The Bible Translated into Greek (The Septuagint)<\/p>\n
Introduction to the Septuagint Selections<\/p>\n
Emanuel Tov<\/p>\n
The text selections that follow, from the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT), are portions of ten books of the Bible and of one apocryphal book, 1 Esdras, which is not found in the Hebrew Bible but is in the LXX. The commentary accompanying the text provides a partial commentary on the content and highlights the differences between Greek and Hebrew Scripture.
\nA commentary on the LXX is somewhat unusual in scholarship, since we are used to commentaries mostly on the MT. However, to some scholars the LXX is as important as the MT, and in antiquity it was considered just as much Holy Scripture as the traditional Hebrew text. For more on the Septuagint itself, see the essay \u201cThe Septuagint,\u201d elsewhere in these volumes. Some of the discrepancies between the LXX and the MT were created when the Greek translators used ancient Hebrew scrolls that differed from the traditional Hebrew text, sometimes to a great extent. In other cases translators inserted their own views in the translation. And still others \u201cdoctored\u201d the Hebrew in an attempt to improve it, shortening, expanding, or changing the content.
\nIn many cases it is not clear if the translators changed their Hebrew text or if they worked with different Hebrew readings. However, in several instances, such as Deut. 32:43, Jeremiah, and many parts of 1 Samuel, we do know the Hebrew source of the translation. In other details it is probable that the translator worked from the same Hebrew text, as that included in the Samaritan Pentateuch. The nature of the commentary that follows is determined by the character of the translation and the differences between the Greek and the Hebrew Bibles. Some selections allow for a description of the translators\u2019 theology, their slight rewriting of biblical stories, and their views on a given chapter. But often the commentary dwells on the nature of the particular Hebrew text that the translator used and how it differs from the MT. Some selections consist of intriguing stories, while others deal with dry lists or technical descriptions. The description of the procedure followed in the Levitical cities in Josh. 20, for instance, requires a greater number of technical comments than other selections.
\nThe texts were selected to illustrate the various types of differences between the Greek and Hebrew Bibles. Only a few sections from the Torah are included because the Greek translation of the Torah is quite similar to its Hebrew counterpart. The only Torah sections here are a list of the ages of the patriarchs (a so-called genealogy) in Gen. 11 and the end of the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:43). Selections from the historical books include two chapters in Joshua, but there is none from Judges, since Judges in the LXX is very close to the MT. The major differences between the historical books in Hebrew and Greek are well illustrated by five selections here from Samuel and Kings. Of the three Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) only Jeremiah is included because only it differs in major ways from Hebrew Scripture. None of the twelve Minor Prophets are here since they do not differ from the MT in any special way. From among the Writings, Proverbs and Job stand out for their Hebrew-Greek discrepancies, as do the books of Esther and Daniel.<\/p>\n
Genesis 11<\/p>\n
Emanuel Tov<\/p>\n
Genesis 11:10\u201332 in the Septuagint (LXX) stands alone in presenting 10 generations of patriarchs from Shem to Terah, the father of Abram, (see the comment below on v. 13). In addition, the LXX differs from the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) in many genealogical details. The LXX is closer to the SP than to the MT. The list of patriarchs in these three texts provides two sets of numbers, giving the age of each patriarch at the birth of his firstborn and the number of years the patriarch lived afterward. There is a certain pattern to the differences between the sources regarding the patriarchs\u2019 ages at the births of their firstborns (see the table here). The main difference is that the LXX and the SP usually add 100 years (50 in the case of Nahor) to the age given in the MT version. All other ancient translations (the Targumim, Peshitta, Vulgate, and later Greek translations) agree with the MT; however, the chronology of Jubilees mainly reflects that of the SP, and the chronological system of Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities mostly agrees with that of the LXX.
\nSince the Greek translator of Genesis usually represents his underlying Hebrew text faithfully, it stands to reason that he translated from a text that differed quite a bit from the MT in Gen. 11. The partial agreement between the LXX and the SP supports this view since the latter is in Hebrew. It is hard to determine whether the LXX version preceded that of the MT, was translated from the MT but changed it, or was independent from it altogether. In any event, the chronological data in the LXX must be taken into consideration when interpreting this chapter of Genesis.<\/p>\n
T.1 Chronological Differences among the Sources<\/p>\n
Genesis 11:10\u201332: Ages of the Patriarchs at the Birth of Their Firstborn
\nName
\nMT
\nSP
\nLXX
\nShem (v. 10)
\n100
\n100
\n100
\nArpachshad (v. 12)
\n35
\n135
\n135
\nKenan II (v. 13)
\n130
\nShelah (v. 14)
\n30
\n130
\n130
\nEber (v. 16)
\n34
\n134
\n134
\nPeleg (v. 18)
\n30
\n130
\n130
\nReu (v. 20)
\n32
\n132
\n132
\nSerug (v. 22)
\n30
\n130
\n130
\nNahor (v. 24)
\n29
\n79
\n79
\nTerah (v. 26)
\n70
\n70
\n70<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Hendel, Ronald S. The Text of Genesis 1\u201311: Textual Studies and Critical Edition, 61\u201380. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
11:10. in the second year after the flood Thus all the versions read, including the MT, even though the chronological implications are problematic: Noah was 500 years old when his firstborn son, Shem, was born (Gen. 5:32), and 600 years old at the time of the Flood (Gen. 7:6). Accordingly, Shem should have been 102 years old when he became the father of Arpachshad, and not 100, as stated in this verse. (This is addressed in B. Sanh. 69b and by Ibn Ezra to Gen. 10:21.)
\n11. and died This detail is lacking in the MT. The SP reads: \u201cand all the days of Shem were six hundred years and he died.\u201d
\n12. Kainan Here, the MT has \u201cShelah\u201d (as does the SP, Targum Onkelos, and Targum Neofiti). The LXX replaces Shelah with Kainan, but since Shelah is then named as his son, the change actually adds a generation. Thus, although in the MT Shelah is the son of Arpachshad, according to the LXX he is his grandson. This Kainan may be called Kainan II, since all texts agree that Kainan I (Kenan in Hebrew Scripture) is one of Adam\u2019s great-grandsons in the list of generations in Gen. 5:9\u201312. The addition of Kainan II in the LXX (similarly added at 10:24 LXX) creates a round number for this genealogical list (ten names instead of nine in the MT) that matches the number of names in the similar list in chapter 5. Since this extra generation is lacking in the parallel lists in 1 Chron. 1:18, 24, it probably did not belong to the original version of the list.
\n13. four hundred thirty years Cf. Gen. 11:13 MT: \u201cfour hundred three years\u201d; Gen. 11:13 SP: \u201cthree hundred three years.\u201d
\nand died. And Kainan \u2026 died Lacking in the MT; the SP says of Arphaxad (SP: \u201cArpachshad\u201d): \u201cand he died\u201d (without mention of Kainan). The details in the LXX for Kainan\u2019s age at the birth of his firstborn and the number of years he lived afterward (130, 330) are identical to those of the next patriarch in the list, Shelah.
\n15. three hundred thirty years Here, the MT reads \u201c403 years\u201d; the SP reads \u201cthree hundred three years.\u201d
\nand died So also the SP; lacking in the MT. The same pattern recurs in Gen. 11:17, 19, 21, 23, 25.
