Moore - Esther

On the Origins of the LXX Additions to the Book of Esther
Author(s): Carey A. Moore

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), pp. 382-393
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.
.
The Society of Biblical Literature is 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 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ON THE ORIGINS OF THE LXX ADDITIONS TO 1ME
BOOK OF ESTHER
CAREY A. MOORE
GESBSG COLLEGE, GE'll'YSBAG, PEA. 17325
The Colophon
TN keeping with the irony in the Hebrew version of Esther,l we will begin
1 our study at the end; that is, we must begin with a consideration of Esther's
colophon in Addition (hereafter Add)2 F 11, since much of what I will suggest
later in this article is predicated on the authenticity and essential correctness of
that colophon. It reads as follows:
In the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Dositheus, who said
he was a priest and a Levite, and his son Ptolemy brought the above book of
Purim [i.e., the Greek version], which they said was authentic and had been
translated by Lysimachus son of Ptolemy, a member of the Jerusalem com-
munity.
This is unquestionably the most important verse in the entire Greek version
of Esther. For if this colophon is authentic, it would provide us with the date
and place where the translation was made as well as the name and antecedents
of the translator. Moreover, it would strongly indicate, coming as it does after
the Adds A and F, that at least a portion of Add A (the dream of Mordecai)
and probably all of F (Mordecai's interpretation of it) were part of the Semitic
text translated by Lysimachus.
Although Esther is the only book of the Jewish canon with a colophon, E. J.
Bickerman3 has shown that comparable colophons were often appended tO book
acquisitions at such ancient libraries as the one at Alexandria, Egypt. (In fact,
one might argue that the uniqueness of the Esther colophon among canonical
books argues for its authenticity. ) As for the internal evidence, there is nothing
1On irony in Esther, see my book, Esther: Introdsstion, Transhtson, and Notes (AB
7B; New York: Doubleday, 1971 ) lvi.
aAdd A (A 1-17 // AT 1-18; Vulg. 11:2-12:6) tells of Mordecai's dream (vss. 1-10)
and his discovery of a plot against the king (vss. 11-17). Add B (B 1-7 // AT 4:14-18;
AZulg. 13:1-7) is the royal letter dictated by Haman announcing the pogrom against the
Jews. Add C (C 1-30 // AT 5:12-29; Vulg. 13:8-14:19) contains the prayers of Mor-
decai and Esther. Add D (D 1-16 // AT 6:1-12; Vulg. 15:4-19) describes Esther's
unannounced audience with the king. Add E (E 1-24 // AT 8:22-32; Vulg. 16:1-24)
is the royal letter dictated by Mordecai. Add F (F 1-10 // AT 8:53-58; Vulg. 10:4-13)
contains Mordecai's interpretation of his dream as well as the colophon to the Greek ver-
sion (F 11// AT 8:59; Vulg. 11.1).
8 "The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther," JBL 63 ( 1944) 339-44.
382
MOOR:e: LXX ADDINONS TO THE BWK OF BSEER
383
improbable about either the date, place, or name of the translator. Scholars do
debate, of course, which Ptolemy was meant I prefer Ptolemy VIII Soter II,
which would mean that the colophon dates to ca. 114 B.C.4 but all the Ptolemy
candidates fall well within a time-span that is compatible with the Greek lit-
erary style as well as religious views of the Jews of the 2nd-lst centuries B.C.
One may even concede that, as Benno Jacob has noted,5 there are Egyptian ele-
ments in the Greek translation, without discrediting the colophon's claim to a
Palestinian provenance; for Lysimachus' father had an Egyptian name, Ptolemy.
Just where Lysimachus himself was born and reared, whether in Egypt or Pal-
estine, we cannot say. But with the exception of Adds B and E (the two royal
letters dictated by Haman and Mordecai, respectively), nothing of the literary
style or theological views of the Greek Esther is more at home in the Diaspora
than in Palestine itself, especially in the Palestine of the 2nd-lst centuries B.C.
But even if one grants the authenticity of the colophon, we are not then
justified in assuming that the other Adds were, along with A and F, part of
Lysimachus' version, i.e., we cannot assume that the two royal letters (Adds B
and E), the prayers of Mordecai and Esther (C), the dramatic and extended
account of Esther's unannounced audience with the king (D) were, along with
A and P (the dream and its interpretation), part of Lysimachus' Semitic text.
Logic and sound methodology would preclude our making such a blanket asr
sumption, even if it were not for the fact that the colophonist himself had some
resenations about Lysimachus' version. In the colophon the clauses "who said
he was a priest and a Levite" and "the above book of Purim, which they said
was authentic" imply, I think, the coloE>honist's awareness of a competing ver-
sion be it a Greek version without any Adds and more resembling the MT,
the AT (the so-called "Lucianic" recension),6 or some other text. In any case,
the issue here was not Lysimachus' skills as a translator but whether his version
was based on the authentic Semitic text.
