204. “The LXX translation of Esther: A Paraphrastic Translation of MT or a Free Translation of a Rewritten Version?” Empsychoi Logoi: (eds. Alberdina Houtman et al.; Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 507–26. (original) (raw)
Related papers
2006
The implications for the theological understanding of the MTE 3.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………….46 3.2. The theological implications of the additions and insertions made by the LXX and J texts……………………………………………………47 3.2.1. Insertions made to the canonical passages………………………..47 3.2.1.1. φοβεῖσθαι τὸν θεὸν (Es 2.20) 3.2.1.2. ἐπικάλεσαι τὸν κύριον (Es 4.8) 3.2.1.3. e[ sesqai me; n auj twae bohv qeian para; tou` qeou` pav ntw~ (J, 227; 4.14) 3.2.1.4. Ὁ δὲ κύριος ἀπέστησεν τὸν ὕπνον ἀπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως τὴν νύκτα ἐκείνην (LXX, 6.1) and oJ de; qeo; kategev la th` AEAmav nou ponhra` ej lpiv do~ (J, 247) 3.2.1.5. οὐ μὴ δύνῃ αὐτὸν ἀμύνασθαι, ὅτι θεὸς ζῶν μετ̓ αὐτοῦ (LXX, 6.13); oiJ dAE ouj kev tAE aj muv nasqai to; n Mardocaiòn e[ legon dunhv sesqai to; n ga; r qeo; n ei[ nai su; n au[ tw (J, 259) 3.2.1.6. o{ qen ej pev rcetaiv moi to; qeiòn qaumav zein kai; th; n sofiv an auj tou` kai; dikaiosuv nhn...
The so-called Lucianic (L) text of Esther is contained in manuscripts 19 (Brooke-McLean: b'), 93 (e 2 ), 108 (b), 319 (y), and part of 392 (see Hanhart, Esther,[15][16]. In other biblical books the Lucianic text is joined by manuscripts 82, 127, 129. In Esther this group is traditionally called 'Lucianic' because in most other books it represents a 'Lucianic' text, even though the 'Lucianic' text of Esther and that of the other books have little in common in either vocabulary or translation technique. 1 The same terminology is used here (the L text). Some scholars call this text A, as distinct from B which designates the LXX. 2 Brooke-McLean 3 and Hanhart, Esther print the LXX and L separately, just as Rahlfs, Septuaginta (1935) provided separate texts of A and B in Judges.
A Reassessment of the Book of Esther
In the present study of I shall demonstrate that the Book of Esther is a high-grade numerical composition, in which the divine name numbers 17 and 26 are woven in different ways into the text to signify the presence of God in the events described in the story. This makes it a genuine religious writing despite the absence of the name of YHWH, as in the Song of Songs and Qoheleth, where God is not visualized onstage but behind the scenes. I shall argue in passing that Esther was historically the last to come in on the list of canonized writings, because it came into existence after 70 C.E., the year in which remnants of the archives in Jerusalem were brought into safety in caves at the Dead Sea. This explains why there has as yet no trace of the book been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Furthermore, Esther is also much more than a story explaining the origin of the Feast of Purim: it deals with the perennial threat of genocide of the Jews and their ultimate survival.
It is not uncommon to find references to the "books" of Esther, as if the many differences between the textual traditions of Esther resulted in the creation of separate literary entities. 1 The line between an expanded "edition" of a work and the creation of a new composition drawing upon an earlier source continues to be debated and denied in text-critical discussions. For this reason, Greek Esther provides a helpful test-case for the possibility of investigating the existence and location of such a distinction. 2 Is Greek Esther a "Variant Literary Edition," i.e., an expanded book of Esther, or is it an example of "Rewritten Scripture," i.e., a new composition based on Esther?
The Old Latin book of Esther: An English translation
Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, 2019
In recent decades, a lively debate on the Hebrew and Greek versions of Esther story has developed, focusing on their text-historical and theological relationship. The discussion is enriched further by taking into account the Old Latin Esther, fully edited some 10 years ago by Jean-Claude Haelewyck as part of the Beuron Vetus Latina series. The extant Latin text likely dates back to 330-50 CE and represents an older, now-lost Greek Vorlage. Its numerous peculiarities substantially widen our understanding of ancient Esther traditions. The English translation presented here aims to elicit a broader interest in the Old Latin Esther and to facilitate a fresh discussion of its significance.
Whither Esther? A Linguistic Profile of the Book of Esther (SBL annual meeting, 2013)
The book of Esther is linguistically challenging, not due to any specific difficulty in reading or interpretation, but due to its elusive grammatical profile. Much of the text feels like one is reading Genesis or 2 Kings, yet strange features poke through in every chapter. It is due to these strange features-which can often be found in other books among the Ketuvim as well as the Mishnah-that the book has been characterized as "archaizing" (Polzin 1976). Much water has passed under the bridge since Polzin's work, culminating in the last five years' heated debate about the historical stages of Hebrew and even the use of linguistic evidence in dating biblical texts. In this essay, we will provide a grammatical profile of the book of Esther, building upon and updating the valuable thesis by Robert Bergey , and in the process offer a few methodological suggestions.