They conflict with the canonical Book of Esther.
They conflict with the canonical Book of Esther.
§ 201. [III] It contains some things that conflict with the canonical Book of Esther. Therefore it cannot be canonical because the Holy Spirit never contradicts Himself. (1) In the canonical Book of Esther (2:16), the plot of the eunuchs was detected by Mordecai “in the seventh year” of Ahasuerus. The supplement (11:2) refers this “to his second year.” Bellarmine concedes that “the plot was planned in the seventh year, as it is in canonical Esther, not in the second year as it is in the supplement” (loc. cit.). How, then, does he build confidence in the supplement? He responds:
Those seven chapters of the Book of Esther that are last in the Latin Vulgate version are not actually the concluding chapters. Some of them belong to the beginning of the book, such as c. 11-12; some to the middle, such as c. 13-16; and some to the end, such as c. 10. The story of the plot that is in c. 12 of the Latin Bible, therefore, belongs to the beginning of the book. There the plot is narrated by anticipation. Afterward, they are narrated in their rightful place, c. 2. The plot was planned, then, in the seventh year, as it is in c. 2, not in the second year, as seems to be gathered from c. 11. Accordingly, those words of c. 7 about the second year of Artaxerxes’ reign ought not to be extended to the story of the plot but only to what is said in c. 11, that is, to the vision that Mordecai saw before Esther was married to Ahasuerus.
By this explanation, however, Bellarmine mixes up the tail with the head, the stomach with the feet, when he claims that the first chapter of the supplement is related to the end of the genuine Book of Esther and the eleventh and twelfth chapters to the beginning of the book. At the end of c. 11, Mordecai says that “when he had wakened, he mulled many things over in his mind and thought about that vision until the night. Then, as he rested in the court with those two eunuchs, he understood their plot against the king.” Thus between the dream of Mordecai and the plot of the eunuchs there was no five-year interval but only one day, if any confidence is to be attached to that supplement. The order of the activities urges that at the beginning of the book what preceded Ahaseurus’s marriage to Esther is told, something that the authentic Book of Esther also does. But the plot of the eunuchs occurred after the wedding of the king and Esther was celebrated, as is clear from Esther 2:22. What Bellarmine says about the anticipation committed here one cannot prove by any evident argument.
(2) The canonical Book of Esther says that “Mordecai received no rewards for detecting the plot” (Esther 6:3). The supplement (12:5) says that “they were given to him.” Bellarmine responds: “There is no difficulty here. You see, even if Mordecai had received no reward for his accusation, nevertheless when the king had the chronicles read to him, as it says in c. 6, he later had a great reward, described in the same c. 6. This is what is meant in c. 12 by those words that rewards were given him for his accusation.” Yet in the same c. 12 of the supplement, v. 6, after the reward was given for the accusation, Haman is said to have devised evil. What sort of a trickery this was is explained in Esther 6:4: Haman wanted to suggest to the king that he order Mordecai to be hanged from the gallows. But it happened that, as things changed, he was forced to honor Mordecai, who was clothed in royal vestments and crowned with a royal diadem. Therefore we cannot take those rewards to mean the honors that the king bestowed on him after inspecting the chronicles, because Haman is said to have planned his plot against Mordecai on the morning following the night when the chronicles had been read.
(3) The supplement to Esther (12:6) says that “Haman wanted to kill Mordecai because of the eunuchs who were put to death.” Canonical Esther 3:5 refers the cause for this to Mordecai’s denial of Haman’s speech. In Defens. Bellarm., Gretserus responds: “These do not conflict, because both can be causes for that hatred. It is not unusual for men to be most displeased with those who deserve well of them.” To be sure, these do not conflict with each other simply and absolutely; they could have been the joint causes for that hatred. Yet because the canonical Book of Esther expresses but one cause—and, indeed, one diverse from the cause that the supplement offers—this makes the trustworthiness of the supplement suspect.
(4) In the canonical Book of Esther, it says that the king looked favorably on the queen (Esther 5:2). In the supplement, he is said to have looked at her with anger ([15]:10). Gretserus responds with a distinction of time: “At first the king was surely inflamed with anger because of the unaccustomed coming of the queen, as it is in c. 15. Afterward, when his mind had been calmed to gentleness, he looked at the queen with very agreeable eyes because of her peril,” as it is in c. 3. The canonical Book of Esther, however, mentions that as soon as she began to enter, the king looked on the queen favorably, even before the queen began to explain the reason for her unusual entrance.
(5) In canonical Esther, the day appointed for the destruction of the Jews is said to have been the thirteenth day of Adar (Esther 3:13; 8:12; 9:1). The supplement says it was the fourteenth day of Adar (13:6).
(6) In canonical Esther 8:3, Haman is called an Agagite, that is, an Amalekite, but the supplement calls him a Macedonian (16:[10]).
(7) In the supplement (13:14), Mordecai says that he was unwilling to bow down to Haman because he “was afraid, lest he transfer the honor of his God to a man and worship someone besides his God.” Yet canonical Esther nowhere says that the rest worshiped Haman as God or that Haman wanted to be worshiped as God. Rather, it was this civil honor that Mordecai denied to wicked Haman because of the singular and heroic impulse of the Holy Spirit.