Adds B otnd E
Although there are some differences between Adds B and E, for our purposes
here these two letters can be treated together. As for their effect, both letters
lend additional *amatic interest and a greater sense of authenticity to the Esther
'See B. Jacob, "Das Buch Esther bei dem LXX," ZAW 10 (1890) 274-80, aliough
Ptolemy XII (77 B.C., so Bickerman) or Ptolemy XIV (48 B.C.) are possibilities. See
also P. G. Elgood, The Ptolemies of Egypt (London: Arrowsmith, 1938).
6Jacob (ZAW 10 [1890] 280-88) cites as examples of Egypiian traces ethsonssube
("he was enthroned") for ks) mlkwtw ("seat of his kingdom") in 1:2; to o; bassleos
prostagmat ("the command of the king") for dbs hmlk ("the word of Fe king>) in 2:8;
philois ("friends") for sry ("chiefs") in 1:3; and somatophylakes ("body guards") for
msmsy hsp ("guards of the threshold") in 2:21.
B See my article, "A Greek Witness to a Different Hebrew Text of Esther" (ZAW 79
[1967] 351-58), where I have shown that the particular Greek text identified by Paul de
Lagarde and Frederic Field as the "Lucianic" recension of Esther is not that but an inde-
pendent translation of a Hebrew text quite different from the MT.
384 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITEM%RE
story. Add E also supplies some very explicit religious elements, this being a
dimension lacking in the MT of Esther.7
There can be little doubt that both of these letters were originally Greek
compositions and not translations of a Semitic text. Such a condusion is sug-
gested by the external evidence: ( 1 ) those versions based on the Hebrew such
as the Talmud, Targums, and Syriac do not have these additions; (2) the ver-
sions based on the Greek, i.e., the Vetus Latina (OL), Coptic, and Ethiopic, do
have them; (3) both Origen (185?-?254) and Jerorne expressly state that these
two letters were lacking in the Hebrew texts of their day.8
What the external evidence suggests about B and E being originally composed
in Greek is confirmed by the internal evidence: (1) their literary style, which
is best characterized as fIorid, rhetorical, and bombastic, is free of all Hebraisms
and is quite unlike Greek translations of other Semitic decrees in the Bible;9
(2) their content and especially their literary style are quite different from the
two letters recorded in the Second Targum of Esther (the Second Targum being
the Semitic version that comes closest in this case to the content of the Greek
version of the letters);l (3) unlike the other Adds and the canonical portions
of Esther, the two letters in B and E abound in grammatical constructions char-
acteristic of "good" Greek, such as participial and infinitival constructions, geni-
tive absolutes, and the noun and its article separated by qualifying prepositional
phrases; (4) in terms of their literary style, Adds B and E are most similar to
the Greek of 3 Maccabees, the latter being characterized by C. W. Emmet as "a
product of Alexandrian literature, exemplifying in its extremest form the pseudo-
Classicalism of the Atticists . . . artificiality and extravagance . . . obscure and
bombastic ... full of repetitions, and awkwardly constructed...."11 Such a
characterization is equally applicable to Adds B and E. Nor are Esther's parallels
to 3 Maccabees confined to Greek style; so many are the parallels in plot between
3 Maccabees and the Greek Estherl2 that A. Barucq has called 3 Maccabees "a
hellenistic imitation of Esther.''l3 (5) Finally, there are some exceedingly
dose parallels between Add B and 3 Mac 3:11-29, not only in terms of tortuous
T See the discussion in my Esthes, xxxii-xxxiv, 52-53.
80rigen (Epist. ad Africangrzz iii) states that neither the dream nor the prayers of
Mordecai and Esther appear in the current Hebrew text. Jerome, in his own Latin trans-
lation, placed all the Adds after the canonical portions of Esther because, as he explained
in a note immediately after his translation of Esth 10:3, none of the Adds was found in
the current Hebrew text.
Cf. Erta 1:24:4, 17-22; 6:3-12; 7:11-29.
lFor the text of Targum Sheni, see Paul de Lagarde, Hoggiogrwtha chogldvice (Leipzig:
Teubner, 1873).
2"The Third Book of Maccabees," APOT, 1. 161.
l2The synopsis which foIlows is equaIly applicable to both books. "DisIoyal" Jews
would have been completely wiped out in a royally sanctioned pogrom had not they been
miraculously delivered by their God. The pogrom was announced in one royal letter and
revoked by a second. After the Jews had defeated their enemies, they commemorated their
victory by instituting a joyous festival.
