A Greek Witness to a Different Hebrew Text of Esther

By C arey A. M oore
(Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, Pa., USA)

In his preface to Chronicles J e r o m e noted that all Christendom

read the Septua^nt in one of three recensions, namely, the Hesychian,
the Lucianic, and the Origenic1. Among the scholars who have taken
J e r o m e ' s statement quite literally was p. DE L a g a r d e , who reasoned
that by isolating and reconstructing the original forms of these three
recensions of the Septuagint, one could use them, in turn, to re-
construct the " Urtext" of the Septuagint2. In keeping with this theory,
L a g a r d e published in 1883 his “Librorum Veteris Testamenti
canonicorum pars prior" which contained, he said, the Lucianic
recension of the books from Genesis through Esther. Gnly for the
Book of Esther, however, did L a g a r d e print the texts of "the Luci-
anic” , ٠٢ A-text, and the traditional Septuagint, ٠٢ B-text, side hy
side for purposes of comparison.

C oncerning th e A ccuracy o f DE L a g a r d e 's R e c o n s tru c tio n

L a g a r d e ' s Lucianic, ٠٢ A-text, of Esther was an eclectic text
based on MSS 19, 93a, and 108b, manuscripts which F . F i e l d in
his "Grigenis Hexaplorum” (Proleg., p. lxxxiv) had suggested were
probably Lucianic. According to L a g a r d e 's own statement (pars
prior, p. xv), he used MS. 93a as his basic manuscript and departed
from it only when MS. 19 or 108b offered a preferred reading. In
some instances, when L a g a r d e rejected a reading in 93a, the present
writer was not able to understand exactly why L a g a r d e had
chosen one of the other of two equally likely alternatives. It is diffi-
cult to escape the conclusion that in some of these cases, at least,
L a g a r d e had relied upon his “feeling" for the passage. Nor is the
present writer alone in thinking that L a g a r d e was sometimes arbi-
trary in his reconstruction, for A. R a h l e s came to the very same
conclusion after his study of L a g a r d e 's reconstruction of the Lu-
cianic recension of the Books of Kings2.
Nonetheless, L a g a r d e has ^rform ed a most valuable service by
providing a reconstructed text which clearly and accurately reflects
the differences between it and the traditional Septuagint, or B-text.
For while the differences among the three MSS used by L a g a r d e
1 Liber Verborum Dierum in Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam, 1948, p. 4.
2 L a g a r d e explained his propDsal in a pamphlet entitled: Ankündigung einer neuen
Ausgabe der gri^ldschen Übersetzung des Alten Testaments, 1882.
3 “Lucians RezensiDn der Königsbücher'', in: Septua^nta-Studien, 1911, Part 3,
p. 24—25.
352 C a re y a . M o o re , a Greek W itness to a Different Hebrew Text of Esther

for his A-text are negligible, the striking differenees between his
text and the B-text are real. They are not artifical differences resui-
ting from a forced or misleading reconstruction.