\n17. three hundred seventy years The MT reads \u201c430 years\u201d; the SP has \u201ctwo hundred seventy.\u201d
\n19. two hundred nine years The SP says \u201cone hundred nine years.\u201d
\n21. two hundred seven years The SP has \u201cone hundred seven years.\u201d
\n23. two hundred years The SP says \u201cone hundred years.\u201d
\n25. one hundred twenty-nine years Here, the MT says \u201c119 years\u201d; the SP reads \u201csixty-nine years.\u201d
\n28. the country In this verse as well as in Gen. 11:31 and 15:7, the LXX explains \u201cUr\u201d of the MT not as the name of a place, but as a general term meaning \u201ccountry.\u201d
\n31. he brought them out Cf. the MT: \u201cthey set out together\u201d (lit., \u201cthey set out with them\u201d). The discrepancy between the two texts derives from their different reading of the consonants of the verb yts\u2019 (MT: vayetse\u2019u [they set out]; LXX and SP: wayotse\u2019 [and he brought out]) and the MT\u2019s addition of the plural ending to the verb. In the MT version, the identity of \u201cthey\u201d is unclear (the LXX has \u201che,\u201d i.e., Thara [Terah]).
\n32. the days of Thara in Charran Both the MT and the SP lack this detail.
\ntwo hundred five years The MT also specifies \u201c205 years,\u201d but the SP records Terah\u2019s life span as \u201cone hundred forty-five years.\u201d<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy 32<\/p>\n
Emanuel Tov<\/p>\n
The Song of Moses (Deut. 32:1\u201343), one of the most beautiful poems in Scripture, focuses on the relationship between God and his people until the end of Moses\u2019s life. It starts off by inviting heaven and earth to listen to the poet, after which it depicts God\u2019s justice, Israel\u2019s disloyalty, and God\u2019s punishment of Israel and of its enemies. The joyous ending of the poem draws on motifs mentioned at its beginning and describes God\u2019s vengeance on Israel\u2019s enemies. In general the various versions of this Song reflect the same theology, but not so at its end nor in verse 8, where the Septuagint (LXX) and a Qumran scroll (4QDeutj) draw on an ancient motif of the supreme God allotting the peoples of the world to different gods, among them the nation of Israel to its own God, YHWH (see note 3). It is difficult to determine the original shape of this Song, but in some instances the LXX\u2014joined by one or another of the Qumran scrolls, as specified in the commentary\u2014seems to present a more authentic version than the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT).
\nThe ideology of the Song\u2019s ending strikes a more genuine note in the LXX (whose ending is longer than that of the MT), and in the Qumran scroll 4QDeutq (which dates to the 2nd half of the 1st century BCE). The MT version was shortened and altered, probably in an act of theological censorship.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Tigay, Jeffrey H. The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, 314\u201315, 513\u201318. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
43a. Be glad, O skies, with Him Cf. the MT: \u201cGladden, O nations, His people\u201d (NJPS: \u201cO nations, acclaim His people!\u201d). In the MT, \u201cnations\u201d (goyim) are invoked to \u201cgladden His people,\u201d in contrast to the invitation to the skies (i.e., the heavens) to \u201cbe glad \u2026 with Him\u201d in the LXX. For a poet to address the nations in this way is not unusual in Scripture, but in this particular poem, the invocation seems out of place. The essence of this poem is that God helped Israel to survive its wars by killing these very nations, and the poem is full of expressions of vengeance against them (e.g., v. 35). Urging those same nations to be glad seems odd.
\n43b. sons of God This remarkable colon, occurring also in 4QDeutq but lacking in the MT, is paralleled by other verses in the MT in which the \u201csons of God,\u201d also named \u201cdivine beings,\u201d are mentioned (e.g., Ps. 29:1; 82:1). This colon was probably removed from the MT because the phrase \u201csons of God\u201d was considered an unwelcome polytheistic depiction of the world of the Divine. Tendentious changes are never consistent, and indeed such \u201csons of God\u201d are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.
\n43c. Be glad, O nations, with His people This colon is very similar to Deut. 32:43a and probably duplicates that colon by mistake (it is not found in the MT or 4QDeutq).
\n43d. and let all the angels of God prevail for Him Similar phrasing occurs in Ps. 96(97):7. This colon runs parallel to colon b. It is not found in the MT or 4QDeutq; these two colons probably represent alternative formulations, mistakenly combined by the translator or a later scribe.
\n43g. and He will repay those who hate This colon, running parallel to colon f, is also not represented in the MT. The parallel structure of the lines in this Song requires that we understand this colon as original. Probably it was accidentally omitted in the source of the MT and 4QDeutq.
\n43h. cleanse the land of His people By killing the enemies of Israel and spilling their blood in the earth, God will \u201ccleanse\u201d the land that has been polluted by the blood of the Israelites. The concept of that the blood of a slain person pollutes the land, and the subsequent process of cleansing, are mentioned in an ancient ceremony described in Deut. 21:8. The wording of the LXX (\u201cthe land of his people\u201d) is also present in 4QDeutq and is preferable to the MT (\u201cHis land, His people\u201d; NJPS: \u201cthe land of His people\u201d). The latter either represents a scribal error or represents a change in the text that obscures the idea of cleansing the land through spilling of the blood of the enemies.<\/p>\n
Joshua 20<\/p>\n
Emanuel Tov<\/p>\n
In Num. 35:9\u201315 (part of the so-called Priestly Code) and in Deut. 19:1\u201313, the Torah gives detailed regulations for cities of refuge to be set aside in the Promised Land upon its conquest. These were places of sanctuary or asylum, where a person who unintentionally killed someone could reside without fear of blood revenge. The regulations were implemented by Moses (Moyses LXX) himself (Deut. 4:41\u201343) and by Joshua (Iesous LXX; Josh. 20). In the book of Joshua, after referring to the cities of refuge, God explains the institution of these cities to Joshua. Among other things, God describes the procedure for admission to such a city (20:4). The textual sources differ among themselves. The traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT) contains elements from both Num. 35 and Deut. 19, while the shorter text of the Septuagint (LXX) mainly follows Num. 35 (the Priestly Code). Most likely the LXX reflects an earlier form of this chapter, while the MT (followed by all other sources) reflects a later version that brought the laws of the Priestly Code into harmony with those of Deuteronomy.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Rof\u00e9, Alexander. \u201cJoshua 20: Historico-Literary Criticism Illustrated.\u201d In Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay, 131\u201347. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
\nSpencer, John R. \u201cCities of Refuge.\u201d In Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D. N. Freedman, 5:657\u201358. New York: Doubleday, 1992.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
3. involuntarily The MT uses two synonymous expressions: \u201cby mistake, unintentionally.\u201d Usually such duplication reflects emphasis, but in this case the repetition is theological and has literary significance. The word \u201cunintentionally\u201d was added by way of harmonization in the MT on the basis of Deuteronomic law regarding cities of refuge (see Deut. 19:4). The original phrase, \u201cinvoluntarily\u201d\u2014found in both the MT and the LXX\u2014is that of the Priestly Code (Num. 35:11).
\na place of refuge, and the slayer shall not die by the next of kin in blood The MT puts it more succinctly: \u201ca refuge from the blood avenger,\u201d while the LXX spells out the implication of the turning to the refuge. Following Josh. 20:3, the MT adds a long section (vv. 4\u20136 MT):
\n4He shall flee to one of those cities, present himself at the entrance to the city gate, and plead his case before the elders of that city; and they shall admit him into the city and give him a place in which to live among them. 5Should the blood avenger pursue him, they shall not hand the manslayer over to him, since he killed the other person without intent and had not been his enemy in the past. 6He shall live in that city.
\nThis added section follows the ideas and terminology of Deut. 4:42 and 19:4, 11\u201312.