13 Jgdsth, lEsther (2d ed.; La Sainte Bible [de Jerusalem]; Paris: Cerf, 1957 ) 84.
385 MOORED: LXX ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF ESTHBR
arld involved literary style,l4 but also in terms of very similar thoughts, even to
the point of the two letters preserving the identical sequence of those thoughts.lb
Although the Hebrew Esther clearly antedates 3 Maccabees,l6 there is nothing
to preclude some later influence of 3 Maccabees on the Greek Esther, such as,
for instance, the first royal letter of Esther being patterned after 3 Maccabees;
3 Mac 3: 11-29 could srery well have been the model for Add B.
Although scholars like Schildenberger and Soubigou17 have readily conceded
the undeniable Greek character of Adds B and E, they argue that these Adds
are the original edicts, composed in Greek in accordance with Esth 3:12, where
we read that the edict "was written to each province in its own script and to
each people in its own language." Such an explanation presupposes, of course,
the almost complete historicity of the Esther story, a view which many scholars
find impossible to accept.l8 Moreover, if these letters be genuine, then one is
hard pressed to explain why both edicts were so briefly summarized instead of
being quoted in the MT, especially since the one letter is the antithesis of the
other, i.e., the edict in B is quite secular in spirit, the edict in E quite religious.l9
Had such letters actually existed, certainly one or the other should have been
preserved tn the MT.
It is clear that these letters are Greek in origin and quite fictitious, being the
product of their author's imagination, his use of selected phrases from the Greek
translation of the canonical portions of Esther9 and, as suggested above, from
3 Mac 3: 11-29.
Presumably the same individual wrote B and E. It is unlikely that it was
the Lysimachus who translated Esther from the Hebrew into Greek; for one can
scarcely imagine a man so enamoured of producing the pseudo-classicalism of
Adds B and E being able let alone content to translate the rest of the
Book of Esther so simply and prosaically as Lysimachus had done.
14 Cf. B 2 and 3 Mac 3 :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, see C W. Emmet, APOT, 1. 156-59; M. Hadas, The
Thrd and Pourth Books of Maccabees (Jewish Apocryphal Literature; New York: Harper,
1953); cf. also IDB 3. 210-12.
17J. B. Schildenberger, Dogs Bgsh Esther (Die HeiIige Schrift des Alten Testaments;
Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1941) 76; L. Soubigou, Esther tsadust et commente (2d ed.; La
Sainte Bible [de Jerusalem]; Paris: Cerf, 1952) 588.
l8The most sustained effort to establish the compIete historicity of the Esther story is
Jacob Hoschander, The Book of Esther ir the Lsght of Hstory (Philadelphia: Dropsie
College, 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 "are governed by very just laws
and are the sons of the Most High, the most great and living God, who has directed the
kingdom for us and our forefathers in the most successful way" (E 15-16); Haman and
his family have been hanged, "an appropriate sentence which the omnipotent God promptly
passed on him" (E 18); "for the omnipotent God has made this a day of ioy for his
chosen people instead of their day of destruction" (E 21 ) .
20For example, cf. B 1 with 1:1; 3:12; 8:9; B 4 with 3:8; and B 6 with 3:13.
386
JOURNAL OF
BIBLI>L
LITEEURB
As for the date of B and E, even after one grants the
essential
veracity of
Esther's
colophon, there is no way of
knowing how soon after the
translation
was made that B and E were
added,
except that they did exist by A.D. 94, for a
paraphrased
version of them
appeared in
Josephus, Ant. 11.6,6
216-19;
11.6,12
273-83.
Add A
The effect of Add A is quite clear: it
underscores the
religious
character of
the
Esther story,
hinting at the
directions the story will take and
making
vaguely
explicit what is
implicit in the
Hebrew
version, viz., God's rule or
providence
in the events
narrated in
Esther.21
The
dream and its
meaning are of
tremendous
import for the
Esther story;
for what is
implicit in
Mordecai's
dream is
explicitly
spelled out by him in his
interpretation of it in , viz., the
struggle
described in the Book of Esther was
not a mere harem or court
intrigue or even a
long-standing
ethnic rivalry
between
Jews and
Amalekites (as the MT
suggests), but a
religious
struggle, a
cosmic
and
apocalyptic
struggle
between Jews and all the rest of the world.
Add A
consists of three
sections: the
prelude or
setting for the dream (vss.
1-3); the dream itself (vss.
4-10); and
Mordecai's
discovery of the plot
against
the king and the
immediate
results (vss.
11-17).