C oncerning th e I d e n tity of th e G reek E d ito r of th e A -te x t

While it is comparatively easy to say that L a g a r d e has accurately
reconstructed a Greek recension of Esther, it is qifite difficult to say
exactly what text it is. L a g a r d e believed, of course, that he had
prodded in his pars prior “the Lucianic recension” of the Septuagint
for the books from Genesis through Esther. With regard to the Lu-
cianic recension of the books of the Gld and New Testaments, ho-
wever, scholars have been quite uncertain about two crucial matters:
1) the guiding principles used by Lucian in editing his text, and 2) the
exact materials or texts used by him4.
But even ^ e a ter uncertainty must exist concerning L a g a r d e ’s
“Lucianic” text of Esther. It is by no means certain that his A-text
of Esther is Lucianic. The most decisive and conclusive proof for the
Lucianic authorship is missing, namely, the use of its readings by
Antiochian Eathers such a s C h r y s o s t o m or T h e o d o r e t , Eathers
who did quote the Lucianic recension in their writings. Moreover, as
we shall see, the two reasons for L a g a r d e 's calling his A-text “Lu-
cianic” are far from convincing.
The first reason for L a g a r d e 's calling his A-text of Esther
“Lucianic” was that MSS 19, 93, and 108 clearly have Lucianic
texts in some of the historical books, notably the Books of Kings, a
conclusion which E . E i e l d and L a g a r d e had arrived at indepen-
dently6. Subsequent studies, especially those by R a h l f s in his “Lu-
cians Rezension der Königsbücher”, have confirmed the view that
MSS 19, 93, and 108 are often Lucianic*. But while these MSS do
contain Lucianic texts in historical books, it does not necessarily
follow that in these same MSS the A-text of Esther is also Lucianic.
The second reason for L a g a r d e ’s believing that his A-text of
Esther is Lucianic is that some of the characteristic types of variants
and stylistic qualities of his A-text of Esther are similar to those
types of variants in the Lucianic recension of the Books of Kings.
R a h l f s lists among the characteristic types of Lucianic variants in

٠ For helpiul introductory statements on the problems surrounding the Lucianic

recension, see H. B . S w e t e , An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, rev.
by R. O t t l e y , 1914, I, p. 80—8 5‫ ت‬and B. R o b e r t s , The Old Testament Text and
Versions, 1951, p. 141— 143.
‫ ﺀ‬F. E ield , Prolegomena in*. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt I, p. lxxxiv. ٤٠‫؛‬
and P. D E L a g a r d e , Prolegomena in‫ ؛‬pars prior, p . xiv.
٠ Septua^nta-Studien, Part 3.
 C a r e y a . M o o re , a Greek W itness to a Different Hebrew Text of Esther 353

Kings: ‫ ره‬doublets; ‫ رط‬eorrections aeeording to the MT; e) changes in

accordance with similar readings elsewhere; and ‫ ره‬other alterations,
including changes of case, syntactical corrections, syntactical impro-
vements, simplifications of the meaning, very frequent substitution
of synonyms, radically different personal names*.
To be sure, apart from the doublets, examples of each of the
above-named types of variants may be found in the A-text of Esther.
But, again, this argument is far ‫؛‬٢٠^ conclusive, for as B. F is c h e r
has shown in his study of the Lucianic readings in the Vetus Latina
of the Books of Kings, many of “the Lucianic” elements existed
before the time of Lucian (d. 312‫ ﻣﻮر‬That “Lucianic” readings can
even be survivals of readings of the p r e -C h r is tia n era is now clearly
established by the presence of “Lucianic” readings in such manu-
scripts as the Greek p appus 458 of the John Rylands Library and the
findings at Qumran*.
In summary, the arguments offered by L a g a r d e for the Lucianic
authorship of the A-text of Esther are far from convincing. That
Lucian was in some way connected with this A-text of Esther is, at
best, a possibility. Moreover, as the author of this paper will attempt
to prove, the A-text of Esther is not the Lucianic recension of the
Septuagint but rather a Greek translation of a Hebrew text which was
quite different, at points, from both the MT and the Hebrew text
presupposed by the Septua^nt. In this paper only the major reasons
for this view, along with a few well chosen but representative examples
to support that position, will be presented.

