Moore - Esther

8/12/2019 Moore - Esther

1/13

On the Origins of the LXX Additions to the Book of EstherAuthor(s): Carey A. MooreSource: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), pp. 382-393Published by: The Society of Biblical LiteratureStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3263579.

Accessed: 01/06/2014 04:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Society of Biblical Literatureis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.95 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 04:38:32 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sblhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3263579?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3263579?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sbl


2/13

ON THEORIGINSOF THELXX ADDITIONSTO 1MEBOOKOF ESTHERCAREYA. MOORE

GESBSG COLLEGE,E'll'YSBAG,PEA. 17325

The ColophonTN keeping with the irony in the Hebrew version of Esther,l we will begin1 our study at the end; that is, we must begin with a considerationof Esther'scolophon in Addition (hereafterAdd)2 F 11, sincemuchof what I will suggestlater in this article is predicatedon the authenticityand essentialcorrectnessofthatcolophon. It readsasfollows:

In the fourthyearof thereignof Ptolemy ndCleopatra, ositheus,whosaidhe was a priestand a Levite, nd his sonPtolemybroughthe abovebookofPurim[i.e., the Greekversion],whichthey saidwas authentic nd hadbeentranslatedy Lysimachuson of Ptolemy, memberof the Jerusalemom-munity.This is unquestionablyhe most importantverse in the entire Greekversion

of Esther. For if this colophonis authentic, t would provide us with the dateand place where the translationwas made as well as the name and antecedentsof the translator. Moreover, t would stronglyindicate,coming as it does afterthe Adds A and F, that at least a portion of Add A (the dreamof Mordecai)and probablyall of F (Mordecai's nterpretation f it) were partof the Semitictext translated yLysimachus.

AlthoughEsther s the only book of the Jewish canonwith a colophon,E. J.Bickerman3has shown that comparable olophonswere often appended O bookacquisitionsat such ancientlibrariesas the one at Alexandria,Egypt. (In fact,one might argue that the uniquenessof the Esther colophon among canonicalbooksarguesfor its authenticity. As for the internalevidence,there is nothing

1On irony n Esther,ee my book,Esther:ntrodsstion,ranshtson,ndNotes (AB7B;NewYork: Doubleday,971 lvi.aAddA (A 1-17 / AT 1-18;Vulg.11:2-12:6) tellsof Mordecai'sream vss.1-10)andhis discoveryf a plotagainsthe king (vss.11-17). AddB (B 1-7// AT 4:14-18;AZulg.3:1-7) is theroyal etterdictated y Haman nnouncinghepogrom gainst heJews. Add C (C 1-30// AT 5:12-29;Vulg.13:8-14:19) containsheprayers f Mor-decaiandEsther. Add D (D 1-16 // AT 6:1-12;Vulg. 15:4-19) describes sther'sunannouncedudiencewiththe king. AddE (E 1-24// AT 8:22-32;Vulg. 16:1-24)is the royal etterdictated yMordecai.AddF (F 1-10// AT 8:53-58;Vulg. 10:4-13)containsMordecai'snterpretationf his dream s well as thecolophono theGreek er-sion(F 11// AT 8:59;Vulg.11.1).

8"TheColophonf the GreekBookof Esther,"BL63 ( 1944) 339-44.382

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.95 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 04:38:32 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/13

MOOR:e: XXADDINONSTO THEBWK OFBSEER 383improbablebouteither he date,place,or nameof thetranslator.Scholars odebate, f course,whichPtolemywas meant I preferPtolemyVIII SoterII,whichwouldmean hat hecolophon ates o ca. 114B.C.4 but all thePtolemycandidatesall well withina time-spanhatis compatiblewith the Greek it-erary tyleas well as religiousviewsof the Jewsof the 2nd-lstcenturies .C.Onemayevenconcedehat,asBennoJacobhas noted,5hereare Egyptianle-ments n the Greek ranslation, ithoutdiscreditinghe colophon'slaimto aPalestinianrovenance;orLysimachus'atherhadan Egyptian ame,Ptolemy.JustwhereLysimachusimselfwas bornandreared,whethern Egyptor Pal-estine,we cannot ay. Butwith the exception f AddsB andE (the tworoyallettersdictatedby Hamanand Mordecai,espectively), othingof the literarystyleor theological iewsof the GreekEsther s moreat home n theDiasporathan n Palestinetself,especiallyn the Palestine f the 2nd-lstcenturies .C.But even if one grants he authenticityf the colophon,we arenot thenjustified n assuminghatthe otherAdds were,alongwith A andF, partofLysimachus'ersion,.e.,we cannotassumehat the two royal etters(AddsBandE), the prayers f Mordecai ndEsther(C), the dramatic nd extendedaccount f Esther'snannouncedudiencewiththeking (D) were,alongwithA and P (the dreamandits interpretation),artof Lysimachus'emitic ext.Logicandsoundmethodology ouldpreclude ur makingsucha blanketasrsumption,ven if it werenot for the factthatthecolophonistimselfhadsomeresenations boutLysimachus'ersion. In the colophonhe clauses"whosaidhe wasa priestanda Levite" nd"theabovebook of Purim,which theysaidwasauthentic"mply, think, hecoloE>honist'swarenessf a competing er-sion be it a GreekversionwithoutanyAddsandmoreresemblinghe MT,the AT (the so-called Lucianic"ecension),6r someother ext. In anycase,the issueherewasnot Lysimachus'killsas a translatorut whetherhis versionwasbasedon the authentic emitic ext.