That Add A is clearly
secondary is
indicated by both the
external and
internal
evidence. The MT is an
intelligible and
consistent
whole; but Add A is rife
with
contradictions to the MT. For
example, in Add A we read that the dream
occurred in the
second year of King
Artaxerxes when
Mordecai, a
prominent
man
serving in the coe,
having
discovered a plot
against the king,
personoZZy
sfosmed the king of it,
thereby
receiving the king's
irnmedivte
rewogrd and Ha-
man's
immediate
enmity.22 It
should be noted,
however, that these
contradic-
tions all come from vss. 1-3 and
11-17, not from the
drearn.
The
principal
difficulty is,
however, the dream itself (vss.
4-10); it
puttled
not only
Mordecai but does us as well.
Although the LXX and the AT differ
far less from one
another here than in the
canonical
portions of
Esther, their dif-
ferences in Add A may be of more
significance than in most of the other Adds.
For there are
serious
contradictions and
inconsistencies in
Mordecai's
interpre-
tation; but, as we shall see later, these
contradictions are of a
different order or
character from those in the
dream's
setting, i e, from those in A 1-3 and 11-17.
t
Although God is not
mentioned in Esth 6:1-13 of the MT (but cf. 6:1 of the Greek,
where he is), his
providential care is clearly
evident in a series of
seemingly trivial cir-
cumstances the king's
insomnia (vs. 1); the
account of
Mordecai's service to the king
being the
particular
passage read (vs. 2);
Haman's very early
audience with the king
(vs. 4); and
Hamants
assumption that he was
advising the king on honors to be con-
ferred upon
himself (vs. 6). The skeptic may call this series of events "luck" ("bad
luck" for
Haman,
"good" for
Mordecai ); the
religious
person might,
however, call it
providence or "the hand of God."
S For
contradictions tO the MT in other
portions of the Greek
version, see C 7, 23, 26, 28; E 14, 18.
MOORE: LXX AODITIONS TO THE BK OF BER 387
Thus, the crucial question concerning Add A is not whether it is secondary
(it obviously is) but whether it is ultimately Greek or Semitic in origin. At
first glance, the external evidence would seem to be almost as decisive here as
with Adds B and E: (1) versions based on the Greek do have it; (2) versions
based on the Hebrew do not; ( 3 ) although Origen is silent on the matter, Jerome
insists that Mordecai's dream was not in the Hebresv text current in his day;
(4) although there are a fesv medieval Hebresv and Aramaic manuscripts con-
taining the dream in a form not unlike the Greek,23 experts agree that the
Hebresv text is based on the Aramaic which is, in turn, evidently based on the
Lxx.24
The internal evidence, however, gives a somewhat different impression.
For the colophon, coming as it does after Mordecai's interpretation of his dream,
presupposes the inclusion of F, and hence A, in the Hebrew text used by Lysim-
achus; and both the literary style and the religious ideas of Add A clearly suggest
a Semitic Vorlage for the dream itself, but not for the dream's setting.
But first let us consider the setting itself (vss. 1-3 and 11-17), where the
following observations are in order: (1) It is the material rather than the
*eam itself which so dranatically contradicts the "facts" of the MT. (2) The
literary style of the setting is in better Greek than the dream's style. For ex-
ample, the opening verse of the setting begins with a genitive absolute, and the
opening verse after the dream (vs. 12) has an involved compound-complex
sentence with several subordinate clauses. ( 3 ) Since both Josephus and the OL
lack vss. 12-17 of Add A, and since this material concerning Mordecai's discovery
of the plot against the king is redundant with the material in Esth 2:19-23 of
the LXX, vss. 11-17 are obviously later than vss. 1-10.
As for the dream itself, several obsernrations are especially relevant. (1)
The dream contains several Hebraisms. There are three occurrences of kog idog,
"and behold!" which presupposes the Heb. wehinneh, a recognized literary device
for introducing either a dream or the various component elements of a *eam.26
Moreover, five times in ten verses a sentence begins with kai, "and," which pre-
supposes the Heb. conjunction.26 (2) The theological content of the dream
23The Hebrew fragments come from Sefer Yosippon, a tenth century work by the
Italian Jew, Joseph ben Gorion, sometimes called "Pseudo-Josephus." The Hebrew and
Aramaic texts are most conveniently found in J. T. Beelen, Chrestomaths sabbs?sica et
chaldvicv} 1. pars postesior (Paris: Vanlinthout and Vandentande, 1841 ) 15-26, 45-88.
Although Yosippon ordinarily used a variety of sources for his Hebrew text, including
Josephus, the LXX, targums, and the like, and may have used Josephus for his version of
the prayers of Mordecai and Esther, he obviously did not base his Hebrew version of
Mordecai's dream on Josephus since the dream is not found in Josephus.