\n6. until \u2026 judgment The MT adds \u201cuntil the death of the high priest who is in office at that time. Thereafter, the manslayer may go back to his home in his own town, to the town from which he fled.\u201d This addition (based on Num. 35:25) determines that the manslayer will be protected as long as the high priest is in office. This law probably reflects an ancient custom according to which a priest could guarantee the safety of those seeking asylum in a shrine or the Temple as long as he was in power. This ancient custom is reflected in the story in 1 Kings 2:28 in which Joab holds on to the \u201chorns of the altar.\u201d At the same time, according to Lev. Rab. 10:6 and B. Mak. 11b, the death of the high priest serves as an atonement for the sin of the unintentional killer who is thus no longer subject to the threat of retaliation by the blood avenger.<\/p>\n
Joshua 24<\/p>\n
Emanuel Tov<\/p>\n
Joshua 24 contains Joshua\u2019s (Iesous LXX) speech at the end of his \u201ccareer.\u201d He reviews Israel\u2019s history and invokes the people to renew the covenant with God. After the tribes\u2019 renewal of that covenant, the chapter narrates the death of Joshua and Eleazar (Josh. 24:33), following which the Septuagint (LXX) adds a section (vv. 33a\u2013b) that is not found in the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT), at the very end of the book. The Hebraic diction of this passage allows for a relatively reliable reconstruction of the Greek text into Hebrew; see the comment on verse 33. The verses at the end of the book, together with the remainder of Joshua, point to the existence, at some point, of a shorter combined book: Joshua\u2013Judges.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Rof\u00e9, Alexander. \u201cThe End of the Book of Joshua according to the Septuagint.\u201d Hen 4 (1982): 17\u201336.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
24:33. And it happened after these things These words are not found in Josh. 24:33 MT. The diction is typical of Hebrew rather than Greek (as in Hebrew wayehi ahare hadebarim ha\u2019eleh, literally, \u201cand it happened after these things,\u201d in Gen. 21:1; 22:20; Josh. 24:29 MT). The phrase helps to link the added verses to the previous ones in the LXX.
\nthe high priest Not found in the MT.
\n33a. carried it around For the use of this verb in conjunction with the ark, see 1 Sam. 5:8, 9; 1 Chron. 13:3. The information about the movement of the ark in this verse is the only detail known concerning the whereabouts of the ark in the period between Josh. 8:30\u201335 (Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim near Shekhem) and the first chapters of 1 Samuel (Shiloh).
\n33a. Phinees served \u2026 in the place of Eleazar his father The same Phinees (MT Phinehas) served as priest in Bethel at the time of the later Judg. 19\u201320, which tells the story of the Levite\u2019s concubine and the ensuing war. See Judg. 20:28: \u201cPhinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest ministered before Him in those days.\u201d In Israel of the time of Josiah onward, the only accepted cultic center was the Temple in Jerusalem. Writing from that later perspective, the author of Joshua emphasized for his audience that in earlier times local shrines were still permissible, such as the one in Bethel where Phinehas served in front of the ark. Likewise, M. Zev. 14:5\u20138 allowed for the following places of worship: Gilgal, Shiloh, Nob, Gibeon, and Jerusalem.
\n33b. And the sons of Israel departed each \u2026 to their own city This sentence repeats the content of Josh. 24:28 (MT: \u201cJoshua then dismissed the people to their allotted portions\u201d).
\nIsrael worshipped \u2026 the gods of the nations \u2026 And the LORD delivered them into the hands of Eglom This passage reflects details in the Hebrew texts of Judg. 2:12\u201313 and 3:12\u201314 as opposed to their Greek translations.
\nAstarte and Astaroth The name Astarte represents Ashtoreth in the MT. Ashtoreth was the female companion of Baal, the main heathen god of the period, also worshiped by Israelites in conjunction with the God of Israel or in his stead. Ashtoreth is the singular form of this name, and Ashtaroth (Astaroth in the LXX) is the plural form of the female Canaanite deities (the transcriptions of these names in Greek letters are slightly different). Joshua 24:33b LXX presents the two forms together as the result of a scribal mistake.
\nEglom \u2026 dominated them eighteen years This verse ends with a reference to Eglom (Eglon), the king of Moab, the oppressor of the Israelites mentioned at Judg. 3:12. The book of Judges, which narrates the tribulations of the ancient Israelites in the period after Joshua and before the period depicted by the book of Samuel, describes how various Israelite tribes were saved from oppressive foreign rule by local heroes, or \u201cJudges.\u201d Eglon is the second oppressor introduced in Judges and is ultimately overthrown by the Benjaminite Ehud (LXX) son of Gera. Josh. 24:33b LXX thus bypasses the beginning the book of Judges. However, this shortened description of the history of the Israelites may well reflect the original story as related in an earlier combined book, Joshua\u2013Judges. The beginning of the book of Judges, up to the story of Ehud and Eglon in Judg. 3:12\u201330, contains mainly material that may have been added later.
\nThe sequence of events narrated at the end of the Greek book of Joshua (Josh. 24:33a\u2013b LXX) depicts what may well have been the original sequence of events: the death of Joshua and Eleazar (Josh. 24:29\u201333 MT LXX), the movement of the ark (see commentary on v. 33a), the service of Phinehas (Judg. 20:28), the beginning of the people\u2019s sin (Judg. 2:12\u201313 and 3:12\u201314), and part of the first story typifying the chain of events in the book of Judges: the oppression of the Israelites by Eglon (Judg. 3:12).<\/p>\n
Selections from Samuel to Kings (1-4 Kingdoms LXX)<\/p>\n
Emanuel Tov<\/p>\n
The books of 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings in the Hebrew Bible form one large unit in Greek Scripture, called 1-4 Kingdoms. The relationship between the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) is rather complex in Samuel\u2013Kings. For example, the Greek translations of 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings are diverse in character, hinting at different layers and types of translation. Five selections from the presumably original translation are examined below, two from 1 Samuel (chapters 1 and 2) and three from 1 Kings (2:35, 46; 5:1\u201315; 11:1\u20138).
\nThe LXX 3 Kingdoms rewrites the text now included in the MT of 1 Kings, probably representing a Hebrew text that greatly differed from 1 Kings. Among other things, it presents Solomon (Salomon LXX), Jeroboam (Ieroboam LXX), and Ahab (Achaab LXX) in a more favorable way; adds \u201ctheme summaries\u201d; rearranges the sequence; and reorganizes the book\u2019s chronology. All three selections examined in this book (from 1 Kings 2; 5; 11) emphasize Solomon\u2019s wisdom. In their Greek form, and probably also in the earlier Hebrew form from which the translation was made, these units were considered to be authoritative Scripture. The differences between the LXX and the other witnesses to 1 Kings are among the largest in Greek Scripture. Usually, the differences between the MT and LXX are in small details, while the selections included here focus on the larger differences between the two texts, particularly discrepancies between the Hebrew and Greek texts of 1 Kings. It is unclear why this book has been singled out for extensive rewriting, but it is not impossible that other books were likewise rewritten, yet lost in the course of their transmission.
\nThe LXX of 1 Samuel often deviates from the MT in small details, and this translation is very significant, as it often agrees with the Qumran manuscript 4QSama dating to ca. 50\u201325 BCE.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
van Keulen, Percy S. F. Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2\u201311 and LXX 3 Reg. 2\u201311. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 104. Leiden: Brill, 2005.<\/p>\n
1 Samuel (1 Kingdoms LXX) 1<\/p>\n
1 Samuel 1:21\u201328 depicts the visit of Elkanah (Elkana LXX), Hannah (Hanna LXX), and Samuel (Samouel LXX) to Shiloh (Selo[m] LXX). They arrive at different times but act together, especially in making their offerings. The traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT), the Septuagint (LXX), and the Qumran Hebrew biblical scroll 4QSama (50\u201325 BCE) differ in significant details. For example, Hannah\u2019s actions are minimized in the MT in order not to mention a woman\u2019s involvement in cultic activities (e.g., 1 Sam. 1:23 MT: \u201cHis word\u201d; v. 24 MT: \u201cshe brought him\u201d; v. 25 MT: \u201cthey brought the boy\u201d; v. 28 MT: \u201cAnd they bowed low there before the LORD,\u201d compared with the LXX and 4QSama; see the comment on v. 23 below). 4QSama often agrees with the LXX in its original readings as opposed to the MT; that is, the LXX translation often reflects an underlying Hebrew text that agrees with the Hebrew of 4QSama but disagrees with the later version of the Hebrew represented by the MT.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Walters, Stanley D. \u201cHannah and Anna: The Greek and Hebrew Texts of 1 Samuel 1.\u201d JBL 107 (1988): 385\u2013412.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
1:21. offer The MT adds \u201cto the LORD\u201d in accordance with the standard phrase.