AddsB otndEAlthoughherearesomedifferencesetweenAddsB andE,for ourpurposesherethesetwoletterscanbe treatedogether. As for theireffect,both letterslendadditionalamaticinterest nda greater enseof authenticityo the Esther'See B. Jacob,"DasBuchEsther ei demLXX,"ZAW 10 (1890) 274-80,alioughPtolemyXII (77 B.C., so Bickerman)r PtolemyXIV (48 B.C.) arepossibilities.SeealsoP. G. Elgood,The Ptolemiesf Egypt London:Arrowsmith,938).6Jacob ZAW 10 [1890]280-88) citesas examples f Egypiianraces thsonssube

("hewasenthroned")or ks) mlkwtw "seatof his kingdom")n 1:2; to o; bassleosprostagmat"thecommandf the king")fordbs hmlk("thewordof Fe king>) n 2:8;philois("friends") orsry ("chiefs") n 1:3; andsomatophylakes"bodyguards")ormsmsy sp ("guardsf the threshold")n 2:21.B See my article, AGreekWitnesso a DifferentHebrewTextof Esther"ZAW79[1967]351-58), where have hown hat he particular reekext dentified y PauldeLagardendFredericieldasthe "Lucianic"ecensionf Esthers not thatbut an inde-pendentranslationfa Hebrewextquitedifferentrom heMT.



4/13

384 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITEM%REstory. Add E also supplies ome very explicitreligious lements, his being adimensionacking n the MT of Esther.7Therecan be little doubtthat both of these letterswere originallyGreekcompositions nd not translationsf a Semitic ext. Sucha condusion s sug-gestedby the external vidence: 1) thoseversionsbasedon the Hebrew uchas the Talmud,Targums, nd Syriacdo not have these additions; 2) the ver-sionsbasedon the Greek, .e., the VetusLatina OL), Coptic, and Ethiopic, ohave hem; (3) bothOrigen(185?-?254)andJerorne xpresslytate hatthesetwo letterswere acking n the Hebrew extsof theirday.8What he external vidence uggests boutB andE beingoriginally omposedin Greek s confirmed y the internal vidence: 1) their iterary tyle,whichis best characterizeds fIorid, hetorical,ndbombastic,s free of all Hebraismsand is quite unlikeGreek ranslationsf other Semiticdecrees n the Bible;9(2) their contentand especiallyheir iterary tyleare quite different rom thetwo letters ecordedn the SecondTargum f Esther the SecondTargum eingthe Semiticversion hat comesclosest n this case to the contentof the Greekversionof the letters);l (3) unlike he otherAddsand the canonical ortionsof Esther, he two letters n B andE abound n grammaticalonstructionshar-acteristic f "good"Greek, uchas participial nd nfinitival onstructions,eni-tive absolutes, nd the nounand its article eparated y qualifying repositionalphrases; 4) in termsof their iterary tyle,AddsB and E are most similar othe Greekof 3 Maccabees,he latterbeingcharacterizedy C. W. Emmetas "aproduct f Alexandrianiterature,xemplifyingn its extremestorm he pseudo-Classicalismf the Atticists . . artificiality nd extravagance. . obscure ndbombastic.. full of repetitions, nd awkwardlyonstructed...."11 Such acharacterizations equally pplicableo AddsB andE. Nor areEsther's arallelsto 3 Maccabeesonfined o Greek tyle; o manyare he parallelsn plot between3 Maccabeesnd the GreekEstherl2 hat A. Barucqhas called3 Maccabees ahellenistic mitationof Esther.''l3 (5) Finally, here are some exceedinglydose parallels etweenAdd B and 3 Mac3:11-29,not only in termsof tortuous

TSee he discussionn myEsthes,xxii-xxxiv,2-53.80rigen (Epist.ad Africangrzzii) states hat neither he dreamnor the prayers fMordecaindEsther ppearn the currentHebrew ext. Jerome,n his own Latin rans-lation,placed ll the Addsafter he canonical ortions f Esther ecause, s he explainedin a note mmediatelyfterhis translationf Esth10:3, noneof the Addswas found nthecurrent ebrewext.Cf. Erta1:24:4, 17-22;6:3-12;7:11-29.lFor he textof Targum heni, ee Paulde Lagarde, oggiogrwthahogldviceLeipzig:Teubner, 873).2"The ThirdBookof Maccabees,"POT,1. 161.l2The synopsiswhichfoIlows s equaIly pplicableo both books. "DisIoyal"ewswouldhavebeencompletely ipedout in a royally anctionedogrom ad not they beenmiraculouslyelivered y theirGod. The pogromwasannouncedn one royal etterandrevoked y a second. After he Jewshaddefeatedheirenemies,heycommemoratedheirvictory y nstituting joyous estival.13 gdsth,Esther2d ed.;La SainteBible [de Jerusalem];aris:Cerf,1957 84.



