he reached the infancy of Jaddus. For, as we have in the second book of Esdras, the last chapter, in the time of Nehemias the high priest was Eliasib the grandson of Josue and the great-grandfather of Jaddus, who in the time of Alexander bore the pontificate already an old man; but between the end of Artaxerxes Longimanus, whose cupbearer Nehemias was, and the beginning of Alexander, are ninety-five years. It could therefore very well be that Jaddus, who in the time of Alexander was an old man, was in the time of Nehemias an infant.
Another is the opinion of others, that the husband of Esther is Darius Hystaspis, who succeeded Cambyses. Which opinion is that of John Carion in his Chronicle, and of John Benedict in his marginal annotations on the book of Esther; and although it is more probable than the two former, yet to me, on account of those very arguments which they bring forward for themselves, it seems to be rejected. They say that they think Darius Hystaspis to be our Assuerus, both because he had two wives, Atossa and Aristona, and also because he dwelt in the city of Susa; which two things are related of our Assuerus in the book of Esther. But Herodotus (book 3) teaches that both Atossa and Aristona, the wives of Darius, were daughters of Cyrus; which certainly suits not our Esther. And to have dwelt at Susa is not proper to Darius, but common to the Kings of the Persians, as we taught above out of Strabo. Another opinion, and indeed very celebrated, makes Artaxerxes Mnemon the husband of Esther: so Eusebius teaches in his Chronicle, whom Bede in the book On the Six Ages, and very many other writers, follow. But against this opinion there are two arguments not light. First, Josephus writes, in the first book against Apion, that among the Hebrews there are not had in the canon of the sacred books those books which were written after the times of Artaxerxes Longimanus; seeing that Esdras composed the canon of the sacred books, whose life extends not beyond the times of Longimanus; but the book of Esther was always in the canon of the Hebrews, as is gathered from the same Josephus, in book 11 of the Antiquities chapter 6, and in the same first book against Apion; not therefore is the history of this book to be referred to the times of Mnemon. Then, Plutarch diligently wrote the life of Artaxerxes Mnemon, who yet hints not even at anything of those things which are had in the book of Esther; nay rather the contrary is thence gathered. For Plutarch narrates that Artaxerxes Mnemon had two wives, Statira and Atossa; but neither can be Vashti or Esther, who were the wives of our Assuerus. For Vashti was repudiated (Esther 1), but Statira was slain by poison while she was yet queen, and with great grief of the King; and Atossa was never repudiated, but lived with Artaxerxes even to his death. Now Esther was Hebrew by race, and taken in marriage by Artaxerxes in the seventh year of his reign (Esther 2); but Atossa was not Hebrew but Persian, and the daughter of Artaxerxes himself; and Statira was married not in the seventh year of the reign, but before Artaxerxes began to reign.
There is therefore a last opinion, and that, in my judgment, the most probable — of Josephus (book 11, chapter 6), and of Sulpicius (book 2 of the Sacred History), and of Nicephorus of Constantinople in his Chronicle, and of many others, whom without name Eusebius reports in his Chronicle — who teach that Assuerus the husband of Esther can be no other than Artaxerxes, who was called Longimanus; which opinion we also follow, both because the arguments by which we refuted the other opinions effect nothing against this opinion, and also because, if credit is to be given to anyone in this history, it is