\nin Selom Lacking in the MT. This addition in the LXX (repeated in 1 Sam. 1:23 LXX and 4QSama) clarifies where the action is taking place, although the reader should know from 1 Sam. 1:3 that it takes place in Shiloh (LXX Selom; cf. Selo in v. 3 LXX).
\nvows and all the tithes of his land Lacking in the MT. Elkanah\u2019s \u201cvows\u201d here should probably be understood as his \u201cvotive sacrifice\u201d (1 Sam. 1:21 NJPS). Indeed, Deut. 12:6 requires the Israelites to bring both votive sacrifices and tithes to the central place of worship, here Shiloh.
\n22. with him This addition in the LXX, lacking in the MT, further clarifies that Hannah did not go up to Shiloh together with her husband.
\nuntil the boy goes up if I shall wean him That is, \u201cWhen the child is weaned, I will bring him\u201d (NJPS). At the end of the verse, 4QSama adds, \u201c[I will de] dicate him as a Nazir forever all the days of [his life]\u201d (similarly Josephus, Ant. 5.347: \u201cbut the woman remembered the vow she had made concerning her son, and delivered him to Eli, dedicating him to God, that he might become a prophet. Accordingly his hair was suffered to grow long, and his drink was water\u201d). The expanded text of the Qumran scroll clarifies that Samuel was a Nazarite, although this is actually obvious in light of 1 Sam. 1:11 NJPS: \u201cI will dedicate him to the LORD for all the days of his life; and no razor shall ever touch his head.\u201d Also in Sir. 46:13 and M. Naz. 9:5, Samuel is called a Nazir.
\n23. establish that which goes out of your mouth The formulation of the LXX should be compared with that of the MT: \u201cMay the LORD fulfill His word\u201d (NJPS). The LXX, in accord with 4QSama, describes Elkanah\u2019s words from Hannah\u2019s viewpoint as the fulfillment of her vow, while the MT considers his words to be the confirmation of an earlier utterance by God. Compare the latter case with the terminology used for vows in Num. 30:3 NJPS: \u201che must carry out all that has crossed his lips [literally, \u2018comes out of his mouth\u2019].\u201d
\n24. she went up with him The young Samuel\u2019s journey to Shiloh is flavored slightly differently in the various sources, with the LXX giving him a bit more independence compared with the MT (NJPS: \u201cshe took him up with her\u201d) and 4QSama (\u201cshe took him up\u201d). After \u201chim,\u201d the MT and probably also 4QSama (in the missing text of the scroll) add \u201cwhen she had weaned him\u201d in accord with 1 Sam. 1:23.
\nthree-year-old bull calf The MT has \u201cthree bulls.\u201d Hannah probably offered only a single bull (LXX and 4QSama) and not \u201cthree bulls\u201d (MT), since the next verse in the MT speaks about \u201cthe bull.\u201d The text of the MT was corrupted when the original words pr mshlsh (\u201cthree-year-old bull\u201d) underlying the LXX were divided wrongly in the forerunner of the MT to read prm\/shlshh (literally, \u201cbulls three\u201d). Indeed, a parallel instance of an offering of a \u201cthree-year-old heifer\u201d is mentioned in Gen. 15:9 (in both LXX and MT).
\nbread The bread\u2014mentioned in the LXX and 4QSama but lacking in the MT\u2014is a usual component of offerings (see Exod. 29:1\u20132 NJPS: \u201ca young bull of the herd and two rams without blemish; also unleavened bread\u201d).
\nshe entered \u2026 and the boy was with them Cf. the MT: \u201cshe brought him\u201d (NJPS). The LXX version gives more independence to Hannah as well as to the boy, while in the MT, Hannah\u2019s main task is to bring the boy to the Temple. (See also the comment on 1:24, she went up with him.)
\n24\u201325. the boy \u2026 the boy Instead of the long text of the LXX, the MT only has two words: wehana\u2018ar na\u2018ar, \u201cand the boy was a boy\u201d (NJPS: \u201cthe boy was still very young\u201d). The details in the LXX help explain Elkanah\u2019s presence in Shiloh, otherwise unaccounted for in the MT (in that text, Elkanah goes up to Shiloh in v. 21 and apparently waits there until Hannah arrives much later, after weaning the boy).
\n25. And Hanna, the mother of the boy, brought him The MT says simply, \u201cthey brought the boy\u201d (NJPS). The LXX presents Hannah much more prominently than the MT, probably reflecting the original text. The flow of ideas is more natural in the LXX since Hannah is mentioned in the next verse, while in the MT she is mentioned in v. 26 without any introduction in the previous verse.
\n28 The various sources display two different endings of the story. The MT mentions an unidentified male, probably Elkanah: \u201cAnd he bowed low there before the LORD\u201d (NJPS has \u201cthey\u201d instead of \u201che\u201d). The MT likewise focuses on Elkanah in 2:11a (\u201cThen Elkanah went home to Ramah\u201d) without mentioning Hannah. On the other hand, 4QSama focuses on Hannah in v. 28, ascribing to her the actions that the MT attributes to Elkanah: \u201c[and she left] him there and she bowed down [to the LORD].\u201d As in the Qumran scroll, the LXX of 2:11 ascribes these actions to Hannah upon her finishing the Song (prayer) that appears in 2:1\u201310: \u201cAnd she left him there before the LORD, and departed to Armathaim.\u201d The three sources thus depict the leading person in this action as either Hannah (LXX, 4QSama) or an unnamed male, probably Elkanah (MT). Interestingly, Gen. Rab. 56:2 explains, against the MT, that Hannah is the one who bowed. We cannot be sure if the author of the midrash used a text similar to that of the LXX or if he simply ignored the grammar of the MT.<\/p>\n
1 Samuel (1 Kingdoms LXX) 2<\/p>\n
In this Song, Hannah thanks God for having given birth after a long period of infertility. Although the issue of infertility does arise in the Song in all its versions (see 1 Sam. 2:5 MT: \u201cthe barren one bears seven\u201d), several verses do not suit Hannah. For example, Hannah was not saved from an enemy as mentioned in verse 1. This Song may have been composed as a thanksgiving hymn applicable to different situations of salvation, and subsequently placed on Hannah\u2019s lips.
\nThe greater part of the Song (vv. 2\u20138) praises the absolute power of God over mortals, enabling God to bring about changes, especially from a bad to a good situation, as in the case of the barren woman. The moral of the Song as expressed in verses 9\u201311 differs much in the three major textual traditions: the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT), the Septuagint (LXX), and the Hebrew Qumran scroll 4QSama dating to 50\u201325 BCE. The main idea of the original form of the Song\u2014namely, the absolute power of God over mortals\u2014has been reinterpreted in two different directions in the preserved texts. Each of these witnesses makes the Song of Hannah more relevant to its context on the theological level.
\nThe Song is presented in an arrangement of colons (poetical units consisting of half-verses). The Hebrew source of the LXX, longer than the MT, can be reconstructed with relative confidence because of the partial support of 4QSama and the relatively faithful nature of the translation, which remains close to its underlying Hebrew text when that is known with certainty.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Tov, Emanuel. \u201cDifferent Editions of the Song of Hannah and of Its Narrative Framework.\u201d Chap. 29 in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.