5/13

385OORED: XX ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF ESTHBRarld nvolved iterary tyle,l4but also in termsof verysimilar houghts, ven tothe pointof the two letterspreservinghe identical equence f those houghts.lbAlthoughhe HebrewEsther learly ntedates Maccabees,l6here s nothingto preclude ome ater nfluence f 3 Maccabeesn the GreekEsther, uchas,for instance,he first royal etterof Estherbeing patterned fter 3 Maccabees;3 Mac3:11-29could rery ell havebeen he model or AddB.Although cholarsike SchildenbergerndSoubigou17avereadily oncededthe undeniableGreekcharacterf Adds B and E, they argue hat these Addsarethe original dicts, omposedn Greek n accordance ith Esth3:12, wherewe read hat the edict "waswritten o eachprovince n its own scriptand toeachpeople n its own language."Suchan explanation resupposes,f course,the almost ompletehistoricity f the Esther tory, view whichmanyscholarsfind impossibleo accept.l8 Moreover,f these ettersbe genuine, hen one ishardpressed o explainwhy both edictswereso briefly ummarizednstead fbeing quoted n the MT, especially ince the one letter s the antithesis f theother, .e., he edict n B is quitesecularn spirit, he edict n E quitereligious.l9Had such lettersactually xisted, ertainly ne or the other shouldhave beenpreservedn theMT.It is clear hat hese etters reGreek n originandquitefictitious, eingtheproduct f theirauthor'smagination,is use of selected hrasesrom he Greektranslationf the canonical ortions f Esther9 nd,as suggested bove, rom3 Mac3:11-29.Presumablyhe same ndividualwroteB and E. It is unlikely hat it wasthe Lysimachus ho translated sther rom he Hebrew nto Greek; or one canscarcelymaginea man so enamouredf producinghe pseudo-classicalismfAdds B and E being able let alone content to translate he rest of theBookof Esther o simplyandprosaicallys Lysimachusaddone.

14 Cf. B 2 and 3 Mac3 :14; or B 3-4 and 3 Mac 3:21.6B 2a // 3:14; B 2b // 3:15; B 4// 3:19; B 5 // 3:22-24; B 6// 3:25; B 7 //3:26.160n the dating of 3 Maccabees, ee C W. Emmet,APOT,1. 156-59; M. Hadas,TheThrd ndPourthBooks f MaccabeesJewish ApocryphalLiterature;New York: Harper,1953); cf. alsoIDB3. 210-12.17J.B. Schildenberger,Dogs gsh Esther Die HeiIige Schrift des Alten Testaments;Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1941) 76; L. Soubigou,Esther sadust t commente2d ed.; LaSainteBible [de Jerusalem]; aris: Cerf, 1952) 588.l8The most sustainedeffort to establishthe compIetehistoricityof the Estherstory isJacob Hoschander,The Book of Esther r the Lsghtof HstoryPhiladelphia: DropsieCollege, 1932).19 Por example, we read in Esther,"They even assume that they will escape the evil-

hating justice of God, who sees everything" E 4); Jews "aregoverned by very just lawsand are the sons of the Most High, the most great and living God, who has directed hekingdom for us and our forefathers n the most successfulway" (E 15-16); Haman andhis family have been hanged,"anappropriateentencewhich the omnipotentGod promptlypassed on him" (E 18); "for the omnipotentGod has made this a day of ioy for hischosenpeople insteadof their day of destruction" E 21 ) .20For xample,cf. B 1 with 1:1; 3:12; 8:9; B 4 with 3:8; and B 6 with 3:13.



6/13

386 JOURNALOF BIBLI>L LITEEURBAs for the dateof B andE, evenafterone grants he essential eracity fEsther'solophon,hereis no wayof knowinghow soonafterthe translationwasmade hatB andE wereadded, xcept hattheydidexistby A.D.94, foraparaphrasedersion f themappearedn Josephus, nt.11.6,6216-19;11.6,12273-83.