Some E v id e n c e for th e A -te x t B eing

A S e p a r a t e T r a n s l a t i o n of the Heb rew
That the A-text of Esther is a separate Greek translation of the
LXX is argued by the presence of those passages which are translated
quite differently in the A-text and the B-text and yet seem to pre-
suppose the same Hebrew Vorlage. The following readings are espe-
cially striking:
110 ‫הטביעי כטוב לב״המלךב״יום‬
B‫־‬text ٤٧ δέ τη ημέρα τη έβδ<‫؛‬μη ήδέω‫ ؟‬γενόμενο ‫ ة؟‬βασ^εύ‫؟‬
A-text έγένετο δέ τη ημέρα ٩ έβδόμη ٤٧ τα‫>؛‬εύφρανθηναι τόν βασιλέα
7 Ibid. ρ. 171 ff.
٠ "Lukian-Lesarten in der Vetus Latina der Vier Königsbüeher", in: Studia Ansel-
miana, Fase. 27— 28, Miscellanea Bíblica et Orientalia, R. F. Athanasie Miller
Oblata, 1951, P . 175— 176.
٠ For helpful introductory remarks on this subject, see F. K a h l e , The Cairo Geniza,
192‫ وة‬, p. 2 2 6 - 285; and F. M. C r o s s , Jr., The Ancient Library ofQumran and Modem
Biblical Studies, 1958, p. 124— 140.
354 C arey a . M o o r e , a Greek W itness to ‫ ه‬Different Hebrew T ext of Esther

While the presenee of a ‫ ר ה י‬is clearly evident from theA -text, the B -text omitted
it, apparently in the interest of style.

24 ‫תיטב בעמי המלך תמלך תחת ؛؟؟מי‬ ٠١٠۶٠‫؟‬ ‫והנערה‬

B‫־‬καί ή γυνή text ٩ άν άρέση τω βασιλει βασιλεύσε
A-text καί ή παις ٩ ‫؛‬δν άρέση τω βασιλεΤ κατασταΟήσεται άντι
Ουαστιν
Here the A-text diners from the B ‫־‬-text with respect to a noun, verb, and per
sonal name, and yet the same Hebrew text clearly lies behind both Greek translations ,

31 ‫אחר הךבךים האלה גדל המלך אחשורו*» את״ה؟ן בךהמדתא האגגי ולמ؟אהו ו؛מ؟ם‬
‫ה&רים‬-‫את־פסאו מעל כל‬
B-text μετά δέ ταΟτα έδόξασεν ό βασιλεύ‫ ؟‬Άρταξ‫؛‬ρξη‫‘ ؟‬-Αμάν ‘Αμα
δδ©αυ Βουγαιον ‫ اس‬ύψωσεν αύτόν καί έπρωτοβάθρει πάντων
των Φίλων αύτού
A-text xa‫ ؛‬έγένετο μετά τού‫ ؟‬λόγου‫ ؟‬τούτου‫ ؟‬έμεγδλυνεν ‫ ه‬βασιλεύ‫؟‬
‫״‬Ασσυηρο‫‘ ؟‬Αμαν ‘Αμαδδθου ΒουγαΤον καί έπηρεν αύτόν ‫أس‬
.εθηκε τόν θρόνον αύτού ύπέρ άνω των Φίλων αύτού
The A ‫־‬text differs from the B -text here in having έμεγάλυνεν, έπηρεν and
έθηκε for έδόξασεν. ύψωσεν, έπρωτοβάθρει respectively, synonymous verbs which
certainly have the same Hebrew tex t behind them. It is also worth noting here that
the A ‫־‬text is more literal than the B -text — hardly a characteristic of a genuine
Lucianic text — in that the A ‫־‬text has μετά τού ‫ ؟‬λόγου ‫ ؟‬τούτου ‫ ؟‬,for μετά δέ ταΟτα
.and έθηκε τόν θρόνον αύτου ύπέρ άνω for έπρωτοβάθρει

β6 ‫יותר ؟מני‬ ‫أآل‬ ‫ה؟לך לע&ות‬ ‫וי^מר ה؟ ן בלבו ל؟ י‬

B-text είττεν δέ ٤٧ έαυτω ‫‘ ه‬Αμάν ٢٢٧
‫»اس‬ ‫ه‬ βασιλεύ‫ ؟‬δσξάσαι
μή £‫؛‬

A‫־‬text καί' έλογίσατο ‫ ه‬Αμαν λέγων άτι ٢٢٧٠ βούλεται ‫ ه‬βασιλεύ‫؟‬

δσξάσαι £٢ .μέ) έμέ
Here έλογίσοΓΓΟ for είπεν δέ ٤٧ έαυτω and βούλεται for θέλει clearly presuppose
the same Hebrew. Here, in contrast to the previous example, the B -text is the more
itérai.