\nWillis, John T. \u201cThe Song of Hannah and Psalm 113.\u201d Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1973): 139\u201354.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
2:1. And she said In the LXX, the Song starts with this unassuming introduction, while in the MT it is described as a prayer (NJPS: \u201cAnd Hannah prayed\u201d). Probably the prayer element was added in the introduction to the Song on the basis of 1 Sam. 1:26, where Hannah\u2019s earlier prayer is mentioned in her words to Eli: \u201cI am the woman who stood here beside you and prayed to the LORD\u201d (NJPS).
\n2. none righteous like our God Cf. the MT: \u201cnone beside You.\u201d Here, the MT stresses the uniqueness of God, while the LXX mentions his righteousness. However, the uniqueness of God is also mentioned in the LXX of this verse, and His righteous character also underlies the praise in verses 2\u20138 in both versions.
\nthere is none holy besides you Cf. the MT: \u201cThere is no rock like our God.\u201d As elsewhere in the LXX, the translator avoids the description of God as a \u201crock,\u201d possibly because he did not like the comparison of God to a stone, and instead stresses his holiness as in the first part of the verse.
\n3. a God who prepares His own ways Cf. the MT: \u201cBy Him actions are measured.\u201d The exact meaning of the Hebrew text of the MT is unclear, but if the NJPS translation is correct, both the MT and LXX designate God\u2019s planning of His actions.
\n5. suffered loss Cf. the MT: \u201cmust hire out for bread.\u201d This verse, like verses 4\u20138 in general, stresses the many possible changes from one extreme to the other one due to God\u2019s total control of the fate of humans. The context thus requires the reading of the MT, in which the opposition between \u201cMen once sated\u201d and \u201cmust hire out for bread\u201d is natural. The reading of the LXX was caused by a mistaken interchange of similar letters and their inversion between niskaru, \u201cmust hire out\u201d (MT) and nehsaru, rendered by the LXX as \u201csuffered loss.\u201d
\nthe hungry have forsaken the land Cf. the MT: \u201cMen once hungry hunger no more.\u201d Not understanding the Hebrew verb hdl correctly (used transitively as \u201cto stop something\u201d and intransitively as \u201cto cease\u201d), the translator took it as requiring an object (that is, as a transitive verb), and then supplied such an object (\u201cthe land\u201d).
\n6. Hades Cf. the MT, \u201cSheol\u201d and the King James Version (KJV), \u201cthe grave.\u201d
\n8. of the peoples The LXX added \u201cof the peoples\u201d to the MT \u201cnobles,\u201d probably on the basis of a variant Hebrew reading.
\na throne of glory Note that although verse 8 ends with this phrase in the LXX, both the MT and 4QSama add to the earlier text of the LXX what is now v. 8e\u2013f: \u201cFor the pillars of the earth are the LORD\u2019s; \/ He has set the world upon them\u201d (NJPS).
\n9. Granting \u2026 righteous The MT of verse 9a\u2013b\u2014\u201cHe guards the steps of His faithful, \/ But the wicked perish in darkness\u201d\u2014differs significantly from the beginning of verse 9 in the LXX (and in 4QSama), indicating that the presumed earlier text that underlies all three of these sources has been interpreted differently in the LXX and 4QSama. This different interpretation, which we call 9a\u2019\u2013b\u2019, mentions a person who makes a vow, with a clear allusion to Hannah. After mentioning the various categories of a powerful change from a bad to a good situation and from good to bad (vv. 4\u20138), God\u2019s granting of \u201cthe vow to the one who vows\u201d in verse 9a\u2013b seems to be a mere afterthought. This verse in the LXX may well reflect an attempt to relate the Song more closely to Hannah\u2019s situation.
\nAccording to v. 9c found in all traditions, physical strength is not what gives people their ability to prevail. The idea of this colon forms the logical conclusion of vv. 4\u20138, and not 9a\u2013b, showing that the only power determining the fate of humans is that of God.
\n10. The LORD will make his adversary weak Cf. the MT: \u201cThe foes of the LORD shall be shattered\u201d (NJPS).
\nLet not the clever boast \u2026 in the midst of the land This long explanatory addition, found in the LXX and 4QSama but not in the MT, derives from the MT of Jer. 9:22\u201323. When reading 1 Sam. 2:9c: \u201cfor not by strength is a man mighty\u201d (NETS) as well as v. 3: \u201cBoast not, and speak not lofty things\u201d (NETS), the Hebrew scribe (followed by the LXX) was apparently reminded of these verses in Jeremiah stressing similar ideas. However, the inappropriate placement of the addition, which falls between two related phrases of the Hebrew (\u201cThe foes of the LORD shall be shattered; \/ He will thunder against them in the heavens\u201d), raises the possibility that it was originally written in the margin of a manuscript and later mistakenly inserted into the text itself.
\n11. And they left him there \u2026 and departed to Harmathaim This formulation differs from that of the MT: \u201cThen Elkanah [literally, \u201che\u201d] [and Hannah] went home to Ramah; and the boy entered the service of the LORD\u201d (NJPS adds \u201cand Hannah\u201d). See also the comment on 1 Sam. 1:28 in 1 Samuel (1 Kingdoms LXX) 1:21\u201328 (Elkanah, Hannah, and Samuel in Shiloh).<\/p>\n
1 Kings (3 Kingdoms LXX) 2<\/p>\n
The Masoretic Text (MT) of 1 Kings 2 covers the end of David\u2019s (Dauid LXX) reign and his son Solomon\u2019s (Salomon LXX) accession to the throne (vv. 1\u201312); the execution of David\u2019s oldest living son, Adonijah (Adonias LXX), and of Joab (Ioab LXX), commander of David\u2019s army (vv. 13\u201335); and the execution of Shimei (Semei LXX) (vv. 36\u201346), a Benjaminite who had once insulted David but whom David had pardoned. It is Solomon who orders all three executions. The parallel text of 1 Kings in the Septuagint (LXX)\u2014also called 3 Kingdoms or 3 Reigns\u2014covers the same events, but in the middle and end of the chapter it adds two long \u201ctheme summaries\u201d concerning Solomon\u2019s wisdom. The first one, Summary 1, inserted after verse 35 (after the execution of Joab), contains 14 verses, denoted 35a\u2013o; Summary 2, inserted after verse 46 (the end of the chapter), contains 11 verses, denoted 46a\u2013l. Summary 1 is not connected to the context, while Summary 2 is. These summaries repeat verses occurring elsewhere in 1 Kings 3\u201311. They are out of chronological order, since the Solomonic history only starts with chapter 3.
\nThe summaries were originally composed in Hebrew as supplements to the MT and were translated into Greek. They were part of a Hebrew composition whose authors freely rewrote the text of 1 Kings. The clearest indication of this assumed process is probably the reworking of the story of Pharaoh\u2019s (Pharao LXX) daughter (see below, v. 35c).
\nFor each verse in the translation, a reference is provided in brackets to its parallel in the canonical text (MT and\/or LXX). These parallels are usually more or less identical with the text in the Summary (\u201c=\u201d), unless the reference is introduced by \u201ccf.\u201d<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Gooding, David W. Relics of Ancient Exegesis: A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reigns 2. Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
2:35. and the kingdom was being established Cf. 1 Kings 2:12 MT LXX: \u201cand his rule was firmly established.\u201d These words are lacking in the MT in 2:35.
