The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story (JSOT Supplement Series)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

30 Editors David J A Clines Philip R Davies

Department of Biblical Studies The University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2TN England

This page intentionally left blank

THE

ESTHER

SCROLL The Story of the Story

DAVID J.A. CLINES

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 30

For Dawn yeveGAicx; 66ai6v autou. AT further understands the proper names (five in all, as against MT ten) as the names of men who were slain in addition to the ten unnamed sons of Haman ( . . . Kai TOIX; 6sKa utoixg Ajaav). 11. In v. 45 the king says to Esther, 'How have your people here and in the countryside fared (or, behaved)?' (Hebe; aoi oi evrauOa Kai oi ev rrj nepixcopw Kexpiivrai;). The question is poorly motivated, since the narrative has given no reason for the king to suspect that the Jews were in any danger, or were behaving in any noteworthy way (contrast MT 9.11 where the massacre by the Jews is reported to the king). 12. Esther's response in v. 46 is, even so, much more poorly motivated. She replies, 'Let permission be given to the Jews to slay and plunder whomever they wish' (Ao9f)Tco roiq Iou5aioi? ouoi)p8aia 5id TOIX; KA,f)pouq rouq neoovra? etc; tctq fuiepax; ei6v aurou ... Kai TOIX; SeKa uioix; Ajaav

Here the corruption of AeAxJxirv to TOY d8eAx|)6Y has brought in its train the addition of aircou and the addition of Kai before TOIX; SeKa uioix;. (ii)

8.17 (AT 8.41) n^rmo psn "DJJD D\3-n LXX Kai noAAoi roov eGvwv nepieT8|JOYto AT Kai noXXoi TCOV louSaioyv nepierejivovTO

Here, the verb nepiet6|i(v)ovT;o appears to relate AT to LXX, while AT's TODY Iou5aicov is presumably an erroneous second rendering of D'nrrnD. There is no reason to dispute the relationship between the AT and the LXX evidenced by these readings; and certainly if the reading of the AT mss at 9.7-10 (AT 8.44) is an authentic AT reading there is no reason to doubt that the direction of influence is from LXX to AT.48 What Tov does not give, nor any other scholar who has discussed the relation of LXX and AT (Langen, Jacob, Hanhart), is examples of cases in the 'original' core of AT where dependence of AT on LXX is contra-indicated. These are cases where AT is divergent from LXX for none of the reasons that are generally advanced to explain divergence (the dependent text expands, or abbreviates, or misunderstands, or corrects, or conforms to a different Vorlage, or improves the style). They are cases where the divergence of AT from LXX is inexplicable except on the assumption that it had no knowledge of the LXX and was not dependent on it in any way.49 An abundant collection of examples could be made, far more extensive than those in any category presupposing relationship with LXX. Here are some examples: (i)

(ii)

2.2 (AT 3.2)

nnpj i^ itrp:r ITHBHD i^on nsu no^i riNiD nnifc ni^inD

LXX

Kai einav oi SICIKOVOI TOU paaiAeax; Zr|-cr|9f)Tco rep (3aaiXei Kopdaia d(J)0opa KaX,d TO) ei'8ei.

AT

Kai einov oi XeiToupyoi TOU paaiAeax; Zr|Tfiocouev napOevouc; KaA-dq TO) ei'8ei

2.4 (AT 3.4)

"ntyi nnn t?Dn -f^n Tin nt^n IBM my am p tyjn -fton •'rm imn DD^I

88

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

The Esther Scroll LXX

Kat f] yuvf] f\ dv a pear] to) (3aaiA,ei (3aoiA£uoei dvrt Acrciv. Kai fipeaev TCO paaiAei TO npoarayiua, Kai enoirjoev OUTGO?.

AT

Kat f] rraiq fj edv dpear] TO> (taaiAei, KaraGTaGfiaerai dvri Ouaariv. Kat enotr|aav eroijacoq Kara taOra.

3.1 (AT 4.1)

prrnN ^m^nx -fron *m n^sn nnmn IHN inN^ri "JJNH smon-p

LXX

Herd §6 raura eSo^aaev 6 paaiA£i)Dn jan IDN 'D, both LXX and AT represent possible independent translations of the same Hebrew: either 'because Haman the second to the king has spoken' (so LXX) or 'because Haman the second has spoken to the king' (so AT). Thus, even if we allow that the AT's translation is inferior to the LXX's at this point, it is not at all the case that AT is 'clearly secondary' to LXX, as Tov maintains. This chapter may be concluded with a repetition of what the tendency of its argument has been. The AT of Esther, in its essential core (i.e. up to AT 8.17 and excluding the Additions), is a translation of a Semitic original that was different from the MT. The LXX, on the other hand, is a translation of an original that was in all important respects and probably in most details identical with the MT. Any affinity between AT and LXX in the core of the story arises solely from the similarity of their respective Vorlagen (a few minor exceptions from this rule, viz. apparent contaminations of AT by a LXX-type text, and the curious case of the 'religious' contaminations, will be examined in the next chapter).

