No
book in the Bible has caused more controversy, uproar, and fiery conversation
than Esther. The book is an important
feature for Jews as it provides etiological purpose to the festival of Purim.
Without the festival the book retains little significance for Jews, and
likewise, Purim without Esther limits
the festival to a social party.
The Masoretic Text (MT) of Esther
presents a number of problems for the interpreter. The greatest of these
problems is how the MT-Esther never
reveals an explicit mention of Israel’s God, or any devotion to that God, on
behalf of its key characters. Moreover, there is a striking lack of typical Old
Testament (OT) themes, such as law, kingship, and national identity.
For this reason, Esther, in the early
Christian church and Judaic traditions,
struggled to command a secure place in the canon.
The missing elements in the MT-Esther
provided difficulties for the popularization of Esther in Jewish traditions, especially as Jews stopped using the
Septuagint (LXX) as an authoritative text once the early Christians relied
heavily on the LXX as their key OT text.
These problems are further complicated by the presence of the two Greek
translations of Esther. The two Greek
forms of Esther are presented in the LXX
and Alpha Text (AT), and provide further challenges to the historical and
traditional view of Esther. In this paper, I
will explore the nature and history of the three
Esther editions. Moreover, I will provide
evidence that each edition most likely stems from a prototypical Esther,
and that the absence of God is explained through attributing a redactor to the
MT-Esther. It is at this juncture
that I will argue for an original inclusion of God’s presence in the proto-Esther text, but conclude God’s removal
in R-MT for purposes of the redactor. Lastly, I will argue for the author’s intent
to create a literary device that seeks to bring about propositions in the
reader—therefore placing the reader into the text itself.
The MT of Esther, as we have it, is located in the Leningrad Codex 19A.
A Jewish businessman, Abraham Virkovich, while doing business in Cairo,
obtained the manuscript in 1863. The Leningrad Codex remains the earliest copy
of the complete Hebrew Scriptures dating back to 1008-1009 CE. The scribal
marks and apparatus attests to the strength of integrity this edition demands.
The LXX is easily accessible and can be
found in thirty-six manuscripts. The oldest complete manuscripts come from the
third and fourth centuries. However, one must understand that any consideration of Esther in the LXX must consider its beginnings stemming from
Origen. Origen sought to correct the popular OT Greek text of his day including
Symmachus, Theodotion, and Aquila.
Origen’s translation—The Hexapla—became
the standard Greek text for the OT, and influenced the field of translation
from that point on. That Origen saw lack in Esther’s
Hebrew version is of no surprise as he states, “Of the Book of Esther neither the prayer of Mardochaios
nor that of Esther, both fitted to edify the reader, is found in the Hebrew.”[12]
Some scholars have attempted to find an earlier Greek version of Esther, not influenced by Origen, but
without success.
It is therefore important to remember that any LXX reading has a strong
influence from Origen, and his distaste towards the incompleteness of the MT.
The second Greek text, known as the
Alpha Text,
can only be found in four medieval manuscripts.
The first print of the AT appeared in 1655 by James Ussher. It was a
long-standing assumption by scholars that the AT was a revision of the LXX, rendering
the text of secondary importance to the LXX. However, since Carey Moore’s work
in 1965, where he shows major differences between common Lucianic texts and the
AT, there has been a scholarly consensus to reject Lucianic origin, and
therefore reject AT recension of the LXX.
The AT has since then become of central importance for scholars as it now
stands alone, and must give answers to its discrepancies with the MT and LXX.
The LXX and AT differ from the
Masoretic text in a number of significant ways, but none is greater than the
Additions (ADD). In both the LXX and AT there are six ADD.
There is no manuscript evidence for any of the ADD ever existing in the MT. The
ADD are highly consistent throughout the LXX and AT. However, throughout the
reading of the LXX and AT, a number of major differences occur within the body
of the texts. This raises a number of questions as to how the ADD became
adopted into the LXX and AT. Which ADD were original, if any at all? Do the ADD
stem from an earlier Hebraic Vorlage
or stand-alone in there respective Greek sources, and later added? The scope
and range of the examinations needing to be compiled is obviously too large a
field to disseminate in this small paper alone, and this author will be
referring to the 1996 dissertation work of Karen H. Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther: Its Character and Relationship to the
Masoretic Text, as a reference point. Her work is thorough and carefully
executed in determining relations between the semantic field of the MT, LXX,
and AT. Jobes concludes that, outside of the ADD, the LXX and AT “almost never agree
against the MT.”
Examined in this light there should be an increased suspicion that the ADD were
interpolated into both texts (AT and LXX) at a later date.