\nfirst priest These words are lacking in the MT. Benaiah carries this title also in 1 Chron. 27:5. According to some scholars, these words were removed from the MT because Solomon had no authority to appoint priests.<\/p>\n
Summary 1<\/p>\n
These verses (1 Kings 2:35a\u2013o LXX) summarize Solomon\u2019s activities, partly following 1 Kings 4:20\u20135:12 MT (for a similar summary, see 9:15\u201328 MT). After a general description of Solomon\u2019s wisdom (1 Kings 2:35a\u2013b LXX), Summary 1 moves to Solomon\u2019s marriage to Pharaoh\u2019s daughter (v. 35c). Next come three details concerning his building activities: the preparations for building the Temple (v. 35d), the Temple utensils (v. 35e), and a few details concerning other building activities in Jerusalem (v. 35f). The story then returns in that same verse to Pharaoh\u2019s daughter, then to a listing of his offerings (v. 35g) and the number of his chief officers (v. 35h). The end of Summary 1 returns to Solomon\u2019s building activities (v. 35i), to which a remark is added (v. 35k) stressing that Solomon finished the Temple first before engaging himself in these building activities. Summary 1 then proceeds to the story of Shimei (vv. 35l\u2013o), continued in the text of the MT and in the LXX itself.
\n35c This verse (= 1 Kings 3:1 MT) recurs in the LXX at a later stage in the story (1 Kings 5:14a). The details narrated in this verse cover the first stage in the story of Pharaoh\u2019s daughter; the second one is included in 2:35f. The omission of an actual marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kings 3:1 MT) in 1 Kings 2:35c LXX may well be intentional, as a similar trend is visible in B. Yev. 76a\u2013b questioning the marriage of Solomon with a non-Israelite. Along the same lines, Lev. Rab. 12:5 explains that Solomon married the daughter of Pharoah only after the completion of the building of the Temple in order that his intermarriage should not defile his involvement in the construction. In that case the mentioning of the marriage in 5:14a LXX (not MT) could reflect a different intention or a different hand.
\n35e This brief and incomplete summary of the preparation of the Temple utensils is based on 1 Kings 7. 1 Kings 2:35e quotes from that chapter according to the sequence of the LXX, in the terminology of the MT: tank, gourds, lavers, and columns (= sea, supports, buckets, and pillars according to the LXX [NETS]). The activities that are ascribed to Hiram in the MT are performed here by Solomon, probably reflecting a tendentious change.
\n35f. And he built the citadel This little episode is recounted no less than three times in the LXX beyond the present verse: 10:22a LXX, in a summary referring to the building of the citadel; 11:27b MT LXX; and 12:24b in an addition to the LXX. This repetition shows how complicated the composition redaction history of the Hebrew text behind 1 Kings was.
\nand its defenses The Greek translation probably reflects sagar (closed up) in the parallel verse 11:27 LXX (even though the related noun misgeret [border, rim] is not translated elsewhere as epalxis, \u201cdefense\u201d).
\nand he cut through [that is, broke through the walls of] the city of Dauid This verse states exactly the opposite of its parallel, 11:27 LXX: \u201cHe \u2026 closed up the fence of the city of Dauid his father.\u201d (NJPS: \u201cSolomon \u2026 repaired the breach of the city of his father, David.\u201d). What looks at first sight like a textual confusion with the next word in 11:27 MT (peretz [breach]) probably is part of a clever design characterizing Summary 1. Only after Solomon cuts through the city can Pharaoh\u2019s daughter be brought to her own abode. The next phrase, \u201cthus Pharaoh\u2019s daughter went up,\u201d probably refers to this new possibility.
\nfrom the city of Dauid to her house This episode continues 1 Kings 2:35c, in which Pharaoh\u2019s daughter at first was brought to the city of David. Here, in v. 35f, she is brought to her own house. The exact relation between the two stages of this story forms a key element in the understanding of the nature of the Summaries. While several episodes of this story occur in different places in the MT and the LXX, only in Summary 1 have they been combined into one organic unit. Solomon\u2019s building activities (vv. 35d\u2013g) placed between the two parts of the story form an integral part of the narrative: Solomon moves Pharaoh\u2019s daughter from her temporary house to her own abode only after he has finished building a house for the LORD (v. 35c).
\n35g. peace offerings The use of shelamim for \u201cpeace offerings\u201d in the MT, like the reference to \u201cpeace\u201d (shalom) in verse 46g, may well reflect a playful game with Solomon\u2019s name (Shelomoh).
\n35h. three thousand six hundred This figure is also recorded in 2 Chron. 2:1 and 1 Kings 5:30 LXX, as against 3300 at 5:30 MT, and 550 at 9:23 MT. We have no means to evaluate these different figures; possibly they reflect scribal corruptions.
\n35l\u2013o The story of Shimei of the house of Saul, in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings, is told in several places. Shimei curses David because of David\u2019s bloodguilt (2 Sam. 16:5\u201313), but later David grants him clemency (19:16\u201323). On his deathbed David tells Solomon not to hurt Shimei (1 Kings 1:8\u20139), and indeed Solomon promises him that he will protect Shimei as long as he stays in Jerusalem. However, Shimei leaves the city, upon which Solomon orders him killed (1 Kings 2:36\u201346). 1 Kings 2 MT recounts the story in two segments, verses 8\u20139 (David\u2019s words on his deathbed to Solomon) and verses 36\u201346 (the events leading to Shimei\u2019s death). In the LXX, on the other hand, verses 8\u20139 are repeated as the last verses of Summary 1 after verse 35 so that they come immediately before verses 36\u201346. The LXX thus presents one continuous story that either represents the original text or a later harmonization.
\n35l. from Chebron The mentioning of Bahurim as Shimei\u2019s birthplace in the parallel verse 2:8 (MT and LXX) is more likely than Chebron, as Shimei probably did not come from David\u2019s capital. Possibly the reading of verse 35l was created by scribal confusion. It is not impossible that a midrash-like change inserted here the name of Hebron, the town from which Absalom started his rebellion against David (2 Sam. 15:7).
\n35n. If \u2026 a sword The Hebraistic phrase means, \u201cif he will not be put to death \u2026 (may God bring all manner of evil upon me).\u201d<\/p>\n
Summary 2<\/p>\n
Like Summary 1, Summary 2 starts off with a generalized remark concerning Solomon\u2019s wisdom, adjoined with a statement about the well-being of the Israelites (1 Kings 2:46a). After recording the extent of Solomon\u2019s rule and the people paying duties to him (v. 46b), the Summary describes Solomon\u2019s building activities (vv. 46c\u2013d). Verses 46e\u2013g are again parallel to 1 Kings 5, namely, 5:2\u20135. These verses deal with the provisions consumed by Solomon\u2019s household (v. 46e), the extent of his dominion (v. 46f), the peaceful results of his rule (v. 46g), and Solomon\u2019s officers (v. 46h). Verse 46i continues with the text of chapter 5 (v. 6), mentioning the number of Solomon\u2019s horses. It ends with general statements about the extent of Solomon\u2019s dominion (2:46k) and his rule in Jerusalem (v. 46l).
\n46c. Salomon began to open the resources of Lebanon This detail is not reflected in 9:17\u201318 MT: wayiben et ba\u2018alat, \u201cSolomon fortified Ba\u2018alath.\u201d The LXX may reflect a different vocalization of MT ba\u2018alat, namely, ba\u2018alot taken as \u201cresources\u201d or \u201cdistricts.\u201d
\n46f. from Raphi to Gaza The parallel verse (5:4 MT) reads \u201cfrom Tiphsah to Gaza,\u201d indicating the extent of Solomon\u2019s rule in the large area from Tiphsah near the Euphrates until Gaza. On the other hand, according to 2:46f, Solomon ruled in a very restricted area, from Raphi to Gaza (some 22 kilometers apart). This reading may reflect a midrashic change by the translator implying that just as Solomon ruled over a small area, so he ruled over the whole world. Such a tendency is reflected in B. Meg. 11a: \u201cand the other said that Tiphsah and Gaza are near one another [and that what is meant is that] as he [Solomon] ruled over Tiphsah and Gaza, so he ruled over all the world.\u201d It is also possible that for some other reason Tiphsah was replaced with Rafia, much better known to an Egyptian-Jewish scribe.