Chapter 8 THE PRE-MASORETIC STORY OF ESTHER The argument developed in the previous chapter is that the proto-AT (AT 2.1-8.16) was translated from a Hebrew text similar to, but not identical with, the text of the proto-Masoretic book. In this chapter I shall be arguing that the Vorlage presupposed by the proto-AT text is older than the proto-Masoretic book. AT is thus the witness toapreMasoretic Hebrew story of Esther, itself the ancestor of the protoMasoretic story that now forms the core of our canonical Hebrew book (see the diagram at the beginning of Chapter 10). The pluses of (proto-)MT compared with (proto-)AT are on this theory expansions of that pre-Masoretic text; the primary expansions are due to two major extensions of the plot (the second decree, the conspiracy of the eunuchs). The minuses of (proto-)MT, which concern the wording rather than the plot, have no evident rationale, except perhaps for one group of nine minuses (relating to divine activity and religious behaviour). The position nearest to the theory that will be developed here is that of HJ. Cook, who argued that: The Hebrew story of Mordecai and Haman, consisting of our Hebrew book l-85, in a recension differing considerably from our Masoretic text, was translated into Greek to form the text we call A>

This statement differs from my view in that Cook regards the Vorlage of proto-AT as a variant recension of proto-MT, whereas I regard that Vorlage as the ancestor of proto-MT. Cook, in fact, in speaking of AT's 'additions' and 'omissions' vis-a-vis the MT, tends to regard MT as the ancestor of AT. I regard AT's pluses and minuses visa-vis MT as omissions and additions respectively on the part of MT (or, to be more precise, proto-MT).

94

The Esther Scroll

Any closer relationship between AT and MT than between LXX and MT I explain as due to AT and LXX being independent translations of a Hebrew text which went through three phases: (i) pre-MT, from which proto-AT was translated; (ii) proto-MT; (iii) MT, from which 'proto-LXX' (i.e. the LXX without the Additions) was translated. I do not agree with Tov that AT is based on the LXX and corrects it in the direction of a Hebrew recension variant from MT.2 If we compare the (proto-)AT with the (proto-)MT we note several groupings of pluses and minuses. Two of these are especially significant, and will be examined in sections I and II of this chapter. The third of such groupings (of 'religious' pluses) needs special examination (section III). Some concluding observations form section IV.

I The Masoretic text's most important plus from a narrative point of view is the element of the unalterability of the royal decree against the Jews. For it is the unalterability of the decree that projects the tension of the story far beyond the conflict of Mordecai and Haman, so that the danger to the Jewish people has by no means been averted even when Haman has been put to death. In the plot of the MT the overcoming of the Persian decree is as much a difficulty as the overcoming of Haman himself. The earlier Hebrew story (proto-MT) comes to an end at precisely the moment of the resolution of that second problem. The conflict between the decrees is so valuable a source of narrative tension that it is difficult to imagine any reviser of the story writing it out of the record. It is true, as I have argued above, that the author of MT 9.1-19 did not properly appreciate the irony of the conflict between the two decrees, and composed his supplement to the narrative as if the second decree (misunderstood by him as permission to kill those who 'hate' as much as those who 'attack') had completely overturned the first. But he did not eliminate the evidence in chs. 1-8 that a real conflict existed! Nor is it probable that the AT translator would have deliberately excised from his text reference to the unalterable law if his Vorlage was the full MT containing an explanation both of how the force of Haman's edict was averted and of how the Jews managed, under cover of the second edict, to slaughter several myriads of their enemies.