Had there been agreement throughout the LXX and AT in the main body it would
pause the reader to possibly consider a similar source in the ADD, but their
disagreements in the body of LXX and AT are too strong to consider.
On the surface, the AT and LXX
appear to have more in common than the AT and the MT, but this is only true
because of the ADD. However, once the ADD are removed there is strong formal
and semantic agreement between the AT and MT.
The AT preserves the Hebrew idioms closer than the LXX, and 77% of the time
adequately interprets the MT text.
Again, this all suggests that the AT was not a recension of the LXX, and that
the ADD were interpolated into the text at a later date rendering the two Greek
versions as independent sources. Moreover, Jobes concludes, “Where the AT has
text corresponding to the MT, the AT agrees with MT about as often as does the
LXX of Esther.”
Jobes continues, “Eighty-five percent of the syntactic units of the AT for
which there is corresponding Hebrew text (500 units out of 590) are Greek
equivalents of the MT.”
Jobes puts forth a strong linguistic
case for three separate Esther texts
with the LXX largely representing a Greek linguistic field whereas the
AT—because of its close relationship to MT—most likely indicates a Hebrew Vorlage similar to the MT. However,
there are enough differences between the MT and AT to suggest a separate and
similar original source, but these differences are common between Hebrew and
Greek versions of the OT.
Therefore the AT draws its source from a
common text to the MT, and the LXX is, simply, a Greek interpretation of the MT
material.
The MT’s history presents problems
for the reader as well. Michael V. Fox questions the “unity” of the MT latter
chapters.
Up to chapters 9 and 10—and possibly 8—the AT and MT follows closely, but in these
later chapters they appear to bifurcate.
Fox concludes from these divergences that the MT and AT represent texts from an
earlier Hebraic Vorlage—the dismissal
of a Purim etiology clearly points to a later dating of the AT.
However, Chapters 1-7 in the MT, and the correlating chapters in the AT, represent
a close relation to the AT and is suggestive that each probably came from a related
document—some have called this / these document(s) “cousins.”
However, at Chapter 8 the writer begins to take his or her own route in
development. Chapters 8-10 were not later “added” to the text; however, they
had always existed as the “MT”. There appears to be a redactor who was in
possession of the “Proto-Esther”
text.
One can see this emerge in these last chapters of the MT as the redactor, in
chapters 8-10, provides extended material. The 201 words that appear in the
last chapters of the AT are expounded upon into 942 words in the MT.
Furthermore, chapters 1-7 in the MT, and the corresponding text in AT, are nearly
word-for-word, and closely related both formally and semantically. The material
added in the MT, and also the LXX, informs the reader of (1) the inalterability
of the laws; (2) battle reports; (3) Purim etiology; (4) second day of
fighting; (5) and
the epilogue.
These conclusions add to the consensus that the MT is a redacted version of an
earlier source of which the AT also drew.
It is apparent that there also
existed a proto-AT text as well. This is seen in supplementation of the ADD from
the same LXX source ADD—I will not argue, where the ADD originated, but the ADD
close relationship between the AT and LXX show a common source. This means the
AT also has a redacted version (R-AT), from which it drew on a “Proto-AT”
text—The proto-AT and proto-MT are taken from proto-Esther. In addition, the AT
text cannot be a gleaning from the LXX for in the places that the LXX and AT
parallel the LXX lacks the proper Hebraisms picked up by the AT.
Fox further argues that the proto-AT, “demonstrated by an examination of its
Greek syntax,” is a translation of a Hebrew text and cannot be a reiteration of
the MT.
From these conclusions, the proto-AT probably represents an earlier version
than that of the MT. Had there been a festival established prior to the
proto-AT, no faithful Jewish author would have left it out in the proto-AT or
redacted version. It appears that the MT is supplementing this information for
a development that came later in the history of Israel. I have adapted my own
graph, created with the influence of both David Clines and Fox,
to explain how the tradition of Esther
was handed down (See Figure 1).
So what to make of our conclusions? There
appears to have been a number of separate texts of Esther, all stemming from a common text of Hebrew Vorlage known as “Proto-Esther.” Redactors of both the MT and AT
expanded this original text (or texts). The redacted texts were further added
to (and possibly subtracted from)
for purposes of the author. It is suggestive then that the proto-AT and MT
provided information in their respective texts for the inclusion of particular
interests.
It will become clear in this next section that the interest of the MT redactor
differs from that of the proto-AT, specifically in regard to the name and
mention of God.
(Figure 1)
The proto-AT tells a story of God’s
salvation towards God’s people, while the MT seeks to keep God hidden. If the proto-AT
is an earlier document, then why does the author of the MT choose to keep God
veiled? The presence, or name, of God
shows up seven times
throughout the redacted writing of the AT (minus any of the ADD).