24 Without offering any proof, J. M. Fuller ("The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of
Esther," Apocrypha of the Speakers Commentary [ed. Henry Wace; 2 vols.; London: John
Murray, 1888] 1. 365) maintained that these Hebrewadditions were based on Jerome's
Vulgate.
26Cf. A 4, 5, 7. This construction occurs in the dreams of Joseph (Gen 37:7, 9;
41 :2, 3, 5 ) and Daniel (Dan 7 :2, 5, 6, 7 [wa'6S] ) .
" A 4, 5b, 6, 8, 9.
388 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITEMERE
certainly suggests a Semitic origin. For regardless of whether the images them-
selves (river, dragons, light, sun, much water) are in origin Egyptian,27 Per-
sian,28 or Babylonian,29 they are also biblical and Palestinian, not unlike those
found in Daniel. Moreover, rhere are very strong apocalyptic elements, as exem-
plified in the dragon motif,30 the eschatological or Day-of-the-Lord imagery,3
and the anti-Gentile attitude.
Taken together, the above considerations lend a high degree of probability
for the existence of a Semitic Vorlogge for the dream itself, a Greek origin for
A 11-17, with vss. 1-3 probably (but not certainly) also having a Semitic
Vorlage. The authors of all three sections of Add A (vss. 1-3, 4-10, 11-17)
must have been Jewish; how else explain their very strong anti-Gentile spirit?
As for when Add A was written, since both Josephus and the OL omit vss.
11-17, the verses concerning Mordecai's discovery of the plot may have been
written as late as the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. On the other hand, vss. 1-3 and
4-11 existed, as the colophon to Esther clearly indicates, at the time of the Greek
translation by Lysimachus, hence ca. 114 B.C. Such a date is supported also by
the drearnss theological content, its anti-Gentile spirit, and its affinities with
Daniel and Judith, the latter books belorlging to the second century B.C.
As the colophon itself suggests by coming where it does, Palestine would
halre keen the place of composition. None of the images need be anything other
than Palestinian, for they are all quite biblical.
Add F
Even if it be granted that the dream in Add A probably is Semitic in origin,
that does not mean that the dream's interpretation in F need be: it could have
been composed at the time of the Greek translation; but in point of fact, there
are indications that the interpretation itself is also Semitic in origin. ( 1 ) Since
the colophon follows Add F, it is logical to assume that F was part of the Semitic
text translated by Lysimachus, unless of course Lysimachus himself composed
Mordecai's interpretation (2) There appear to be some Hebraisms in F: for
instance, ta, "these things" in F 1 presupposes the Heb. dDrym; and eropson
to?4 theog, "before God," in vs. 8 presupposes the Heb. Ipry 'Zhym. (3) The
imagery and literary style of the dreaIn and itS interpretation are similar to the
dreams and visions in Daniel; in fact, there is nothing in the imagery or literary
style of F that better lends itself to Greek than Semitic origins. (4) The
rAccording to Grotius, for instance, the river is the Nile, and the sun typifies Pharaoh
and Re.
28For example, themes of light and strife are reminiscent of Ahura Mazda and Ahri-
man, while the river reminds some of the goddess Anahita.
29 So E. Ehrlich, "Der Traum des Mardochai," ZRGG 7 ( 1955 ) 71-72.
80The dragon motif as a symbol of evil is a prominent figure in apocalyptic literature
(cf. Rev 12:3; 13:2; 20:2; 2 Bar 29:3-8; 2 Esdr 6:52).
31For example, "a day of gloom and darkness, affliction and distress;" cf. Joel 2:2,
10-11; Zeph 1:15; Mae 14:29.
389 MOORE: LXX ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF ESTHER
dream's brevity and imprecision, if not contradictory elements (see below), are
the absolute antithesis of Adds B and E, which are Greek in origin. (5) The
theme of a terrible struggle between Israel and the Gentiles is somewhat remi-
niscent of such Semitic works as Daniel and Judith.
The principal problem in F is, of course, Mordecai's interpretation of his
dream, even though that interpretation is the express purpose of Add F. In
part, the difficulty grows out of the fact that, unlike A, the differences in detail
between the LXX and the AT in F are considerable, confusing, and at times
contradictory. They are as follows: (1) Mordecai's explanation for the symbol
of the river is contradictory; it is Queen Esther in the LXX, but in the AT the
enemy nations; (2) "sun and light" (A 10) are variously interpreted;32 (3)
the meaning of the "much water" in A 9 is ambiguous, if not contradictory.33
The problem is further compounded by the fact that the dragon figure (A 5
arld F 4) is quite an inappropriate symbol for Mordecai,34 and that although
not mentioned at all in Add A, the word "lots" is introduced into F 7, but with
a meaning qutte different from that in the canonical portions of Esther.35
How can these contradictions best be explained? Is it merely a question of
textual corruption in the Greek? Possibly so, but I would like to suggest a more
encompassing hypothesis, viz., the contradictions and ambiguities of both the
dream and Mordecai's confusing interpretation of it in F result from the fact
that the dream in Add A was origirsally a separate Semitic entity circulating
independently of the Esther story; alld since in broad lines the dream could be
adapted to Esther, it so was, even though some featllres of the dream were less
appropriate than others.