8. Pre-Masoretic Esther

95

The only persuasive explanation for the AT's minus on this crucial element of the story is that at the time of AT's Hebrew Vorlage this element did not exist in the Hebrew narrative. The story AT tells is coherent enough and, utterly reasonably, concludes with the destruction of Haman and his decree. It is not hard to make an intelligent guess as to where the development of the story originated. The tradition of Persian law's unalterability plays a decisive part in the tale of Daniel in the lions' den (Dan. 6), where the movement of the story of the imperial officials' putsch against Daniel hangs entirely on this factor, which is explicitly played upon (vv. 8,12,15). It is not important that elsewhere in the tales of Daniel the king's command is overturned (by Daniel [cf. 2.12 and 24] or God [3.28]), or can be asserted without recourse to the doctrine of its immutability (3.4-6, 10, 15, 19). Once that doctrine is introduced into the Esther story—whether derived from Daniel itself or from some other narrative stuff—a new dimension to the decree of Haman which is sealed with the king's ring is brought into being. In the expansion of the story from itspreMasoretic form to itsproro-Masoretic form, three narrative expansions were required to accommodate the new twist given to the story by the introduction of the motif of the unalterability of Persian law. (i) It becomes important, in the first place, to give greater weight to the reversal of Haman's decree. So long as there is no problem about overturning a Persian decree, Mordecai can simply say,' [My request is] that you repeal (dveA,T} paaiA^t eA,d^r)06v KaG' fmcov etc; Gtivcruov, sniKd^eaai TOV Kupiov Kai ^dA,r|aov TO> paaiA^i nepi fuacov Kai puaat fjind? 6K GavdTou.

. . . remembering the days of your humility, when you were brought up by me, because Haman the 'second' has spoken to the king against us for death. So, having called upon God, speak concerning us to the king, and deliver us from death.

. . . remembering the days of your humility, how you were brought up by me, because Haman the 'second' to the king has spoken against us for death. Call upon the Lord, and speak to the king concerning us, and deliver us from death.

8. Pre-Masoretic Esther

111

These two texts, in these clauses, are related to one another as recensions and not—as is elsewhere the case in the proto-AT— independent translations of variant Hebrew texts. Only in the Additions, where dependence of the AT upon the LXX is generally acknowledged, do we encounter such close correspondence. The most natural assumption at this point is that the AT text has here been contaminated by the LXX text. The AT's plus vis-a-vis MT is then not an authentic AT reading, and therefore can contribute nothing to a theory about the AT's explicit religious language. It will be recalled that this passage is one of the very few cited by E. Tov from the body of the AT to prove its dependence on LXX; he is right in discerning very close correspondences between LXX and AT at this point, but, although the direction of dependence cannot be conclusively proved, the passage certainly reflects contamination of the two texttypes of a kind that is quite untypical of the book as a whole. The second case requiring examination is AT 7.1 (MT 6.1), numbered (vi) above. The curious feature here is the presence of the term 6 Suvaioq, 'the Almighty', as a name for God. This term as a title for God occurs elsewhere in the Greek version of the Old Testament (according to the testimony of Hatch and Redpath) only at Zephaniah 3.17, translating Taj, and then only in some manuscripts (it is just Suvatoc; in Rahlfs's edition). This is a poetic text, however, and it is strange to find the term in a prose context, in which in:n is far from expected. Rather surprisingly, however, the term occurs also in the first Addition to the AT, at 1.9, where however the LXX has instead 6 Oeo?. The only other occurrence of the term as a name for God known to me is at Luke 1.49, another poetic text with a Semitic background. It is a reasonable assumption that this very rare piece of Greek prose diction does not represent a translation of the AT's Hebrew Vorlage but comes from the same redactional influence that introduced 6 Suvaroq into 1.9. When we add to the implications of the diction the fact that at this point the LXX also introduces a reference to divine activity, in the same words (6 ouvaroq apart), we become entitled to judge that this passage also is not original to the AT. In the third case, numbered (viii) above, AT shares with LXX one more 'religious' plus vis-a-vis the MT. There are no special indications here that the AT reading may be secondary, though 6 9eoc; ev aurolq can hardly be a literal rendering from Hebrew (era DTI^N is, I believe, not paralleled, though D^ins DTftN could perhaps be postulated