chiefly to Josephus, who was both a Hebrew and a priest, and most skilled in Hebrew matters. It is likely too that Nehemias the Hebrew could therefore be cupbearer to so great a King, because both Queen Esther was Hebrew, and the prefect of the palace, Mardochai, was Hebrew. But, they say, if Mardochai was carried away with King Joachim from Jerusalem into Babylon, how can it be that he survived even to the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus? I answer that this is not altogether incredible; for from the beginning of the Babylonian captivity even to Longimanus are about a hundred and sixty-five years; and it is not incredible that at that time Mardochai passed his hundred and sixty-fifth year, when long afterward St. Paul the hermit reached his hundred and fifteenth (St. Jerome witnessing), and we ourselves have seen an old man of a hundred and five years, so robust and vigorous that he seemed likely to survive many years still. Then, as to what the Scripture says, that Mardochai was carried into Babylon with King Joachim, it can rightly be understood even if Mardochai were not yet born. For he could be carried away, not in himself, but in his parents or ancestors; even as Zorobabel and Josue are said to have returned into Jerusalem from the captivity which Nabuchodonosor had made (2 Esdras 7), and yet Zorobabel was born in the captivity itself (Matthew 1), and the like is probable of Josue the son of Josedech. And in Genesis 46 and Deuteronomy 10 we read that seventy souls entered into Egypt with Jacob, in which number are comprehended the two sons of Joseph, who had been born in Egypt; nor can they be said to have entered into Egypt by any other reason than because Joseph, in whose loins they were, had entered into Egypt.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII. De libro Esther. Hactenus de primo ordine sacrorum libro¬ rum disputatum est : nunc de libris singulis secundi ordinis, de quibus major difficultas est, seorsim disseremus. Ac primus se offert liber Esther, quem librum tres gravissimi scriptores extra Canonem posuerunt, Melito Asianus apud Eusebium lib. IV hist. cap. 26., Athanasius in Synopsi, et Gregorius Nazianzenus in eo carmine quod scripsit de (1) Lib. 11. Cap. 12. — (2) De consens. Ev. Lib. 111. Cap. 7. 7 82 LIBER I. genuinis Scripturis. Non defuerunt etiam qui librum quidem Esther inter sacros libros numerandum censuerint; septem vero po¬ strema capita, quod in Hebraicis textibus non habeantur, ejus libri vera membra esse negaverint, et tamquam adulterina, atque aliena a reliquo corpore resecanda putave¬ rint. In qua sententia fuisse B. Hieronymum, ex ejus praefatione colligitur. Secuti S. Hie¬ ronymum sunt, non modo ante Concilium Tridentinum Nicolaus Lyranus , Dionysius Carthusianus, Hugo et Thomas de Vio Car¬ dinales in Commentariis hujus libri; verum etiam post Concilium Sixtus Senensis in lib. I et VIII Bibliothecae sanctae. At librum hunc sacrum et divinum esse, satis certe probant omnia illa Pontificum et Conciliorum decreta; necnon tam multa Patrum Hebraeorum, Graecorum et Latino¬ rum testimonia, quae supra in quarto hujus libri capite annotavimus.vNam si Melitonem, Athanasium, et Gregorium detrahas, reliqui omnes de libri hujus divina auctoritate con¬ sentiunt. Quod vero attinet ad ea capita, quae in Hebraicis codicibus non habentur, ea quoque ad sacrum Canonem pertinere liis rationibus confirmamus. Primum enim negari non potest, quin ve¬ tera Concilia, Laodiceenum cap. 59, et Car¬ thaginiense III can. 47., veteresque Patres Graeci, Origenes in primum Psalmum, Euse- bius lib. III Hist. cap. 25, Cyrillus Catech. IV, et Damascenus lib. IV cap. 18, necnon Patres Latini, Hilarius in primum Psalmum, Innocentius epist. 