79 ‫המל ך ؟ להו ע ל י ו ו״אהר‬

B-text εϊπεν δέ ‫ ه‬βασιλεύ‫ ؟‬Σταυρωθήτω έπ* αύτού
A‫־‬text ‫ اس‬εϊπεν ‫ ه‬βασιλεύ‫ ؟‬Κρεμασθήτω έπ* αύτω
Readings such as the above, as well as at least 14 other passages10,
certainly ar^ie against regarding the A‫־‬text as a mere recension of
the LXX. The A‫־‬text of Esther is a different Greek translation of a
Hebrew text which was, in part, g i t e similar to the MT.

21
1410
91.‫ح‬. 10
48235‫و‬.. 10
65 ٠٠ ?٠11.
 C arey a , M o o r e , a Gre€k Witness to a Different Hebrew Text of Esther 355

While lueidity and completeness in diction may very well be a

major characteristic of the Lucianic recension of the Old and New
Testaments**, the Greek editor of the A‫־‬text of Esther was not too
concerned with diction per se‫ إ‬for his text is by no means devoid of
all infelicities of phrase and Hebraisms, as is evident from the fol-
lowing examples:
12 ‫ מלכותו‬8 ‫על وو‬ ‫כ*؟בת המלך‬
δτε έθρονίσθη B-text ‫ ه‬βασιλεύ‫ ؟‬Άρταξέρξη‫؟‬
A‫־‬text ٤٧ τφ καθησθαι Άσσυηρον έττι τού θρόνου ‫׳‬٢٩ βασιλ£،α‫؟؟‬
αυτού
114 ‫פני המלך היקבים ראשגה במלכות‬ ٦^
٩
B-text ‫ اه‬έγγύ ‫ ؟‬τού βασιλέω‫ ؟‬οι πρώτοι παρακαθήμενοι τω βασιλΕΐ
A‫־‬text ‫ اه أس‬ό ρωντε‫ ؟‬τό πρόσωπον τού βασιλέω‫ ؟‬καί ٠١ καθήμενοι ٤٧
το !‫ ؟‬βασιλείοι‫؟‬
121 ‫ריטב הדבר בעמי המלך והגרים ו!עש המלך כךבר ؟מוכן‬
B‫־‬καί ήρεσεν text ‫ ه‬λόγο‫ ؟‬TCO βασιλεΐκαί τοί‫ ؟‬άρχουσι ‫ أس‬έποίησεν ‫ه‬
βασιλεύ‫ ؟‬καθά έλάλησεν ό ΜουχαΤο‫؟‬
A‫־‬text ‫ ه؟ ﻫﺲ^ه اس‬λόγο‫ ؟‬٤٧ καρδί‫ ؟‬τού βασιλέω‫ أس ؟‬έποίησεν
έτοίμω‫ ؟‬κατά τόν λόγον τούτον,
31 ‫אחר הדברים האלה גדל המלך אח؟ורו*ז‬
μετά δέ ταύτα έδόξασεν B-text ‫ ه‬βασιλεύ‫* ؟‬Αρταξέρξη‫؟‬
A‫־‬text ‫ اص‬βένετο μετά τού‫ ؟‬λόγου‫ ؟‬τούτου‫ ؟‬έμεγάλυνεν ‫ ه‬βασιλεύ‫؟‬
Ά σοτι^ο ‫؟‬