As I have shown above, it is my belief that the proto-AT represents an earlier
form of the MT, and that the author of the MT changes the story to fit his or
her own motives.
The R-MT, as is evidenced by
chapters 8-10, attempts to give an etiological meaning to the festival of
Purim.
Therefore, the influence of this overarching intention must claim a meaningful
place in interpretation throughout the book, for without its additions the
meaning of chapter 8-10
would be lost. Tracing God through the R-AT provides background into the
changes offered by the R-MT.
AT 4:5 is the first time the name of
God is mentioned. Mordecai has just informed the eunuch of the grave situation
Haman has just incited, and is reciting to him what he is to speak to Esther.
Mordecai encourages Esther to “Call upon God and speak on our behalf to the
king, and deliver us from death.” This verse is paralleled at MT 4:8-9, and
merely suggests that Mordecai gave a message to the head eunuch, Hathach, and
he is to “explain” to Esther what Mordecai had said. Suspicion is raised as to
the legitimacy of this in the R-AT as it appears that the close relationship
between these verses in the R-AT and LXX is unavoidable. The R-AT is, most
likely a recension, at this point, of the LXX; it hopes to bring a further
religious dimension to God’s involvement in 4:9 and 4:11. See the comparisons
in the R-AT and LXX on Figure 2 below.
Furthermore, AT 7:1 refers to God as
ὁ δυνατὸς, a term used only in the LXX in Zephaniah 3:17 and Odes 11:49; the
only other usage is in Luke 1:49. The LXX interprets “God’s name” here as ὁ κύριος.
Although there is a divergence from the LXX here, the mention of ὁ δυνατὸς in
the ADD (R-AT 1:9) provides a case to question the originality of its Semitic Vorlage. This verse appears, like other
verses throughout the AT, to be either a recension or interpolation of the LXX
from a later date.
LXX – 4:8
|
R-AT – 4:5
|
Ἁμὰν ὁ δευτερεύων τῷ βασιλεῖ ἐλάλησεν
καθʼ ἡμῶν εἰς θάνατον· ἐπικάλεσαι τὸν κύριον καὶ λὰλησον τῷ βασιλεῖ περὶ ἡμῶν
καὶ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἐκ θανάτου.
|
Ἁμὰν ὁ δευτερεύων λελάληκε τῷ
βασιλεῖ καθʼ ἡμῶν εἰς θάνατον· ἐπικάλεσαμένη
οὖν τὸν θεὸν λὰλησον περὶ ἡμῶν τῷ βασιλεῖ, καὶ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἐκ θανάτου (Emphasis
mine).
|
(Figure 2)
A continued examination also shows R-AT
6:22 to fumble in its assembly of Greek syntax. In R-AT 6:22 the author
explains the conversation between Haman and his wife. She tells Haman, “From
the point you spoke evil concerning him
(Haman), evil has been advancing upon you; quiet, because God is with them (emphasis mine).”
Notice the switch from the singular pronoun,
speaking of Mordecai, to the plural pronoun
when still speaking of Mordecai. The LXX does not make this mistake, and may
represent a corruption in the R-AT. Now
that we have eliminated verses that are incongruent with a Hebrew Vorlage, we can now examine those verses
that reference God.
It would be easy to make sense of these verses had the AT been a recension of
the LXX, but the thesis of this paper argues otherwise—for one could simply
attest to the AT changing its language to adapt a language more coherent with
God. The first mention of God is in
R-AT 4:9, which the LXX does not match in Greek either semantically or formally
with the AT. The R-AT (4:9) and MT (4:14) are closely related, but without the
mention of God in the MT. However, it appears that the author is purposely
choosing to gloss over the same information given to the R-AT that was
available through a Hebrew Vorlage.
The R-AT picks up Semitic language that carries over into the MT. Notice the
R-AT uses σωτηρία
to explicate the nature of the deliverance.
Had the R-AT been rendered through Greek Vorlage,
why did he or she not follow the language similar to the LXX, and instead use
Semitic language?
At this juncture the MT and R-AT contain compatible language and probably draw
from a similar source, indicating that God’s presence was most likely active in
the Hebrew Vorlage, and removed for
purposes of the author. Furthermore, the Hebrew syntax in MT-Esther 4:14 seems to suggest that
Mordecai is not threatening his relative with judgment from Jews, or God, but
rather that he is attempting to motivate her answer in the positive by asking a
rhetorical question.