3, Ruffinus in Symbolo, et Augustinus lib. II Doctr. Christ. cap. 8, cum inter sacros libros volumen Esther nu¬ merant, de eo volumine esse locutos, quo tum ipsi, tum Ecclesia universa eo tempore utebatur. Utebatur autem eo tempore uni¬ versa Ecclesia libris sacris juxta eam editio¬ nem, quam S. Hieronymus praefatione in li¬ brum Esther, et saepe alibi, vulgatam ap¬ pellare solet, quae, ut ipse ait, Graecorum lingua et litteris continetur; in qua editione septem illa capita libri Esther, de quibus nunc agimus, non defuisse, testes sunt in primis ipsi Graeci textus, qui nomine septua¬ ginta duorum Interpretum circumferuntur ; testis quoque est S. Athanasius in Synopsi, ubi summam, et primas sententias singulo¬ rum librorum adscribit ; testis denique est S. Hieronymus, qui in sua translatione ali¬ quot locis admonet, septem ista capita in Hebraeis textibus non haberi, sed ex vulgata editione a se esse deprompta. Quare si Con¬ cilia et Patres librum Esther, qualem ipsi legere consueverant in sacrum Canonem re¬ tulerunt ; certe librum integrum, atque his septem adjunctis capitibus retulerunt. Quid, quod Patres non modo librum ipsum inter sacros numerant, sed etiam ex postre¬ mis septem capitibus non raro testimonia petunt? Vide Chrysost. hom. 3 ad populum Antiochenum, et Augustinum epistol. 199 ad Ediciam. Quid, quod Origenes in Episto¬ la ad Julium Africanum, hanc ipsam partem libri Esther, quae in Hebraeorum voluminibus non habetur, sacram et canonicam esse de¬ monstrat? « In libro, inquit, Esther, neque Mardochsei, neque "Esther preces, quae le¬ gentes possunt aedificare , habentur apud Hebraeos ; sed neque epistolae, neque quae ab Aman scripta est de eversione gentis Ju¬ daeorum, neque Mardochaei ex nomine Regis Artaxerxis gentem a morte liberans. » Apud septuaginta autem et Thedotionem ea sunt. Et infra ; « Vide ergo, ne imprudentes, et in¬ scientes abrogemus exemplaria, quae haben¬ tur passim in Ecclesiis, et legem statuamus fraternitati, ut deponant quidem sacros, qui apud eos feruntur, libros : assententur au¬ tem Hebraeis, et persuadeant ut nos puris impertiant, et qui nihil habeant figmenti. An non providentia in sanctis Scripturis dedit omnibus Christi Ecclesiis aedificationem ? non curam gfessit eorum, qui empti sunt pretio, pro quibus Christus est mortuus » ? Accedit postremo decretum Trident. Cone, sess. IV, quo libri omnes in ipso decreto paulo ante numerati, cum omnibus suis par¬ tibus approbantur, prout in Ecclesia legi consueverunt, et in Latina vulgata editione habentur : cujus Concilii auctoritas, quam¬ vis apud haereticos nulla sit, apud Sixtum tamen caeterosque Catholicos maxima atque antiquissima est. Sed Concilium, inquit Sixtus lib. I, de veris librorum partibus loquitur, non de ad¬ ditamentis, qualia sunt postrema capita libri Esther. Atqui si ista Sixti responsio vera es¬ set, multae aliae partes sacrorum librorum, Danielis, Marci, Lucae, Joannis apud Catho¬ licos in discrimen vocarentur. Quid enim haberet Sixtus quod diceret, si ei ad eas partes divinorum voluminum conservandas, Concilii decretum quasi murum quemdam objicienti , responderetur ab adversariis : Concilium de veris partibus esse locutum, ea vero additamenta esse, non partes? CAPUT VII. 83 Deinde quis ambigere poterat, certis libris a Concilio approbatis, omnes etiam veras partes eorum librorum esse approbatas? Quorsum igitur addit Concilium illa verba, cum omnibus suis partibus, nisi ut omnes intelligant, eas etiam partes, de quibus ali¬ quando controversia fuerat, ad sacrorum li¬ brorum Canonem pertinere? Denique Tridentinum Concilium senten¬ tiam suam sequentibus verbis ita luculenter explicuit, ut nullus omnino tergiversationi locus sit relictus. Cum enim dixisset : « Si quis autem