112

The Esther Scroll

as a Hebrew Vorlage). It may be an indication that the text has suffered some interference that there is no plural antecedent for AT's auTOiJIV aurou, eA,unfi0r| a())68pa, Kai opyfj 6^eKau0r| ev aura). 13 Kai elnev 6 3daiA,8i)? ndai rot? aoc})oiq roi? A,6you? TOUTOU?, ejneydA,uvev 6 3aaiA£u? 'Aoaufjpo? Ajaav A|iia8d0ou Bouyaiov, Kai enfipev auTov, Kai e0r|Ke TOV 0povov auTou urrep ctvco TOOV 4>iA,cDV auTou, coaTe Kd|anTea0ai Kai npooKuvelv auT&> eni TTJV yf|v rrdvTa?. 2 ndvTcov ouv rrpoaKUVouvTcov airca) KaTd TO rrpoaTayjuia TOU (3aoiA£(o?, Map8oxalo? ou rrpoaeKUvei auTco. 3 Kai ei8ov oi naiSe? TOU 3aaiA,eco? OTI 6 MapSoxaio? ou npoaKuvei TOV A|uav, Kai elrrov oi Tiai8e? TOU paaiAeco? rrpo? TOV MapSoxaiov Tt au napaKouei? TOU paaiA^co? Kai ou npoaKUvel? TOV Ajjav; 4Kai dnf|yyeiA,ev auToi? OTI 'Iou8aio? eaTiv. Kai drrfiyyeiXav nepi auTou TOO Afjav. 5 cb? 8e f^KOuaev A(jav, e0u|job0r| TOO Map8oxaico, Kai opyf) e£eKau0T] ev auTco, Kai e^fiTei dveA£iv TOV Map8oxaiov Kai ndvTa TOV Xaov auToO ev fijuepa |ai^.6 Kai napaCriXcoaa? 6 Ajjiav Kai Kivr|0ei? ev navTi TOO 0u(na) auTou epu0po? eyeveTO, eKTpencov auTov e^ 6(|)0aA,|aoL)v auTou, Kai Kap8ia (J>auA,i] eX,dA£i TOO paaiAsi KaKd nepi Iapar|A,8 A^ycov "EaTi A,ao? Sieanapjaevo? ev ndaai? Tai? paaiA^iai?, A,ao? noA,e|Jou Kai dnei0f|?, e^aAXa vojuina excov, TOI? 8e voniiaoi? aou, (foaiAeu, ou npoaexouai, yvcopi^6|aevoi ev ndai TOI? e0veai novripoi ovTe?, Kai Td npoaTdyiaaTd aou d0eTOuai npo? Ka0aipeaiv Tf|? SO^TI? aou. 9 ei 8oKei ofrv TW paaiXei, Kai dya0f) f] Kpiai? ev Kap8ia auTou, 8o0f|Tco (jioi TO e0vo? ei? dncoA£iav, Kai 8iaypd\)/co ei? TO yaCo(j>uA,dKiov dpyuptou TdA,avTa (aupia. n Kai elnev auToo 6 3aaiAeu? To |-iev apyuptov exe, TOO 8e e0vei xpw cb? dv aoi dpeaTov fj. 10 Kai nepieiA£To 6 paaiA^u? TO 8aKTuA,iov dno Tfj? xe^po? CU!>TOU Kai

The A-Text and Translation

9 14 17 18 4

2 3

4 5 6 8

9 11 10

223

eunuch, who was in charge, saw the maiden, and she pleased him beyond all the women. 9 Esther found favour and mercy in his eyes, and he hastened to take charge of her, and gave her, beyond the seven attendants, her own handmaids. And when Esther was taken to the king, she pleased him greatly.14 When evening came, she would be taken to him, and in the morning she would leave. 17 And when the king had examined all the maidens, Esther proved the most outstanding. She found favour and mercy in his sight, and he set the royal crown upon her head.18 And the king married Esther in all splendour, and he gave remissions to all lands. l And it came to pass after these things that King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Bougaean, and exalted him, and set his seat above his colleagues, so that all should bow and prostrate themselves to the ground before him. 2 Now when all were prostrating themselves before him according to the command of the king, Mordecai did not prostrate himself before him. 3 When the servants of the king saw that Mordecai was not doing prostration before Haman, the servants of the king said to Mordecai, 'Why do you transgress against the king and do not do obeisance to Haman?' 4 He told them that he was a Jew. And they made a report about him to Haman. 5 When Haman heard, he was angry against Mordecai, and his wrath burned in him, and he sought to destroy Mordecai and all his people on one day. 6 Haman, being provoked and disturbed with all his spirit, became red [in the face], ordering him out of his sight. And with evil intention he spoke evil words to the king concerning Israel, 8 saying, 'There is a people scattered among all kingdoms, a warlike and disobedient people, with their own strange laws, who do not obey your laws, O king; they are reckoned by all nations to be wicked, and they set at naught your commands in order to diminish your glory. 9 Therefore, if it seems good to the king, and the decision is good to his mind, let the people be given to me for destruction, and I will pay into the treasury ten thousand silver talents.' n The king said to him, 'Keep the money, but do to the people whatever pleases you'.10 And the

224

7

13 B

15

16

17

18

The Esther Scroll e8coKe TCO A|iav Asycov Fpd(j)e eiq ndtaa? Tdc; xpapayiaaTO TO) TOU (3aaiA£cooup6aia 8id rous KA,f)pouc; rou