AddATheeffectof AddA is quiteclear: t underscoreshereligious haracterftheEsthertory,hintingatthedirectionshestorywill takeandmakingvaguelyexplicitwhatis implicit n the Hebrewversion, iz.,God'sruleor providenceintheeventsnarratednEsther.21Thedreamandits meaningareof tremendousmport or the Esther tory;forwhat s implicit n Mordecai'sreams explicitly pelled ut by him in hisinterpretationf it in , viz.,the struggledescribedn the Bookof Estherwasnotamereharem rcourtntrigue revena long-standingthnic ivalry etweenJewsandAmalekitesas the MT suggests),but a religious truggle, cosmicand pocalyptictruggle etween ewsandalltherestof theworld.AddA consists f threesections: heprelude r setting orthedream vss.1-3);thedreamtself (vss.4-10); andMordecai'siscoveryf theplotagainstthekingandtheimmediateesults vss.11-17).ThatAddA is clearlyecondarys indicated yboth heexternal nd nternalevidence.The MT is an intelligibleandconsistentwhole;but AddA is rifewith ontradictionso theMT. Forexample,n AddA we read hatthedreamoccurredn the secondyearof King ArtaxerxeswhenMordecai, prominentmanerving n the coe, havingdiscovered plot against he king,personoZZysfosmedhekingof it, thereby eceivingheking's rnmedivteewogrdndHa-man'smmediatenmity.22It shouldbe noted,however,hatthesecontradic-tionsllcome romvss.1-3and11-17,notfrom hedrearn.Theprincipal ifficultys,however,hedreamtself (vss.4-10); it puttlednotnlyMordecai utdoesus as well. AlthoughheLXX andthe AT differfaressfromoneanother ere han n thecanonical ortions f Esther,heirdif-ferencesn AddA maybeof moresignificancehan n mostof theotherAdds.Forhereareseriouscontradictionsndinconsistenciesn Mordecai'snterpre-tation;ut,aswe shallseelater, hesecontradictionsreof a different rderorcharacterromthose n thedream'setting, e, fromthose n A 1-3and11-17.

t AlthoughGod is notmentioned n Esth6:1-13 of the MT (but cf. 6:1 of the Greek,wheree is), his providentialcare is clearlyevident in a seriesof seeminglytrivial cir-cumstances he king's insomnia (vs. 1); the accountof Mordecai's erviceto the kingbeinghe particularpassageread (vs. 2); Haman'svery early audiencewith the king(vs. ); and Hamantsassumption hat he was advising the king on honors to be con-ferredpon himself (vs. 6). The skepticmay call this series of events "luck" ("badluck"or Haman, "good"for Mordecai; the religious person might, however, call itprovidencer "thehandof God."S ForcontradictionsO the MT in otherportionsof the Greekversion,see C 7, 23, 26,8; 14, 18.



7/13

MOORE:LXX AODITIONSO THE BK OF BER 387Thus, he crucialquestion oncerning dd A is not whethert is secondary(it obviously s) but whethert is ultimatelyGreekor Semitic n origin. Atfirst glance, he external videncewouldseemto be almostas decisivehere aswith AddsB andE: (1) versions asedon the Greekdo have t; (2) versionsbased n the Hebrew o not; ( 3 ) althoughOrigen s silenton the matter, eromeinsiststhat Mordecai'sreamwas not in the Hebresv ext current n his day;(4) although hereare a fesvmedievalHebresv nd Aramaicmanuscriptson-taining the dream n a form not unlike the Greek,23 xpertsagree that theHebresv ext is basedon the Aramaicwhich s, in turn,evidently asedon the

Lxx.24The internalevidence,however,gives a somewhatdifferent mpression.For he colophon, omingas it doesafterMordecai'snterpretationf his dream,presupposeshe inclusion f F, andhenceA, in the Hebrew ext usedby Lysim-achus; ndboth he literarytyleand he religious deasof AddA clearly uggesta SemiticVorlage or the dream tself,but not for the dream'setting.But first let us consider he setting tself (vss. 1-3 and 11-17), where hefollowingobservations re in order: (1) It is the material ather han the*eam itself whichso dranaticallyontradictshe "facts" f the MT. (2) Theliterary tyleof the setting s in betterGreek han the dream's tyle. For ex-ample, he openingverseof the settingbeginswith a genitiveabsolute, ndtheopeningverse after the dream (vs. 12) has an involvedcompound-complexsentencewith several ubordinatelauses. ( 3 ) SincebothJosephus ndthe OLlackvss. 12-17of AddA, andsince hismaterial oncerningMordecai'siscoveryof the plot against he king is redundant ith the material n Esth2:19-23 ofthe LXX,vss. 11-17areobviouslyater hanvss. 1-10.As for the dream tself, severalobsernrationsre especially elevant. (1)The dream ontains everalHebraisms.Therearethreeoccurrencesf kogdog,"andbehold " hichpresupposeshe Heb.wehinneh, recognizediterary evicefor introducingithera dream r the various omponent lements f a *eam.26Moreover,ive times n ten versesa sentence eginswith kai, "and," hichpre-supposes he Heb. conjunction.26 2) The theological ontentof the dream

23TheHebrew ragmentsome fromSefer Yosippon, tenth centurywork by theItalian ew,Josephben Gorion, ometimesalled"Pseudo-Josephus."he Hebrew ndAramaicextsare most convenientlyound n J. T. Beelen,Chrestomathsabbs?sicatchaldvicv}. parspostesior Paris: VanlinthoutndVandentande,841 15-26,45-88.AlthoughYosippon rdinarily sed a variety f sources or his Hebrew ext, includingJosephus,he LXX, argums,nd the like,andmayhaveusedJosephusor his version fthe prayers f Mordecai nd Esther,he obviously id not base his HebrewversionofMordecai'sream n Josephusince he dreams not found n Josephus.24 Without ffering nyproof,J. M. Fuller "TheRestof the Chaptersf the BookofEsther," pocryphaf theSpeakers ommentaryed.HenryWace; vols.;London: JohnMurray, 888] 1. 365) maintainedhat theseHebrewadditions erebasedon Jerome'sVulgate.26Cf.A 4, 5, 7. This constructionccurs n the dreams f Joseph(Gen 37:7, 9;41 :2, 3, 5 ) andDaniel Dan 7 :2, 5, 6, 7 [wa'6S] .