libros ipsos integros cum omni¬ bus suis partibus », adjunxit continuo : «pro¬ ut in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueve¬ runt (1 ). )> Quis autem nescit, feri a quarta post Dominicam secundam Quadragesimae, publice in Ecclesia inter ipsa sacrorum so- Jemnia lectionem decantari ex XIII cap. Esther? Et rursum ex eodem capite lectio¬ nem pronuntiari in ea Missa, quae legi solet adversus Paganos? Ac demum orationem Esther recitari ex cap. XIY ejusdem libri, in Dominica 22 post Pentecosten, Evangelio ac Symbolo decantato? Sed operae pretium erit jam adversariorum argumenta diluere. Aiunt primo , cum liber Esther Hebraico sermone scriptus sit, septem ista capita quae apud Hebraeos non habentur, sine dubio cen¬ seri debere supposititia. Respondemus cum Origine loco notato, probabile esse aliquan¬ do ista etiam capita in textu Hebraico fuisse, deinde casu aliquo excidisse. Certe Josephus lib. XI. Antiq. cap. 6. dum historiam Esther narrat, duas epistolas Assueri et orationem Mardochaei non praetermittit : cum tamen nihil horum nunc in Hebraeorum codicibus habeatur : neque credibile est a Josepho haec esse conficta, cum ipse idem de se ista lo¬ quatur : « In ipso, inquit, historiae meae prin¬ cipio propter eos qui quaestionem faciunt, aut in aliquo culpare nituntur, astruxi di¬ cens, translaturum me libros Hebraicos in eloquium Graecum : et hos volentibus ape¬ rire, neque adjicere me aliquid seorsum, ne¬ que subtrahere me promittens (2). » Potest etiam responderi, primum libri hu¬ jus auctorem qui Hebraice historiam Esther scribendam suscepit, summam tantum histo¬ riae conscripsisse : deinde alio tempore scrip¬ tam fuisse [historiam eamdem ab aliquo alio copiosius, et translatam in linguam Grae¬ cam a Lysimacho, regnante in HSgypto Pto¬ lemaeo Epiphane et Cleopatra , ut indicatur in hoc ipso libro cap. XI. Porro prioris au¬ ctoris librum ipsum Hebraicum , posterioris autem non ipsum librum, sed solum transla¬ tionem ad nos pervenisse* Secundo objiciunt ; non cohaerere postre¬ ma ista capita cum superioribus : nam cap. II. narrantur insidiae duorum Eunuchorum, et detectio earumdem industria Mardochaei. Deinde rursum eaedem narrantur cap. XI et XII, sed priori loco dicuntur insidiae factae fuisse anno septimo Assueri ; et cap. VI ad¬ ditur, nihil omnino mercedis accepisse Mar- dochaeum, qui eas patefecerat: in loco autem posteriore, dicuntur factae anno secundo As¬ sueri, et additur, datis pro delatione mune¬ ribus. Respondeo septem illa capita libri Esther i quae sunt postrema in editione Latina vulga¬ ta, non esse revera postrema , sed quaedam eorum pertinere ad initium libri, ut cap. XI, et XII, quaedam ad medium , ut cap. XIII, XIV, XV, XVI ; quaedam ad finem, ut cap. X ; quod perspicuum est, tum ex Graecis codici¬ bus ubi omnia suo ordine collocata sunt; tum ex annotatione S. Hieronymi inserta cap. X, XI, et sequentibus hujus libri in Bi- bliis Latinis. Patitur autem Ecclesia ea ca¬ pita simul ad finem libri permanere , ubi ea S. Hieronymus collocavit , ut intelligamus, quid hujus libri sit, et quid etiam non sit in codicibus Hebraeorum. Narratio igitur insidiarum quae habetur cap. XII, in Latinis Bibliis , ad initium libri pertinet, atque ibi narrantur insidiae per an¬ ticipationem , quae rursum narrantur postea suo loco c. II. Factae sunt autem anno septi¬ mo ut habetur cap. II ; non autem anno se¬ cundo ut videtur colligi ex c. XI ; siquidem illa verba c. XI : Anno secundo regnante Ar¬ taxerxe , etc. non debent extendi usque ad narrationem insidiarum, sed solum ad ea quae dicuntur idipso c. XI, id est ad som¬ nium quod Mardochaeus vidit, antequam Esther Assuero conjungeretur. Quod vero objiciebatur de mercede dela¬ tionis, non habet difficultatem. Nam etsi non habuerat Mardochaeus mercedem pro dela¬ tione quando Rex jussit relegi sibi annales, ut dicitur cap. VI, tamen habuit postea am¬ plissimam mercedem, quae describitur in eo¬ dem VI capite, et ea significatur cap. XII, per illa verba : Datis prjo delatione muneribus. (1) Sess. IV. — (2) Lib. X. Cap. 12. 