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 also in the LXX. But in
the AT "light and sun" are "manifestations (epithanesa) of God" (F 5), i.e., visible
proofs of God's presence (cf. 2 Mac 3:24; 14:15; 15:27).
33 According to F 3 of the LXX, "the tiny spring became a river, and there was light
and sun and much water." But acrording to F 5 of the AT, "the river represents the
nations . . . assembled to destroy the Jews." Yet in A 10 of the MT, "The rivers(!)
flooded and swallowed up the eminent." These contradiciions concerning the river(s)
seem irreconcilable.
34 See n. 30. "Dragon" may not be the best translation here. We do not know what
the two terrible beasts in Add A loolced like; and in the LXX drakor includes a wide
range of terrifying beasts, including wolves (Jer 19:11 [10]); snakes (Exod 32:33);
large Sand reptiles (Job 40:20 [25]); sea creatures (Ps 104:26); magical (Exod 7:9)
or divine snakes (Bel and the Dragon); as well as mythological creatures such as Rahab
(Job 21:13), Leviathan (Ps 74:13) and Yam (Job 7:12). Sefer Yosippon has trynym,
which can simply mean a sea monster ( Gen 1 :21; Ps 148 :7 ) .
36 In the Hebrew version of Esther, "lots" were used as the ancient Babylonian device
for determining the will of the gods, in this case for Haman's selecting the propitious day
for 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 figuraiive sense of a "portion" or, 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 in 1QM, especially as a device for determining God's will, even as in
the MT [cf. Acts 1 :26] ) .
390 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITEETUE
My hypothesis would account for the utter inappropriateness of Mordecai
as a dragon. (The dragon motif figures prominently in apocalyptic literature,
but as a symbol of evil, not good.) Such a hypothesis would help explain the
uncertainty of the LXX and the AT as to whether the stream which became a
river was a blessing (thus Queen Esther in the LXX) or a curse, (the enemy of
the Jews in the AT); and whether the "much water" of A 9 was part of or
separate from "the stream." Such a hypothesis would also help account for the
ambiguities concerning the meaning of "light and sun," whether they are to be
regarded as symbols of prosperity and deliverance (as in the LXX) or of mani-
festations of God's presence (as in the AT).
As for where and when this Add originated, the likelihood of its having a
Semitic Vorlogge would, of course, argue for a Palestinian provenance; and so
does the colophon. A Palestinian provenance is also suggested by religious
elements, including the anti-Gentile attitude so reminiscent of such second cen-
tury B.C. Palestinian books as Daniel and Judith, and the importance of the con-
cepts of "lots" ( see n. 35 ) .
These same arguments also indicate when Add F was written. While the
external evidence makes F's actual termings ad qgem as late as Origen, the colo-
phon gives us the probable terminm4s ad qgem for F, 114 B.C. Adds A and F
are lacking in Josephus' paraphrase either because their anti-Gentile attitude
would have offended his Roman readers or, as T. Noldeke pointed out long
ago,36 the dream and its interpretation may have existed in Josephus' day but
not in the particular manuscript he used.
The author of F, of course, is unknown. He may or may not have been the
one responsible for Adds C37 and D; but in any case, he certainly was not the
author of B and E. His anti-Gentile attitude does indicate that he was a Jew.
One cannot discount the possibility that Lysimachus himself was responsible
for F, in which case it would have been composed originally in Greek. Inter-
estingly enough, the dream's interpretation occurs in neither the medieval He-
brew version of Yosippon nor the Second Targum, the Aramaic version having
an account of the dream rather close to the LXX.
The dream and its interpretation appreciably alter, if not contradict, the im-
pression gained from the MT, by de-emphasizing the festival of Purim38 and by
shifting the emphasis from the cultic to the religious, from harem intrigue to
apocalyptic setting, and from an ethnic and nationalistic rivaky to universal
antagonism. All the nations (cf. F 5 and 8) are against the Jews, and not sur-
prisingly, all the Jews are very anti-Gentile in the Greek Esther, a fact which
S6"Esther," ErcycZopaedx btblica (4 vols.; eds. T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black; London:
A. and C. Black, 1899-1903) 2. 1406, col. 2.
S7Since Josephus (An. 11.6, 8 229-34) of the first century A.D. and the OL of the
second century omit C 17-23, these verses must have had a different author from that of
C 1-16.