Notice the author of the MT provides the reader with a question and not an
answer. The author elicits a response, not only from Esther, but also from the
readers. What will “you” do in the midst of such options? However, God is
axiomatic in the text. The author need not mention where one receives deliverance.
AT 4:11 also evades Greek
compatibility with the LXX, and stands alone. The MT adds to the simple
statement from the R-AT, “Proclaim a service of worship and pray earnestly to
God,” into a section about fasting. The MT redactor is taking from Hebrew
sources to compile an account more in line with ancient Jewish traditions.
AT 6:17 is another quick, and undeveloped,
mention of God. There are no LXX or MT parallels. In the AT, the story is one
of thankfulness towards “the Lord” after Mordecai is paraded around in the
town, at the king’s request. Clines concludes, “For at no point is the
religious language of the AT at all unnatural or forced.”
It appears that the MT attempts to remove God rather than the AT trying to add
God, as Clines continues, “The MT has very frequently seemed to commentators
unnatural or at least due to a deliberate avoidance of usual Hebrew manners of
speech.”
AT 7:2 is the last mention of God. This again is an authorial side-note as to
Esther’s emotions, and God’s help in a time of need—a note too easily bypassed
by the redactor. The redactor of the MT removed this section alone leaving a
similar semantic and formal field of syntax and Hebraisms in the verses
directly above and below it (MT 7:2 and AT 7:1; MT 7:5 and AT 7:3). An
important question should now be lingering in the minds of readers, namely,
why, if the original Vorlage included
God, remove God?
The removal of God is an important
feature of the MT, as it purposely veils God to elicit a response from the reader
to form a multiplicity of interpretations through personal inclusion into the
text. For example, MT-Esther 4:14
cannot, but stimulate the reader to question what they might do if they were in
Esther’s position. Will I act in the face of fear and tragedy? Where will I
draw my strength? MT-Esther 4:16 also
calls to mind the connection between fasting and deliverance of God in Judges
20:26. Is God good or not? Will God remain faithful in the midst of tragedy, or
fail? How will my devotion to this God, through fasting and prayer, change this
situation? In other words, the author intends to elicit propositions from his
or her readers. For this reason, a number of “propositions” of Esther have been set forth, but without
much avail in finding consensus as to genre, structure, characteristics, or
overall purpose. It is within the three different Esther’s that one finds a path forward in understanding each as a
representation of stages in the process of “Esther’s”
formulation. Throughout this process the shape of Esther has taken many forms, but in its final MT-Esther that the book intends to conceal
God as to illuminate God through absence,
while strongly supplying an old courtier tale, and providing the history of an
important festival.
In conclusion, this paper has shown
the history of multiple Esthers,
namely the MT, LXX, and AT texts. Furthermore this paper has sought to argue
for AT priority over and against the LXX. The AT is not a recension of the LXX,
but rather a stand-alone text from Hebrew Vorlage
similar to that of the MT. Moreover, the purpose of the MT redactor was to veil
God in such a way as to elicit propositions from his or her readers, and to
allow them to enter into the text as a volunteer and not a bystander. For this
reason a number of varying interpretations have been produced by scholars, yet
none as satisfactory or universally accepted by scholars.
Bibliography
Berlin, Adele. Esther: The
Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. Philadephia, Pa: Jewish Publication Society, 2001.
Bush, Frederic William. Ruth,
Esther. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1996.
Clines, David J. A. The Esther
Scroll: The Story of the Story. Sheffield: JSOT, 1984.
De Troyer, Kristin. The End of the
Alpha Text of Esther: Translation and Narrative Technique in MT 8:1-17, LXX 8:1-17, and AT 7:14-41. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature,
2000.
Feldman, Louis H.
"Hellenizations in Josephus' Version of Esther." Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological
Association 101 (1970): 143-70.
Fox, Michael V. Character and
Ideology in the Book of Esther. Second ed. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2001.
Fox, Michael V. The Redaction of
the Books of Esther. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991.
Freedman, David Noel, Astrid B.
Beck, and James A. Sanders. The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998.
Jobes, Karen H. The Alpha-text of
Esther: Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996.
Josephus, Flavius, and William
Whiston. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987.
Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G.
Wright. A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under
That Title. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2007.
Rubenstein, Jeffrey
L. "Purim, liminality, and communitas." AJS Review 17, no. 2
(September 1, 1992): 247-277. ATLASerials,
Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed August 27, 2013).
Stern, Elsie R. "Esther and
the Politics of Diaspora." The Jewish Quarterly Review 100, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 25-53.
[12] Alexander Roberts, James
Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., A
Letter from Origen to Africanus, The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV: Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part
Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (Buffalo,
NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 386–387.