Ev idence for the A - t e x t Being Based on A n o th e r Hebrew

Vorlage
That the A-text of Esther is a translation of a Hebrew Vorlage
quite different at certain points from that of either the MT or the
one presupposed by the LXX may be briefly indicated by several
”lines of argument, namely, on the basis of “Additions”, “Omissions
and “Abbreviations”, and, finally. Variations in the A‫־‬text when
.compared to the B-text and the MT
First, there are those 15 “Additions” in the A-text which have
no parallels in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin texts of Esther*^. These
Additions” range in length from phrases containing anywhere from“
11 See H. B. S w e t e , An Introduction to the ‫ ﻫﺎه‬Testament in Greek, rev. by O t t l e y ,
p. 82.
12 That is, the apparatus criticus of the Earger Cambridge Septuagint does not include
any such parallels for the following: 4 1.3.6.7 7 14 82.4.5 ( 2x) . 6-7. ٠. 12 .13.14. 36.
356 C arey a . M o o r e , a Greek Witness to ‫ ه‬Different Hebrew Text of Esther

six words to verses containing 55 words, inciuding the following

representative examples:
4‫و‬ καί είδον ٠١ του βασιλέω
παίδε
ότι ‫ ؟ه؟‬Μαρδοχαίο‫؟‬٠٥
κυνεί τόν Αμαν
δέ γενόμενο
κθυμο‫·؛‬
89
‫؟ه؟‬ άνεπήδησε
καί πλησθεΐ
βασιλεύ
όργη‫؟؟؟‬
καί ήν περίπατων
τόνέντρεπόμενο
Μαρδοχαίον καθ' δτι
έκεκρίκει άνασκολοπίσαι άυτόν καί είπε τ φ Μαρδοχαίω
περιελεού τόν σάκκον καί έταράχθη Μαρδοχαίο ώ-άπο
‫؟؟‬
θνήσκων καί
τόν άπεδύσατο
σάκκον καί μετ’
ένεδύσατο
άδύνη‫؟‬
έδόκει
θεωρείν
τά Μαρδοχαίο
ίμάτια
καί
τέρα
δόξη
ήκα
‫؟؛؟؟‬
τόν κύριον καί έξίστατο
καρδία αύτού
έν άφασία
πρό‫؟‬
8 ٠٠? δέ είδεν ή βασίλισσα δτι δεινόν έφάνη τω βασιλ
μισοπονηρει είπεν Μή όργίζου κύριε ίκανόν γάρ τυχόν‫■؛‬ δτι
τού Ιλασμού σου εύωχού βασιλεύ αύριον δέ ποιήσω κατά τό
βημά σου Kai ώμοσεν ‫ه‬ τού άπαγγειλαι βασιλεύ
αύτήν ‫؟‬
αύτω τόν ύττερηφανευσάμενον τού ποιησαι τ ο ^ ο καί μετά
.δρκου ύπέσχετο ποιησαι αύτη δ άν βούληται
Certainly the possibility that these readings have a basis in another
.Hebrew text can not be ruled out
Secondly, in spite of these “additions”, the A-text is still much
shorter than the B‫־‬.”text because of its “abbreviations” and “omissions
text are
The of“omissions”
three general
in the A: ‫ رل‬the
types‫־‬
omission of repetitious elements in the B-text, ranging in length from
a few words to several verses, including the following representative
:examples
καί άπέστειλεν 22£1١ πασαν τήν βασιλείαν κατά χώραν κατά τήν ‫؟‬
λέξιν αύτων ώστε είναι φόβον
αύτων
έν
οίκίαι
αυτοί
ταΐ‫؟؟؟‬
This verse repeats the content of 119 and έττοίησεν έτοίμως κατά τόν λ ό γο ν‫׳‬٢٠٠-
τον in 2 21 of the A -text .

3‫ة‬ δτι ٠٥ προσκυνεί αύτω Μαρδοχαίο‫؟‬

‫ﺋﻪ‬ .repeats the material found in the preceding verse

5٠ καί έξηλθεν δ ‘Αμάν άπο τού βασιλέας ύπερχαρή

-εύφ
‫؟‬
μενο‫؟‬٤٧ τ φ ίδεΐν ‘Αμαν Μαρδοχαίον τόν Ιουδαίονδ‫؛‬٤٧ τη
αύλη έθυμώθη σφόδρα
This repeats the ideas expressed 18
in5.