84 LIBER I. Dices fortasse : si ista narrantur per anti¬ cipationem, cur in Graecis textibus sequitur : Et factum est post haec in diebus Artaxerxis , etc. ? narratur enim convivium Regis Assueri factum anno tertio regni ejus, et indicat Scrip¬ tura id factum esse post detectionem insi¬ diarum, quas supra diximus anno septimo factas esse. Respondemus, illud post hcec non referri ad ea, quae narrata sunt per anticipa¬ tionem, sed ad somnium Mardochaei quod suo leco narratum fuerat. Objiciunt tertio : pugnare ista capita pos¬ trema cum aliis partibus hujus libri, totum¬ que librum suspectum reddere. Siquidem in epistola Assueri quae habetur c. XYI, dicitur Aman gente atque animo Macedo fuisse, Persarumque imperium ad Macedones trans¬ ferre voluisse : ex quibus verbis colligitur, historiam Esther incidisse in ultima tempora Regum Persarum. Nec enim timere potuit Assuerus , ne Regnum Persarum ad Mace¬ dones transferretur, nisi esset jam illud re¬ gnum alicujus nominis. Fuit autem regnum Macedonum obscurissimum usque ad tem¬ pora Philippi patris Alexandri Magni, ut Jus¬ tinus testatur ad finem lib. VI., nec initio regni Philippi, sed anno vicesimo primum coeperunt vires ejus regni suspectae esse Per¬ sis, ut Diodorus refert lib. XVI. Incidit au¬ tem annus Philippi vicesimus in annum vi- cesimumtertium Regis Artaxerxis Ochi, ut ex Chronico Eusebii cognosci potest. Atqui nullo modo fieri potest, ut post annum vice¬ simum tertium Ochi contigerithistoriaEsther: quaero enim, quis fuit Rex ille Persarum qui habuit Esther uxorem? Ochusne? At haec historia non post annum XXIII, sed anno XII regni Assueri completa est, ut habetur in libro Esther cap. III. Num Arses Ochi suc- cersor ? At ille solis quatuor annis regnavit; qua ratione nec Darius Arsis successor et prostremus Persarum Rex maritus Esther esse potuit; quippe qui sex tantum annis re¬ gno potitus est. Adde , quod si ad finem regni Persarum pertineret historia Esther, supervixisset Mar- dochaeus fere ad trecentos annos. Fuit enim Mardochaeus translatus cum Jechonia ex Jerusalem in Babylonem a Nabuchodonosor Rege Chaldaeorum, Esther II et XI., et certe habuit tunc aliquot annos : deinde mansit in captivitate annis LXX. Supervixisset postea ab initio regni Gyri usque ad finem Ochi, qui sunt anni ducenti et viginti. Conjunge annos LXX cum annis CCXX., et adde ad¬ huc aliquot alios quos egit ante captivitatem, et invenies fere CCC annos. Et augetur dif¬ ficultas etiam propter Esther ; nam cum ipsa fuerit neptis Mardochaei juxta Hieronymi versionem , aut patruelis juxta Hebraicos et Graecos codices, vel fuit eequalisMardochaeo, vel non multo junior ; et quando etiam fuis¬ set centum annis posterior, habuisset saltem vitae annos ducentos cum ad nuptias Assueri pervenit. Quis autem credat annum ducen¬ torum annorum esse illam formosissimam virginem, quam Rex Persarum prae omnibus mulieribus adamavit ? Respondemus : multas esse de tempore quo vixit Esther Scriptorum sententias ; et quamquam non sunt omnes aeque probabiles, tamen nulla est tam improbabilis , ut si eam sequamur, propositam objectionem diluere non possimus. Aliqui igitur historiam Esther ante solu¬ tionem captivitatis Babylonicae constituunt, voluntque Assueram Darii Medi patrem, cu¬ jus fit mentio Daniel IX, eum esse, qui duxit uxorem. Quae opinio placuisse videtur Melchiori Cano lib. XI. de locis cap. VI., et Gerardo Mercatori in Chronologia ; qui au¬ ctores ad illam