\n46h The list of Solomon\u2019s officials in this long verse is longer than the one in the parallel 1 Kings 4:2\u20136 MT (= LXX). 1 Kings 2:46h lists the general overseer, the overseer of the house, a scribe, a recorder, the commander of the troops, a financial officer, two overseers of building activities, and a counselor. The MT, on the other hand, has two secretaries, three priests, and two scribes, as well as additional members of the staff. There are numerous differences in small details between the names, and the two lists may well reflect separate sources.
\n46i. brood mares The Greek translator misunderstood the rare word \u2019urwot, \u201cstalls (of horses)\u201d (5:6 MT), rendering it \u201cbrood (mares).\u201d<\/p>\n
1 Kings (3 Kingdoms LXX) 5<\/p>\n
The Septuagint (LXX) does not always provide an exact parallel to the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT) of Hebrew Scripture. The content of 1 Kings 4:20\u20135:14 MT, for example, differs significantly from that of the LXX version of these verses in 1 Kings. In the MT, this section describes the extent of Solomon\u2019s (Salomon LXX) realm and its internal prosperity (4:20; 5:1, 4\u20135), his daily consumption of food (5:2\u20133), the provisions brought to him (5:6\u20138), and his wisdom (5:9\u201314).
\nSeveral of the elements in this section of the MT appear in the LXX in a different order; some are lacking; and some new elements are added. The sequence in the LXX is as follows: the provisions brought to Solomon (5:1 = 5:7\u20138 MT), his daily consumption of food (5:2\u20133), the extent of his realm (5:4), his wisdom (5:9\u201314), and Solomon\u2019s marriage to Pharaoh\u2019s (Pharao LXX) daughter (5:14a = 3:1 MT; 5:14b = 9:16\u201317 MT).
\nThe two sequences above show that the LXX added the story about Pharaoh\u2019s daughter in 5:14a\u2013b. These verses are more appropriate here than at 1 Kings 3:1 and 1 Kings 9:16\u201317 (where they are lacking in the LXX), as is the placement of 5:7\u20138 MT in the LXX as 5:1. The content of 1 Kings 4:20\u20135:1 MT (the extent of Solomon\u2019s realm and its internal prosperity) appears only at 1 Kings 2:46a\u2013b LXX, and that of 1 Kings 5:5\u20136 MT (internal prosperity and Solomon\u2019s food) appears only at 1 Kings 2:46g, i LXX. These verses did not fit the topic of the rewritten and abbreviated form of 1 Kings 5 in the LXX. More so than the MT, the LXX displays a literary unity that was probably formed after the creation of the disharmonious text of the MT, in which diverse material is often juxtaposed (see introductory comments to Samuel-Kings [1\u20134 Kingdoms LXX]\u201d).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
5:1 This verse (= 1 Kings 5:7\u20138 MT) describes the provisions for King Solomon provided by the officials (or prefects) mentioned in the immediately preceding verses in the LXX (1 Kings 4:7\u201319 [v. 20 is lacking]), and its position is thus more appropriate in the LXX than in the MT. In the MT, the position of this text farther down at 5:7 is problematic, as it mentions \u201cAll those prefects\u201d even though the list of prefects itself is separated from 5:7 by unrelated text at 4:20\u20135:6.
\nthe officials would supply \u2026 everything ordered for the table The Greek phrase rendered here as \u201ceverything ordered\u201d probably reflects a misunderstanding of the MT. In that version the prefects provided \u201cfor King Solomon and for all who were admitted to King Solomon\u2019s table.\u201d
\n4. across the river The MT adds \u201cfrom Tiphsah to Gaza,\u201d not found in the LXX, but presented in a different form in the added Summary 2 of the LXX as 1 Kings 2:46g (see \u201c1 Kings [LXX 3 Kingdoms] 2:35 and 46\u201d).
\n5\u20138 The numbering of the verses in the LXX\u2014which skips from 5:4 to 5:9\u2014reflects the different placement of the text in 5:5\u20138 MT in the LXX. The content of 5:5\u20136 MT appears in the LXX as part of Summary 2 in 1 Kings 2:46g and i. The content from 5:7\u20138 MT appears in the LXX at the beginning of 1 Kings 5.
\n9. great wisdom Josephus describes Solomon as a \u201cphilosopher\u201d (Ant. 8.2.5 \u00a744), and according to him this wisdom includes the supernatural ability of expelling demons: \u201cGod also enabled him to learn that skill (techn\u0113) which expels demons\u201d (\u00a745). The midrash similarly elaborates on Solomon\u2019s great wisdom. See, for example, Num. Rab. 19:3 and above in the introductory comments. B. Git. 68b relates Solomon\u2019s struggles with and ultimate triumph over the demon Ashmedai.
\n11 The MT adds: \u201cHis fame spread among all the surrounding nations.\u201d
\n12. three thousand \u2026 five thousand The MT\u2019s tally of Solomon\u2019s songs is more modest: \u201cone thousand and five.\u201d Altogether Solomon had 4,005 compositions in his name according to the MT, and 8000 according to the LXX. The first figure reminds us of the 4,050 compositions ascribed to David in 11QPsalms Scrolla 27. See also \u201cThe Magic of Solomon\u201d (Ant. 8.44\u201349), comment on 8.44.
\n14. he would receive gifts from all the kings of the earth The tradition that Solomon received gifts from other kings is also reflected in 1 Kings 10:25 LXX; the additional verse 1 Kings 2:46b LXX; and 2 Chron. 9:24 LXX. This tradition is lacking in the MT, which is awkwardly phrased, indicating that it may have left out these words by mistake: \u201cMen of all peoples came to hear Solomon\u2019s wisdom, [sent] by all the kings of the earth\u201d (1 Kings 5:14 NJPS).
\n14a The story of Solomon\u2019s marriage to Pharaoh\u2019s daughter fits gracefully here and not in 1 Kings 3:1 MT or 1 Kings 2:35c LXX (for all commentary on 1 Kings 2, see \u201c1 Kings [3 Kingdoms LXX] 2:35 and 46\u201d). 1 Kings 5:14a\u2013b combines most of the elements in the first stage of the story of the marriage, while not including the second stage, narrated in 1 Kings 9:24 MT (= 2:35f LXX); 8:11 MT; 9:9a LXX. These elements have been carefully moved to their present place in the LXX, just before Solomon\u2019s preparations for the building of the Temple. This verse stresses that Pharaoh\u2019s daughter was moved to her own house only after Solomon finished building the Temple.
\n14b. Mergab This word may be a corruption of Gezer or of the two words appearing in the immediate context in MT in 9:16 \u201cin the town, he killed\u201d (ba\u2018ir harag).