καί προσεδέξαντο ‫اه‬

25-9 2 3 Ιουδαίοι
εγραψεν
καθώ‫ م؟‬0 ‫ ه؟ آ‬-Map
Αμάν ‘Αμαδάθου‘
δοχαίο
πώ‫ ؟؟ه‬Μακεδών έπολέμει αύτού‫؟‬
εθετο ψήφισμα καί κλήρον άφανίσαι αύτού
καθώ
καί ‫؟ﻟﻪ؟؟‬
 C a r e y a . M o o re , a G!‫־‬eek Witness to a Different Hebrew Text of Esther 357

ε‫؛‬σ^θεν πρό‫ ؟‬τόν βασιλέα ‫ ﺳﻤﻤﺠﺢ‬κρεμάσαι τον Μαρδοχαίον

οσα δέ έπεχείρησεν έπάξαι έπΐ του‫ ؟‬Ιουδαίου‫ ؟‬κακά ^ ٠
αυτόν έγένοντο καί έκρεμάσθη αύτό‫ ؟‬καί τά τέκνα αύτου
This is repetitious, needlessly retelling the entire story.

The second type of omfssion is that of personal· names, sueh as the

names of the Persian lords in 1 10 or 114. The third type of omission
is that of numbers and dates, such as appear in 1 3 2 16 or 9 18-19 of
the B-text. Signihcandy, many of these phrases and verses of the
B-text which are missing in the A-text are present in the MT, i. e.,
the MT and the B-text agree with one another. That these “omissions”
reflect a different Hebrew Vorlage is not at all improbable.
So, too, “abbreviations” in the A‫־‬text, as exemplified in the
following readings, may represent a shorter Hebrew Vorlage. While
the B‫־‬text has in 5 3 τί θέλει‫* ؟‬Εοθήρ‫ ؛‬Kai τί σού έστιν τό αξίωμα; εω‫؟‬
τού ήμίσου‫ ؟‬τη‫ ؟‬βασιλεία‫ ؟‬μου καί εσται σοι which agrees with the
MT, the A‫־‬text has simply τί έστιν, Εσθηρ; άνάγγειλόν μοι K a i ποιήσω
σοι. While in 5 11 the B-text has κα‫ ؛‬ύπέδειξεν αυτοί‫ ؟‬τον πλούτον
αυτού κα، τήν δόξαν ٩٧ ‫ ه‬βασιλεύ‫ ؟‬αύτω περιέθηκεν K a i ώ ‫ ؟‬έποίησεν
αυτόν πρωτευειν K a i ήγεισθαι τη‫ ؟‬βασιλεία‫؟‬, the A‫־‬text simply but
effectively says K ai έκαυχατο λέγων.
Atthough it is impossible to establish at present whether these
readings reflect the hand of a Greek editor or reflect a shorter Hebrew
Vorlage, it is not improbable that the latter is the case. In this con-
nection it is well to remember, for example, that there has been found
at Qumran a Hebrew MS of Jeremiah which agrees with the tra-
ditional LXX, a text which is considerably shorter than the MT13.
Thirdly, there are those variants in the A-text which are slightly
reminiscent of Hebraic style and may reflect a different Hebrew
Vorlage, e. g.,
121 ‫נ؟יטב הדבר בעיני המלך‬
B-text κα‫ ؛‬ηρεσεν ‫ ه‬λόγο‫ ؟‬τω βασιλεΐ
A-text κα‫ ؛‬αγαθό‫ ه ؟‬λόγο‫ ؟‬έν καρδί‫ ؟‬τού βασιλέω‫؟‬
313 ‫חד ב^לו^ה עשר‬.‫כל״ה?הודים מנער לעד־ז؟ןן טף ונ^ים ביום א‬-‫ולאבד ؟ת‬
‫לחד؛؟ שנימ״עטר הוא־חך^ ؟דר ר^ללם לבוז‬
B-text άφανίσαι τό γένο‫ ؟‬των Ιουδαίων ٤٧ ημέρα μια: μηνό‫ ؟‬-δωδεκά
του ‫ ؟ة‬٤٠٢١٧ Άδόρ κα، διαρπάσαι τά ύπόρχοντα αυτών
A-text Φονεύειν πάντα ‫ ؟‬τού‫ ؟‬Ιουδαίου‫ ؟‬άπό αρσενικού §ω‫ ؟‬θηλυκού
και διαρπάζειν τα νήπια
The phrase άττο άρσενικοΟ ?COS θηλυκοΟ in the A -text may reflect a Hebrew
plirase such as ‫קבה‬.‫ מזכר עד~נ‬as in Num 5 3 and elsewhere ,