objectionem de Aman, qui transferre voluit imperium Persarum ad Ma¬ cedones responderent : non ideo hoc voluis¬ se Aman, quod jam tum regnum Macedonum ita floreret , ut cum Persis de imperio orbis teme contenderet ; sed contra potius , quia cum ipse gente Macedo esset, voluit gentem suam per ea tempora obscuram illustrissi¬ mam reddere, translato ad se et suos nobilis¬ simo imperio. Est tamen improbabilis hcec sententia. Pri¬ mo, quia maritus Esther passim dicitur Ar¬ taxerxes , quod nomen Medis non convenit, cum sit proprium Regum Persarum. Secundo , quia maritus Esther regnabat ab India usque adH5thiopiam, Estherl. Nun¬ quam autem Medi tam amplum imperium possederunt. Loquimur autem de temporibus regni Medorum ante Cyri Monarchiam : ta¬ metsi enim eo tempore majus essetMedorum quam Persarum regnum, ut S. Hieronymus testatur in cap. V. Danielis ; non tamen erat regnum illud Medorum tam amplum, quam postea fuit Monarchia Persarum, sive regnum Assueri mariti Esther. Tertio, quia maritus Esther se et Persam et Persarum Regem diserte vocat, Esther ult. At Assuerus, de quo agitur Dan. IX., de semine Medorum erat. CAPUT VII. 85 Quarto, quia maritus Esther regnum suum a Deo Hebraeorum recognoscit , Esther ulti¬ mo. Nusquam autem legimus, Medos coluis¬ se Deum Judaeorum : de Cyro vero et poste¬ ris ejus id legimus. Nam Cyrus dicit : Omnia reyna mundi dedit mihi Deus coeli , et ipse jus¬ sit , ut aedificarem domum in Hierusalem (1), et I. Esdr. (2) leguntur epistolae Darii et Ar¬ taxerxis Regum Persarum, quibus Deum Ju¬ daeorum hi Reges agnoscunt , et sacrificari pro se ac regno suo jubent. Quinto, quia maritus Esther Susis regiam suam habebat, Esther I. At Susa non erat Medorum regia sed Persarum , ut scribunt Solinus cap. LVIII., Diodorus libr. XI. et Plutarchus in Artaxerxe. Neque his repu¬ gnant Justinus lib. I. et Q. Curtius lib. IV. qui Regiam Persarum scribunt fuisse Perse- polim. Nam, ut refert Strabo lib.XV, etPer- sepolis et Susa Regiae urbes Persarum erant : sed Persepolis ideo Regia dicebatur, quod apud eam gazae et sepulcra Regum essent ; Susa vero , quod in ea Reges ipsi moraren¬ tur. Susis autem sedem suam Cyrus consti¬ tuit, quod cum ea civitas sita esset in finibus Assyriae, Persidis, et Mediae, commodissime poterat inde universum imperium defendi et regi. Non igitur Assuerus maritus Esther Medus aliquis fuit, sed Persa. Aliorum opinio est , maritum Esther non alium esse posse quam Cambysem, qui etiam Assuerus dicitur, I.Esdr. 4. Quae sententia Ju¬ daeorum est in eaChronologia,quae cnijr T1D, id est, ordo saeculi inscribitur; eteamdem se¬ quitur Gilbertus Genebrardus in sua Chrono- logia. Porro Judaei tres tantum numerant Reges Persarum, Cyrum, Assuerum, et Darium, qui a Magno Alexandro victus fuit: quocirca nulla eis quaestio remanet de aetate Mardo- chaei et Esther, vel de Aman et regno Ma¬ cedoniae. Tres autem tantum fuisse Reges Persarum, duobus testimoniis Scripturarum probant. Unum est Dan. XI., ubi Daniel post- eaquam dixerat tres Reges futuros fuisse in Perside post Darium Medum, continuo sub¬ jungit de Alexandro : Surget vero Rex fortis , et dominabitur , etc. (3) Alterum est in II li¬ bro Esdr. c. XII., ubi enumerat Nehemias magnos sacerdotes a Josue filio Josedech us¬ que adJaddum, quem constat temporibus Alexandri Magni sacerdotio functum. Ex quo (1) 11. Paralip. XXVI. 23.; et I. Esdr. 1. 