" A 4, 5b,6, 8, 9.



8/13

388 JOURNALOF BIBLICAL ITEMEREcertainly uggests Semitic rigin. Forregardlessf whether he images hem-selves (river, dragons,ight, sun, much water) are in origin Egyptian,27er-sian,28 r Babylonian,29hey are also biblicaland Palestinian, ot unlikethosefound n Daniel. Moreover,here reverystrong pocalypticlements, s exem-plified in the dragonmotif,30 he eschatologicalr Day-of-the-Lordmagery,3and he anti-Gentilettitude.Taken ogether, he aboveconsiderationsend a high degreeof probabilityfor the existence f a SemiticVorloggeor the dream tself,a Greekorigin forA 11-17, with vss. 1-3 probably but not certainly)also having a SemiticVorlage. The authors f all threesectionsof Add A (vss. 1-3, 4-10, 11-17)musthave been Jewish;how else explain heir very stronganti-Gentilepirit?As for whenAdd A was written, inceboth Josephus nd the OL omit vss.11-17, the versesconcerningMordecai's iscovery f the plot may have beenwrittenas late as the 2nd or 3rd century .D. On the otherhand,vss. 1-3 and4-11 existed, s the colophon o Esther learly ndicates, t the time of the Greektranslation y Lysimachus,enceca. 114 B.C. Sucha date is supported lso bythe drearnssheological ontent, ts anti-Gentile pirit, and its affinitieswithDanielandJudith, he latterbooksbelorlgingo the second entury .C.As the colophon tself suggestsby comingwhere t does, Palestinewouldhalre een he placeof composition.None of the imagesneedbe anything therthanPalestinian,or they are all quite biblical.

AddFEven f it be granted hat the dream n Add A probablys Semitic n origin,that does not mean hat the dream'snterpretationn F need be: it couldhavebeen composed t the time of the Greek ranslation;ut in point of fact, hereare ndicationshat the interpretationtself is alsoSemitic n origin. ( 1) Sincethe colophon ollowsAddF, it is logical o assume hatF waspartof the Semitictext translated y Lysimachus,nlessof courseLysimachus imselfcomposed

Mordecai'snterpretation (2) Thereappear o be some Hebraismsn F: forinstance, ta, "these hings" n F 1 presupposeshe Heb.dDrym;nderopsonto?4heog,"beforeGod," n vs. 8 presupposeshe Heb.Ipry Zhym. 3) Theimagery nd literary tyleof the dreaIn nd tS interpretationre similar o thedreams ndvisions n Daniel; n fact, here s nothing n the imagery r literarystyle of F that better ends itself to Greek than Semiticorigins. (4) TherAccordingo Grotius,or instance,he river s the Nile, andthe sun typifiesPharaohandRe.28For xample, hemes f light and strifeare reminiscentf AhuraMazda nd Ahri-man,while heriver emindsomeof thegoddess nahita.29 o E.Ehrlich, DerTraum esMardochai,"RGG ( 1955 71-72.80Thedragonmotifas a symbol f evil is a prominentigure n apocalypticiterature(cf. Rev 12:3; 13:2; 20:2; 2 Bar29:3-8;2 Esdr6:52).31For xample, a day of gloomand darkness,ffliction nd distress;"f. Joel 2:2,10-11;Zeph1:15;Mae 14:29.



9/13

389OORE: LXX ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF ESTHERdream's revity nd imprecision,f not contradictorylements see below), arethe absolute ntithesis f AddsB and E, whichare Greek n origin. (5) Thethemeof a terrible trugglebetween sraeland the Gentiles s somewhat emi-niscent f suchSemiticworks s DanielandJudith.The principalproblem n F is, of course,Mordecai'snterpretationf hisdream, ven though hat interpretations the expresspurposeof Add F. Inpart, he difficulty rowsout of the fact that,unlikeA, the differencesn detailbetween he LXX and the AT in F are considerable,onfusing, nd at timescontradictory. heyare as follows: (1) Mordecai'sxplanationor the symbolof the river s contradictory;t is QueenEsther n the LXX,but in the AT theenemynations; 2) "sunand light" (A 10) are variouslynterpreted;323)the meaning f the "muchwater"n A 9 is ambiguous,f not contradictory.33The problems further ompoundedy the factthatthe dragon igure (A 5arldF 4) is quite an inappropriateymbol or Mordecai,34nd that althoughnot mentioned t all in AddA, the word"lots"s introducednto F 7, but witha meaning uttedifferent rom hat n the canonical ortions f Esther.35How can thesecontradictionsestbe explained? Is it merelya question ftextual orruptionn the Greek? Possibly o, butI would ike to suggest moreencompassingypothesis, iz., the contradictionsnd ambiguities f both thedreamand Mordecai'sonfusing nterpretationf it in F resultfrom the factthat the dream n Add A was origirsally separate emiticentity circulatingindependentlyf the Esther tory;alld since n broad ines the dream ouldbeadaptedo Esther,t so was,even though omefeatllres f the dreamwere essappropriatehanothers.