S8 The establishment of Purim is the rvison d'ette of the Hebrew version, while God's
miraculous deliverance of Queen Esther (D 8) is the climax in the Greek.
MOORB: LXX ADDITIONS TO THL BWK OF ETHER
391
undoubtedly helps to explain the book's unpopularity among the NT writers
and the Church Fathers.39
The clash between Mordecai and Hsman and between the righteous national
Israel and all the enemy nations is not unlike the relationship between the sons
of light and the sons of darkness in the Essene literature of Qumran. I would
be most reluctant, however, to look to the Qumran community for the origins
of either the dream or its interpretation since the Qumran community, like some
Jews as late as the second and third centuries A.D.,40 did not regard Esther as
canonical. That Esther is the only book of the Jewish canon not yet found at
Qumran is not, I think, an archaeological accident, i.e., it is not that no copy
survived or, if so, it has not yet been found. Purim was not included in the
Qumran festal calendar; therefore, why should the community at Qumran have
had the book whose roFison d'eAtre was the festival of Purim?
Add C
Add C, which consists of the prayers of Mordecai (vss. 1-11) and Esther
(vss. 12-30), has a avo-fold effect on the Esther story. It increases the story's
interest and drama by making both Mordecai and Esther more flesh and blood
characters, and it strengthens the religious elements of the Greek Esther by allow-
ing its author to give full expression to his own theological beliefs.4l
That the prayers are secondary is again indicated by both the external (see
n. 8) and internal evidence, the latter consisting primarily of elements conta-
dicting the MT.42
Although both prayers have words and phrases reminiscent of biblical
phrases elsewhere, especially the prayers of Daniel and Judith (e.g., Dan 9:3-19;
Jdt 9:2-14), the prayers of Mordecai and Esther are in both their content and
spirit eminently suited to their present context and seem to have been composed
expressly for the place and purpose they now serve in the Esther story, i.e.,
neither prayer gives any indication of being a separate entity circulating inde-
39Not even alluded to in the NT, Esther was but rarely mentioned by the Church
Fathers, and a comnlentary was not written on it until Rhabanus Maurus' work in 836.
For the relevant Greek or Latin texts themselves or their translation (in German), see
Hans Bardtke, Das Bgcb Esthes (KAT; Gutersloh: Mohn, 1963) 258-60.
Cf. Megilla 7a, and Sanhedsin 101a.
41 For him the Lord God of Israel is the omnipotent (C 2, 4, 23, 30), omniscient (C 5,
26-27 ), righteous ( C 18 ) yet merciful (C 10 ) Creator (C 3 ), the only true God (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
punishes sin (C 17, 22), but is ever ready to help those in need (C 14, 24, 25, 30). God
expects his followers to be humble (C 26), to delight only in him (C 29), to refrain
from mixed marriages (C 26), and to abstain from wine libations (C 28) and from
food which is not kosher (C 28). His anti-Gentile spirit (C 26) and his emphasis on
the importance of kawrt (cf. 27-28) clearly indicate that the author was a Jew, not a
Gentile.
42E.g., compare the argument in C 7 ("the glory of man") with Esth 3:2, 4; see also
the Greek author's views on kasnt in C 26-28.
392 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITEOTURE
pendently of the Esther story and then, like the drearn in Add A, later adopted
and adapted to it. To be sure, Esther's prayer is very reminiscent of Daniel's
in Dan 9:3-19; but a comparison of the Greek text of these two prayers shows
a similar setting (cf. C 13 alld Dan 9:3) and ideas, and even a similarity of
spirit (cf. C 14-17 and Dan 9:4-5), but- and this should be stressed- not in
their Greek vocabulary and phraseology. There is no evidence of either prayer
being dependent upon the other, at least, not in the Greek stage. Their simi-
larities are best explained, I think, by their having shared a common biblical
heritage; and the sarne may be said for the similarities in the prayers of Esther
and Judith.43
The relationship, however, of Add C to the prayers of Mordecai and Esther
in the medieval Aramaic version mentioned earlier44 is more complex. Mor-
decai's prayer in the LXX has some rather striking paraliels to the Aramaic,45
even to the point of their having almost identical sequence of thought, i.e., the
phrases taken in order out of the Aramaic version parallel those ideas in C 5,
7, 6, and 10.46 On the other hand, in Esther's prayer there is little or no parallel-
ism in thought between the two versions.47
43E.g., compare C 12-13 with Jdt 9:1; C 14 with Jdt 9:11, 14; and C 20 with Jdt 9:8.