2. — (2 XI. 2. sequi videtur , ut pauci admodum fuerint Reges Persarum, cum Nehemias , qui tem¬ pore Cyri primi Regis vir maturus erat, tem¬ pora Alexandri Magni attigerit, qui Persarum Monarchiam destruxit. Sed haec Judaeorum opinio nullo modo no¬ bis probari potest. Nam Assuerus maritus Esther supra duodecim annos regnavit, Esth. III. Cambyses autem non vixit in regno nisi annos septem et menses quinque, juxta He¬ rodotum libro III., vel annos tantum sex, si Josepho Hebraeo credimus, libro XI Anti- quit. cap. II., quibus omnes alii Scriptores assentiuntur. Nec possunt Judaei dicere, multos praeterea annos Cambysem regnasse cum patre suo Cyro, cum ipsum Cyrum tri¬ bus tantum annis regnasse iidem Judaei ve¬ lint. Deinde Cambyses toto tempore imperii sui Judaeos odio prosecutus est, nec unquam permisit templum aedificari Hierosolymae; ut aperte colligitur ex lib. IEsdrae. c. IV. Quis igitur credat, Cambysem illum Assuerum es¬ se, qui post mortem Aman Judaeorum aman- tissimus fuit? Quid quod Assuerus noster in libro Esther cap. ultimo indicat, se longo intervallo distare a temporibus Cyri , cum dicit, beneficio Dei coeli datum fuisse regnum majoribus silis, atque usque ad sua tem¬ pora conservatum ! quae certe in Camby¬ sem non conveniunt , qui Cyro proximus fuit. Neque fundamentum Hebraeorum de tri¬ bus Persarum Regibus solidum est, cum non solum omnes omnino historici Graeci et La¬ tini contradicant, et ipse etiam Josephus na¬ tione ac religione Hebraeus, sed etiam Daniel atque Esdras : Nam Danielis c. XI. post illa verba : Ecce adhuc tres Reges stabunt in Per - side, sequitur / Et quartus ditabitur opibus ni¬ miis super omnes; et cum invaluerit divitiis suis, concitabit omnes adversus regnum Grceco- vum (4). Quibus verbis aperte describitur, Xerxes, qui cum innumerabili exercitu venit in Graeciam. In libro autem I. Esdree cap. IV. fit mentio Cyri , qui Templum exstrui jussit ; Assueri seu Artaxerxis, qui idipsum prohibuit; et Darii, qui iterum imperavit ut Templum ae¬ dificaretur. Deinde cap. VI. post Darium po¬ nitur alius Artaxerxes, qui etiam nominatur in lib. II Esdrae cap. II. Cur autem Daniel 1. Esdr. VI. et Vll. - (3) Dan. XI. 3. — (4) Dan. 86 LIBER I. post Xerxem continuo transeat ad Alexan¬ drum Magnum, ratio est , ut scribit in eum locum S. Hieronymus, quia Daniel non pro¬ posuerat historiam Regum texere , sed prae¬ dicere regnorum mutationes. Numeravit igi¬ tur Reges Persarum usque ad Xerxem , qui bellum gessit adversus Graecos, ut indicaret, inde postea natam esse occasionem, ut Graeci armarentur in Persas, eosque tandem Alexan¬ dro duce imperio spoliarent. Alterum illud argumentum de numero Pontificum, diluit Beda lib. III in Esdr. cap. 32. ubi docet : Nehemiam enumerasse genea- logiam Josue Pontificis usque ad Jaddum, quia Jaddi infantiam attigit. Nam, ut habe¬ mus in II lib. Esdrae cap. ult., tempore Ne- hemiae summus Pontifex erat Eliasib nepos Josue, et proavus Jaddi, qui tempore Ale-' xandri jam senex pontificatum gerebat : in¬ ter finem autem Artaxerxis Longimani, cujus pincerna erat Nehemias, et initium Alexan¬ dri , sunt anni nonaginta quinque. Fieri igi¬ tur optime potuit, ut Jaddus qui tempore Alexandri senex erat, tempore Nehemiae in¬ fans esset. Alia sententia aliorum est, maritum Esther esse Darium Hystaspis, qui Cambysi succes¬ sit. Quae sententia Joannis Carionis est in Chronico, et Joannis Benedicti in annotatio¬ nibus marginalibus ad librum Esther; et quanquam superioribus duabus probabilior est, mihi tamen ob illa ipsa argumenta, quse ipsi pro se adferunt, rejicienda vide¬ tur. Dicunt , existimare se Darium Hystaspis esse Assuerum nostrum, tum quia duos uxo¬ res habuit , Atossam, et Arystonam ; tum etiam- quia morabatur in urbe Susa : quce duo referuntur de Assuero nostro in lib. Esther. At Herodotus lib. III. docet, tam Atossam quam Artistonam uxores Darii, filias Cyri fuisse ; quod certe nostrae Esther non conve¬ nit : incoluisse autem Susam non est pro¬ prium Darii , sed commune Regibus Persa¬ rum, ut supra docuimus ex Strabone. Alia sententia, et quidem valde celebris, Artaxerxem Mnemonem maritum Esther