32In Esth 8:16 "light" ('oroyh) is symbolic of well-being (cf. Pss 97:11; 139:12;Job 22:28) and prosperity(Pss 27:1; 36:10); so presumably lso in the LXX. But inthe AT "light and sun" are "manifestations epithanesa) f God" (F 5), i.e., visibleproofsof God'spresence cf. 2 Mac 3:24; 14:15; 15:27).33 According o F 3 of the LXX, "the tiny spring becamea river, and there was light

and sun and much water." But acrording o F 5 of the AT, "the river represents henations . . . assembled o destroy the Jews." Yet in A 10 of the MT, "The rivers( )flooded and swallowed up the eminent." These contradiciions oncerningthe river(s)seem rreconcilable.34 See n. 30. "Dragon"may not be the best translationhere. We do not know whatthe two terrible beasts in Add A loolced ike; and in the LXX drakor includes a widerange of terrifying beasts, including wolves (Jer 19:11 [10]); snakes (Exod 32:33);large Sandreptiles (Job 40:20 [25]); sea creatures Ps 104:26); magical (Exod 7:9)or divine snakes (Bel and the Dragon); as well as mythologicalcreatures uch as Rahab(Job 21:13), Leviathan Ps 74:13) and Yam (Job 7:12). Sefer Yosippon has trynym,which can simplymeana sea monster ( Gen 1 :21; Ps 148 :7) .36 n the Hebrew version of Esther, lots" were used as the ancient Babyloniandevicefor determining he will of the gods, in this case for Haman'sselectingthe propitiousdayfor starting his pogrom (Esth 3:7; 9:26); hence the name Purim, after the Bab. purb,"lot." In Add F, however,"lot" is used in the figuraiivesense of a "portion" r, better,one's "destiny" as in Dan 12:13; Isa 17:14; Jer 13:25; and lQS 2:2, 5. Lots are men-tioned frequently n 1QM, especiallyas a device for determiningGod's will, even as inthe MT [cf. Acts 1 :26]) .



10/13

390 JOURNALOF BIBLICAL ITEETUEMy hypothesiswould account or the utter inappropriatenessf Mordecaias a dragon. (The dragonmotif figuresprominentlyn apocalypticiterature,but as a symbolof evil, not good.) Sucha hypothesiswouldhelp explain he

uncertaintyf the LXX and the AT as to whether he streamwhichbecameariverwas a blessing thus QueenEsther n the LXX) or a curse, the enemyofthe Jews in the AT); and whether he "muchwater" f A 9 was part of orseparaterom"thestream."Sucha hypothesiswouldalso help account or theambiguities oncerninghe meaning f "lightand sun,"whether hey are to beregarded s symbols f prosperity nddeliveranceas in the LXX) or of mani-festations f God'spresence as in the AT).As for whereand when this Add originated,he likelihood f its havingaSemiticVorlogge ould,of course,argue or a Palestinian rovenance; nd sodoes the colophon. A Palestinian rovenances also suggestedby religiouselements,ncluding he anti-Gentile ttitude o reminiscentf suchsecond en-turyB.C.Palestinian ooksas DanielandJudith, ndthe importancef the con-ceptsof "lots" see n. 35) .Thesesamearguments lso indicatewhen Add F was written. While theexternal videncemakesF'sactualermingsd qgem s late as Origen, he colo-phon gives us the probableerminm4sd qgem or F, 114 B.C. AddsA and Fare lacking n Josephus' araphraseither because heir anti-Gentile ttitudewould have offendedhis Romanreaders r, as T. Noldeke pointedout longago,36 the dreamand its interpretation ay have existed n Josephus' ay butnot in theparticular anuscripte used.The author f F, of course, s unknown. He mayor maynot havebeen theone responsibleor AddsC37 and D; but in any case,he certainlywas not theauthor f B and E. His anti-Gentile ttitudedoes indicate hat he was a Jew.One cannotdiscount he possibility hat Lysimachus imself was responsiblefor F, in whichcase t wouldhave been composed riginally n Greek. Inter-estinglyenough, he dream'snterpretationccurs n neither he medievalHe-brewversionof Yosipponnor the SecondTargum, he Aramaic ersionhavingan account f the dream ather loseto the LXX.The dream nd ts interpretationppreciablylter, f not contradict,he im-pression ained rom he MT,by de-emphasizinghe festivalof Purim38 ndbyshiftingthe emphasis rom the cultic to the religious, rom harem ntrigue oapocalypticetting,and from an ethnic and nationalistic ivakyto universalantagonism.All the nations cf. F 5 and 8) are against he Jews,andnot sur-prisingly, ll the Jews are very anti-Gentilen the GreekEsther, fact which

S6"Esther,"rcycZopaedxtblica 4 vols.; eds. T. K. Cheyneand J. S. Black;London:A. and C. Black, 1899-1903) 2. 1406, col. 2.S7Since osephus (An. 11.6, 8 229-34) of the first centuryA.D. and the OL of thesecond centuryomit C 17-23, these verses must have had a different author from that ofC 1-16.S8The establishment f Purim is the rvisond'etteof the Hebrew version, while God'smiraculousdeliverance f Queen Esther (D 8) is the climax in the Greek.