44 For the Aramaic text, see Beelen, Chrestomathia, 1. 45-88. An English translation
of the prayers of Mordecai and Esther from it is found in J. M. Fuller, "The Rest of the
Chapters of the Book of Esther" (Apocrypha of the Speaket's commentdry [2 vols; ed.
Henry Wace]; London: John Murray, 1888) 1. 385, 390-91.
46Compare the following verses of the Aramaic with the LXX: "It is not from pride
of spirit or exaltation of heart that I have done this, and not bowed before Haman, this
Amalekite" with C 5; ''I would not give the glory due to Thee to any sons of man made of
flesh and blood" with C 7; "For what am I . . . that I should not . . . to procure the re-
demption of Israel . . . lick the dust of Haman's feet?" with C 6; "Have compassion upon
Thy people and Thine inheritance. Let not the mouths of them who praise Thee be
stopped, who continually, evening and morning, magnify Thy Name. Turn our sorrow
into joy and praises. So shall we live and praise Thee for the good deliverance" with C 10.
46To me, this very close agreement of sequence in ideas precludes the argument that
the authors of the Greek and Aramaic versions, starting with essentially the same circum-
stances concerning Mordecai, arrived independently of one another at similar ideas and
phrases.
47The most obvious parallelism is probably purely coincidental, viz., C 16, where the
OL has a 134-word addition, citing people whom God had delivered in the past: Noah,
Abraham, Jonah, Daniel and his three friends (Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah), Hezekiah,
and Hannnah. Schildenberger (Das Bgsh Esther, 89-90) may well be correct in regard-
ing this OL passage as a witness to the oldest version of the Greek; but it is not, as some
have suggested, a witness to a Semitic Vorlage. They argue that in Esther's prayer in the
Second Targum we read: "As you [God] saved Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah out of the
burning furnace, and Daniel out of the lion's den." For if we consider the three friends
of Daniel as one exaple, then here in C 16 of the OL Esther has cited seven examples of
those delivered by the Lord; and the citing of seven examples of something was evidently
a recognized literary device in Greek apocryphal literature (cf. Wis 10:1-11:4; Prayer of
Eleazar in 3 Mac 6:4-8; and 1 Mac 2:52-61). It should be noted in passing that both
Josephus and the OL omit C 17-23, which may indicate that these verses were added to the
LXX sometime after the second century Latin translation.
MOORE: LXX ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF ESTHER
393
It is unlikely that either version is dependent upon the other. Even in Mor-
decai's prayer there is no reason to think that the Greek preserves a summation
or condensation of a Semitic VorloFge now preserved in the Aramaic, since the
logic, style, and theological content of C 2-11 are far too consistent and inte-
grated for that to be the case. The Aramaic version could conceivably be based
on the LXX; but this is probably not so here, else how can we explain the omis-
sion of C 2-4 and 8-9 by the Aramaic version?
If there is any genealogical relationship between these two versions-and
the almost identical sequence in parallel ideas in Mordecai's prayer suggests that
there may be-then both the Greek and the Aramaic are related to one another
by being descendants of either the same Semitic Vorlogge or oral tradition, a situ-
ation that a priori seems quite possible, given the simple literary style and theol-
ogy of Add C (cf. n. 31), not to mention its probable date.48 That an Aramaic
Vorlogge could be behind Add C of the LXX is indicated, perhaps, by the fact
that in C 7 the LXX has en hyperephozniog, "out of arrogance," while the AT has
en peirasmo, "in rivalry," both Greek words being legitimate translations of the
same Aramaic word be'itJw'ah.49
With the exception of C 17-23, which is in neither Josephus nor the OL, the
termins ogd qgem for Add C is A.D. 94, the date of Josephus' Antiqgities.
Add D
Add D, especially with God's miraculous transformation of the king's anger
to solicitousness in vs. 8, is unquestionably the dramatic climax of the Greek
Esther. Whether it reflects a Semitic Vorlogge which had expanded the details
of 5:1-2 of the MT or is an original Greek composition is impossible to prove.
But the external evidence, with no internal evidence to the contrary, suggests
that Add D was Greek in origin and that, like Adds B, C, and E, had a termins
ad qg4em of A.D. 94.
4B With the exception of C 17-23, which is in neither Jos. Ant nor the OL, the termngs
ad quetn for Add C is A.D. 94.
49 So C. C. Torrey, "The Older Book of Esther," HTR 37 ( 1944) 8.

Moore - Esther

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moore - Esther

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On the Origins of the LXX Additions to the Book of Esther

Author(s): Carey A. Moore

You might also like