fa¬ cit : ita Eusebius docet in Chronico, quem Beda in libro de sex aetatibus, et permulti alii Scriptores sequuntur. Sed adversus hanc sententiam duo sunt non levia argumenta. Primum scribit Jose- phus in primo libro Contra Appionem, non haberi apud Hebraeos in canone sacrorum librorum eos libros, qui post tempora Arta¬ xerxis Longimani scripti sunt. Siquidem li¬ brorum sacrorum canonem Esclras compo¬ suit, cujusvita non extenditur ultra tempora Longimani : at liber Esther semper in ca¬ none Hebraeorum fuit, ut ex eodem Josepho in lib. XI. Antiquitatum, cap. 6. et in eodem lib. I. Contra Appionem colligitur ; non igi¬ tur historia hujus libri ad tempora Mnemo¬ nis referenda est. Deinde Artaxerxis Mnemonis vitam dili¬ genter scripsit Plutarchus, qui tamen ne in¬ nuit quidem aliquid eorum, quae habentur in lib. Esther, quin potius contrarium inde colligitur. Narrat enim Plutarchus, Artaxer¬ xem Mnemonem duas conjuges habuisse, Statiram et Atossam : neutra autem esse po¬ test Vasthi aut Esther, quae uxores Assueri nostri fuerant. Nam Vasthi repudiata fuit, Esther 1 . , Statira autem veneficio interfecta dum adhuc Regina esset, et cum ingenti Re¬ gis dolore : Atossa vero repudiata nunquam fuit, sed vixit cum Artaxerxe usque ad ejus mortem. Jam vero Esther Hebraea erat ge¬ nere, et in matrimonium accepta ab Arta¬ xerxe anno septimo regni ejus, Esther II., Atossa autem non Hebraea, sed Persica, et ipsius Artaxerxis filia erat : Statira vero, non anno septimo regni assumpta, sed antequam regnare inciperet Artaxerxes ab eo ducta fuerat. Est igitur postrema sententia, eaque meo quidem judicio maxime probabilis, Joseplii libro XI cap. 6., nec non Sulpitii lib. II sa¬ crae historiae, et Nicepliori Constantinopoli- tani in Chronico, et multorum aliorum, quos sine nomine refert Eusebius inChronico,qui docent, Assuerum maritum Esther non alium esse posse, quam Artaxerxem, qui dictus est Longimanus, quam sententiam nos etiam sequimur, tum quod argumenta, quibus alias sententias refutavimus, adversus hanc sententiam nihil efficiant, tum etiam quia, si cui fides adhibenda est in hac historia, maxime Josepho, qui et Hebraeus et sacer¬ dos et peritissimus rerum Hebraicarum erat. Verisimile etiam est, Nehemiam Hebraeum idcirco pincernam tanti Regis esse potuisse, quia et Regina Esther Hebraea, et Praefectus palatii Mardochaeus Hebraeus erat. At, inquiunt, si Mardochaeus cum Rege Joachim translatus fuit ex Hierusalem in Babylqnem ; quomodo fieri potest ut usque ad tempus Artaxerxis Longimani supervixe¬ rit? Respondeo, non esse id omnino incre¬ dibile : sunt enim ab initio captivitatis Ba- CAPUT VII. 87 bylonicae usque ad Longimanum anni cir¬ citer 165 : non est antem incredibile, eo tempore Mardochaeum superasse annum 165, quando diu postea S. Paulus Eremita annum attigit 115., S. Hieronymo teste, et nos ipsi viderimus senem annorum 105, ita robustum et vegetum, ut multos adhuc an¬ nos supervicturus esse videretur. Deinde , quod Scriptura dicit , Mardo¬ chaeum translatum fuisse in Babylonem cum Rege Joachim ; recte intelligi potest, etiam si nondum natus fuisset Mardochaous. Siqui¬ dem transferri potuit, non in se, sed in pa¬ rentibus, aut majoribus suis, quemadmo¬ dum Zorobabel et Josue dicuntur rediisse in Hierusalem ex captivitate, quam transtule¬ rat Nabuchodonosor, II. Esd. VII., et tamen Zorobabel natus est in ipsa captivitate, Matii. I., et idem verisimile est de Josue filio Jose- dech. Et Genes. XLVI., ac Deuteron. X. le¬ gimus, intrasse in .dEgyptum cum Jacob septuaginta animas, in quo numero compre¬ henduntur duo filii Joseph, qui nati erant in ASgypto : nec alia ratione dici possunt in iEgyptum esse ingressi, nisi quia Joseph, in cujus lumbis ipsi erant, in HEgyptum intra¬ verat.