11/13

MOORB:LXX ADDITIONSO THLBWK OF ETHER 391undoubtedlyelps to explainthe book'sunpopularitymongthe NT writersand heChurch athers.39TheclashbetweenMordecaindHsmanandbetween he righteous ationalIsrael ndall the enemynationss not unlike he relationshipetween he sonsof lightand the sonsof darknessn the Esseneiteraturef Qumran.I wouldbe most reluctant, owever,o lookto the Qumran ommunityor the originsof either he dream r its interpretationincethe Qumranommunity,ike someJews as late as the secondandthirdcenturiesA.D.,40id not regardEstherascanonical.ThatEsthers the onlybookof the Jewishcanonnot yet foundatQumrans not, I think,an archaeologicalccident,.e., it is not thatno copysurvived r, if so, it has not yet been found. Purimwas not includedn theQumranestalcalendar;herefore, hy should he communityt Qumran avehad hebookwhose oFison d'eAtrewas he festival f Purim?

Add CAddC, which consistsof the prayers f Mordecaivss. 1-11) and Esther(vss. 12-30),has a avo-foldeffecton the Esther tory. It increaseshe story'sinterest nddramaby makingbothMordecaind Esthermorefleshand bloodcharacters,nd t strengthenshereligious lements f the GreekEsther y allow-ing its author o givefull expressiono his own theological eliefs.4lThatthe prayers re secondarys again ndicated y both the external seen. 8) andinternal vidence, he latterconsisting rimarilyf elements onta-dictinghe MT.42Althoughboth prayershave words and phrasesreminiscent f biblicalphraseslsewhere,speciallyheprayers f DanielandJudith e.g.,Dan 9:3-19;Jdt 9:2-14), the prayers f MordecaindEsther re in both theircontentandspiriteminentlyuited o theirpresent ontext ndseem o havebeencomposedexpresslyor the placeand purpose hey now serve in the Esther tory, .e.,neitherprayer ivesany indication f beinga separatentitycirculatingnde-39Not even alluded to in the NT, Esther was but rarelymentioned by the ChurchFathers,and a comnlentarywas not written on it until RhabanusMaurus'work in 836.For the relevant Greekor Latin texts themselvesor their translation(in German), seeHans Bardtke,Das BgcbEsthes (KAT; Gutersloh: Mohn, 1963) 258-60. Cf.Megilla 7a, andSanhedsin101a.41 Forhim the LordGod of Israel s the omnipotent(C 2, 4, 23, 30), omniscient(C 5,26-27 ), righteous ( C 18 ) yet merciful (C 10 ) Creator C 3 ), the only trueGod (C 14 ) .The God of Abraham(C 8, 29), Yahweh chose Israel for himself (C 9, 16), and re-deemed her from Egypt (C 9). Jealous of his honor (C 7, 8, 20, 22, 28-29), God

punishessin (C 17, 22), but is everready o help those in need (C 14, 24, 25, 30). Godexpectshis followersto be humble (C 26), to delight only in him (C 29), to refrainfrom mixed marriages(C 26), and to abstain from wine libations (C 28) and fromfood which is not kosher (C 28). His anti-Gentilespirit (C 26) and his emphasisonthe importanceof kawrt (cf. 27-28) clearly indicatethat the author was a Jew, not aGentile.42E.g., ompare he argument n C 7 ("the glory of man") with Esth 3:2, 4; see alsothe Greekauthor's iewson kasnt in C 26-28.



12/13

392 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITEOTUREpendently f the Esther toryandthen, ike the drearnn Add A, lateradoptedand adapted o it. To be sure,Esther's rayer s veryreminiscent f Daniel'sin Dan 9:3-19; but a comparisonf the Greek ext of thesetwo prayers howsa similar etting (cf. C 13 alld Dan 9:3) and ideas,and even a similarity fspirit (cf. C 14-17and Dan 9:4-5), but- andthis shouldbe stressed- not intheirGreekvocabularynd phraseology.There s no evidence f eitherprayerbeing dependent pon the other,at least,not in the Greek tage. Theirsimi-laritiesare best explained, think, by their havingshareda commonbiblicalheritage; nd the sarnemay be said for the similaritiesn the prayers f EstherandJudith.43The relationship,owever, f Add C to the prayers f Mordecai nd Estherin the medievalAramaic ersionmentioned arlier44s more complex. Mor-decai'sprayer n the LXX has some rather trikingparaliels o the Aramaic,45even to the point of theirhavingalmost dentical equence f thought, .e., thephrases aken n orderout of the Aramaic ersionparallel hose ideas n C 5,7, 6, and 10.46 On the otherhand, n Esther's rayer here s little or no parallel-ism n thoughtbetweenhe twoversions.47