13 F or (Ltails, see F . M. C r o s s , } ٢., The Ancient Library of Qumran, p. 139.

Zeitscnr. f. alttestamcntl. Wiss., Band?251967,‫و‬

358 C arey a . M o o r e , a Greek Witness to ‫ ه‬Different Hebrew Text of Esther

Summary
In conclusion, while none 01 the above arguments may be con-
elusive in itself, the weight of the evidence is accumulative. The A-
text of Esther is not a recension of the LXX. Nor are the A‫־‬text and
the B‫־‬text of Esther just separate translations of the same Hebrew
Vorlage.‫ح‬ A‫־‬text presupposes a Hebrew text very different atcer-
tain points from both the MT and the one presupposed by the B‫־‬text.
Thus, L a g a r d e ’s A‫־‬text of Esther becomes even more important than
before — but for an entirely different reason. Instead of indirectly con-
tributing to the final reconstruction of the Proto-Septua^nt and thus
leading back to its Urtext and its Hebrew Vorlage, the A-text of Esther
directly contributes to the history and content of the Hebrew text of
Esther by attesting to the existence of a Hebrew text radically diffe-
rent at some places from both the MT and the one presupposed by the
LXX.
That there could have been a book of the Hebrew Bible which, at
some point, took the form of two quite different Hebrew texts occa-
sions no great surprise. Such a possibility is implicit in some of the
findings at Qumran. C r o s s has written: “It now becomes clear, at
least in these books [Joshua, Samuel, and Kings], that the Septu-
au n t's divergent text was due less to ‫״‬translation idiosyncrasies’ than
to the type of text which it translated. These manuscripts establish
once for all that in the historical books of the Septua^nt translators
faithfully and with extreme literalness reproduced their Hebrew
Vorlage٠ And this means that the Septua^nt of the historical books
must be resurrected as a primary tool of the ‫ م‬1‫ ه‬Testament critic“!*.
To all of which the present writer would only add that now the
Greek texts of Esther must also be resurrected as a primary tool for
the Hebrew text of Esther.

p. DE L agardes T ext A des Buehes Esther trägt nieht mittelbar zur RekGn-
strukti©n der Proto-LX X bei und ist kein Hilfsmittel zur Erreichung ihres Urtextes
und ihrer hebräischen Vorlage. Vielmehr bezeugt er die Existenz eines hebräischen
Textes, der sich grundsätzlich vom MT und von der hebräischen Vorlage der L X X
unterscheidet, und trägt auf diese Weise unmittelbar zu Geschichte und Inhalt des
hebräischen Esther-Textes bei.

‫ ﻣﺎ‬texte A du livre d'Esthcr par p. DE L a g a rd e ne contribue pas directement ‫ة‬

la reconstruction de la Proto-Septante et ne constitue pas un moyen d'arriver au
texte original et à son modèle hébreux. Au contraire, il prouve l'existence d'un tex te
hébreux qui diffère fondamentalement du MT et du modèle hébreux de la L X X ,
contribuant indirectement de cette façon ‫ ة‬l'histoire et au contenu du texte hébreux
d'Esther.

“ Ibid., p. 134.
 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.