43E.g., ompareC 12-13 with Jdt 9:1; C 14 with Jdt 9:11, 14; and C 20 with Jdt 9:8.44 For the Aramaictext, see Beelen, Chrestomathia,. 45-88. An English translationof the prayersof Mordecaiand Estherfrom it is found in J. M. Fuller, "The Rest of the

Chaptersof the Book of Esther"(Apocryphaf the Speaket'sommentdry [2 vols; ed.Henry Wace]; London: John Murray,1888) 1. 385, 390-91.46Comparehe following verses of the Aramaicwith the LXX: "It is not from prideof spirit or exaltationof heart that I have done this, and not bowed before Haman, thisAmalekite"with C 5; ''I would not give the glory due to Thee to any sons of man made offlesh and blood" with C 7; "Forwhat am I . . . that I should not . . . to procure he re-demptionof Israel . . lick the dust of Haman's eet?" with C 6; "Have compassionuponThy people and Thine inheritance. Let not the mouths of them who praise Thee bestopped, who continually,evening and morning, magnify Thy Name. Turn our sorrowinto joy and praises. So shall we live and praiseThee for the good deliverance"with C 10.46To me, this very close agreementof sequence n ideas precludes he argument hatthe authorsof the Greek and Aramaicversions,startingwith essentially he same circum-stances concerningMordecai,arrived ndependentlyof one another at similar ideas andphrases.47Themost obvious parallelism s probablypurely coincidental,viz., C 16, where theOL has a 134-wordaddition, citing people whom God had delivered n the past: Noah,Abraham,Jonah, Daniel and his three friends (Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah), Hezekiah,and Hannnah. Schildenberger Das Bgsh Esther, 9-90) may well be correct n regard-ing this OL passageas a witness to the oldest version of the Greek;but it is not, as somehave suggested,a witness to a SemiticVorlage.They argue that in Esther'sprayer n theSecondTargumwe read: "As you [God] saved Hananiah,Mishael,and Azariahout of theburning furnace,and Daniel out of the lion's den." For if we consider he three friendsof Daniel as one exaple, then here in C 16 of the OL Estherhas citedseven xamplesofthose deliveredby the Lord;and the citing of seven examplesof somethingwas evidentlya recognized iterarydevice in Greek apocryphal iterature(cf. Wis 10:1-11:4; PrayerofEleazar n 3 Mac 6:4-8; and 1 Mac 2:52-61). It should be noted in passing that bothJosephusand the OL omit C 17-23, which may indicatethat these verseswere added o theLXX sometimeafter the second centuryLatin translation.



13/13

MOORE: LXX ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF ESTHER 393It is unlikely hateitherversion s dependent pon he other. Even n Mor-decai's rayer here s no reason o think hat the Greekpreserves summationor condensationf a SemiticVorloFgeow preservedn the Aramaic, ince the

logic, style,and theological ontentof C 2-11 are far too consistent nd inte-grated or thatto be the case. The Aramaic ersion ouldconceivably e basedon the LXX;but this is probably ot so here,else how canwe explain he omis-sionof C 2-4 and8-9 by theAramaic ersion?If there s any genealogicalelationship etween hese two versions-andthe almost dentical equencen paralleldeas n Mordecai'srayer uggests hattheremaybe-then both he Greek ndthe Aramaic rerelated o one anotherby beingdescendantsf either he sameSemiticVorlogger oraltradition, situ-ation hata priori eemsquitepossible, iventhe simple iterary tyleandtheol-ogy of AddC (cf. n. 31), not to mention ts probable ate.48Thatan AramaicVorloggeouldbe behindAdd C of the LXX is indicated, erhaps, y the factthat n C 7 the LXX hasen hyperephozniog,outof arrogance,"hile the AT hasen peirasmo, inrivalry," othGreekwordsbeing egitimate ranslationsf thesameAramaicwordbe'itJw'ah.49With the exception f C 17-23,which s in neither osephus orthe OL, hetermins ogd gem or AddC is A.D.94, the dateof Josephus' ntiqgities.

Add DAdd D, especiallywith God'smiraculousransformationf the king'sangerto solicitousnessn vs. 8, is unquestionablyhe dramatic limaxof the GreekEsther. Whether t reflectsa SemiticVorloggehichhad expandedhe detailsof 5:1-2 of the MT or is an originalGreek ompositions impossibleo prove.But the external vidence,with no internal vidence o the contrary,uggeststhatAddD wasGreek n originand hat, ike AddsB, C, andE, hada terminsad qg4emf A.D.94.

4BWith the exceptionof C 17-23, which is in neitherJos.Antnor the OL, the termngsad quetnor Add C is A.D. 94.49 So C. C. Torrey,"TheOlderBook of Esther,"HTR37 (1944) 8.

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ameliafreedman
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Moore - Esther

Documents