\n15. to anoint Salomon According to the LXX, it is Hiram who anoints Solomon through his \u201cservants.\u201d However, in the MT and LXX, the priest Zadok has already anointed Solomon in 1 Kings 1:39. It is not impossible that the LXX preserves here an alternative tradition about the anointing of Solomon. Less likely is the view of some scholars that the anointing by Hiram has been removed from the MT of v. 15. The exact wording of the MT is problematic, since the purpose of the expedition of Hiram\u2019s officials is unclear in that version: \u201cKing Hiram of Tyre sent his officials to Solomon when he heard that he had been anointed king in place of his father\u201d (1 Kings 5:15).<\/p>\n
1 Kings (3 Kingdoms LXX) 11<\/p>\n
The content of 1 Kings 11:1\u20138 in the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT) differs from that of the parallel verses in 1 Kings (called 3 Kingdoms) of the Septuagint (LXX). Both versions depict the sins of King Solomon (Salomon LXX) in marrying foreign wives and being involved in idolatry, but the LXX makes the latter sin more acceptable to the reader. In the LXX, the fact that he was married to foreign women in his old age made him an easy prey for them, since they induced him to venerate non-Israelite gods. In the MT, on the other hand, Solomon himself initiates idolatrous acts. The description of the sins of 1 Kings 11 was problematic also for the Chronicler, who simply omits the chapter in his account of Solomon.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Talshir, Zipora. \u201c1 Kings and 3 Kingdoms\u2014Origin and Revision, Case Study: The Sins of Solomon (1 Kgs 11).\u201d Textus 21 (2002): 71\u2013105.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
11:1. And King Salomon loved women The MT of this verse (NJPS: \u201cKing Solomon loved many foreign women\u201d) stresses Solomon\u2019s sins more than the LXX by mentioning that the king has many women and that they are \u201cforeign.\u201d More important, the differences between the two versions (change of sequence, addition and omission of details) create two slightly different images of the king. In the MT, the king sins against the Torah, taking only foreign women, and thus transgressing the laws of Deut. 7:1\u20134 (NJPS: \u201cYou shall not intermarry with them \u2026 For they will turn your children away from Me\u201d) and 17:17 (NJPS: \u201cAnd he [i.e., the king] shall not have many wives, lest his heart go astray\u201d). In the LXX, on the other hand, Solomon\u2019s main vice is that he loves women, only some of whom are foreign. He sins against the Torah, but these sins are made more acceptable.
\n1\u20134. seven hundred \u2026 wives turned away his heart Note that 1 Kings 11 LXX has no equivalent for verse 3 in MT. The Greek translation moves \u201cseven hundred ruling women and three hundred concubines\u201d (from the similar statement at 11:3a MT) into 11:1 LXX, and moves \u201cand his foreign wives turned away his heart after their gods\u201d (from the similar phrase at 11:3b MT) to 11:4 LXX, thereby omitting verse 3 in the translation.
\nMoabites \u2026 Amorrites The list of Solomon\u2019s foreign wives is slightly different in the two sources. The MT has \u201cMoabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women.\u201d The omission of the MT\u2019s \u201cSidonian\u201d (NJPS: \u201cPhoenician\u201d) in the LXX is probably a mistake, since verse 6 LXX mentions \u201cAstarte, abomination of the Sidonians\u201d (v. 5 NJPS: \u201cAshtoreth the goddess of the Phoenicians\u201d). The LXX adds \u201cAmorrites\u201d (elsewhere, NJPS \u201cAmorites\u201d), possibly influenced by the previous chapter (1 Kings 10:22b) where they appear in the LXX immediately after the Hittites.
\n4. his foreign wives turned away his heart after their gods Women\u2019s negative influence over the king regarding idolatry is foreseen in Deut. 17:17 (MT: \u201clest his heart go astray\u201d), even more so in Deut. 7:4 (NJPS: \u201cthey will turn your children away from Me\u201d) and in the Temple Scrolla (56:19: \u201clest they turn his heart from following me\u201d). The sequence of the cause and effect in the MT has been reversed in the LXX. In the MT, the foreign wives make Solomon\u2019s behavior change in his old age, while the LXX attributes the change to the ailments of old age. Note also that the LXX changes 1 Kings 11:5 of the MT (NJPS: \u201cSolomon followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Phoenicians, and Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites\u201d). In particular, the LXX omits \u201cSolomon followed\u201d\u2014an active phrase that describes the king as pursuing idolatrous activities on his own initiative\u2014thereby implying that his worship of foreign gods results from his being led astray by his idolatrous wives. This delicate shifting of responsibility presents Solomon in a slightly more positive way. Some details from 11:5 MT (NJPS: \u201cAshtoreth the goddess of the Phoenicians\u201d) and from 11:5, 7 MT (NJPS: \u201cthe abomination of the Ammonites\u201d) found their way in a combined form into 11:5 LXX, namely \u201cand to Astarte, abomination of the Sidonians\u201d (recall that NJPS translates \u201cSidonians\u201d as \u201cPhoenicians\u201d).
\n5. idol of Moab The MT adds a more concrete location (NJPS: \u201con the hill near Jerusalem\u201d) for this idolatrous \u201chigh place\u201d built by Solomon. The sinning of Solomon is thus made more tangible in the MT, which may be exactly why this detail is omitted in the LXX.
\nand to their king As often elsewhere in the LXX (e.g., 1 Kings 11:33), the name of the god Molekh or Milkom is misrepresented by the Hebrew noun melekh (king).
\n5\u20136. built a high place \u2026 to Astarte The high place for Astarte is not mentioned in the MT, which merely reads, \u201cSolomon followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Phoenicians\u201d (v. 5 NJPS).
\n8. he did not go after The LXX reflects the Hebrew phrase welo halakh, \u201che did not walk after,\u201d instead of the MT\u2019s \u201cSolomon \u2026 did not remain loyal\u201d (v. 6 NJPS). In the MT, this theological evaluation occurs in the middle of the account of Solomon\u2019s actions, while in the LXX\u2014more appropriately\u2014it serves as a summary.<\/p>\n
Selections from Jeremiah<\/p>\n
Emanuel Tov<\/p>\n
The three main versions of Jeremiah that have survived from antiquity are the traditional or Masoretic Text (MT) in Hebrew; the Septuagint (LXX); and two Hebrew scrolls from Qumran, 4QJerb and 4QJerd, dating to the first half of the 2nd century BCE. The MT is followed quite closely by the Peshitta (Syriac), Targum (Aramaic), and Vulgate (Latin) translations. The LXX differs from the MT in two central matters: the order of the chapters and verses and the length of the text. The translator has rendered in a relatively literal fashion a Hebrew book similar to that contained in the two Qumran scrolls. The selections from Jeremiah (Ieremias LXX) below are Jer. 10:1\u201311; 27 (34); 33 (40); and 43 (50) (numbers in parentheses refer to the numbering system of the LXX different from the MT chapter numbers).
\nThe LXX is shorter than the MT by one-sixth. It lacks words, phrases, sentences, and entire sections contained in the MT. The differences between the two text forms, which are not characteristic of scribal intervention, were created at an early stage, when the book of Jeremiah was still being composed. They reflect different editions of Jeremiah; the LXX and the two Qumran scrolls probably contain the earlier, shorter edition I, while the MT presents the expanded, later edition II. Edition II contains many sections not found in edition I, the largest of which are Jer. 33:14\u201326 and 39:4\u201313. One of the major differences between the two versions pertains to the forms of personal names, for which see the commentary to Jer. 43 (50).<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Janzen, J. Gerald. Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. Harvard Semitic Monographs 6. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.
\nTov, Emanuel. \u201cThe Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History.\u201d In Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay, 211\u201337. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.<\/p>\n
Jeremiah 10<\/p>\n
The prophecy described in Jer. 10:1\u201311 in the Masoretic Text (MT) contains both mockery of idols and praise of the LORD. The text refers with disdain to the idols\u2019 manmade origins and their inability to walk, speak, or do any harm or good. The mockery is included in verses 2\u20135, 8\u20139, 11, while the remaining verses 6\u20137 and 10 praise the LORD.
\nThe verses containing this praise are lacking in the Septuagint (LXX), as well as in the Qumran scroll 4QJerb. Many scholars believe that these shorter texts reflect the original form of Jer. 10, and that the tradition behind the MT reflects a later text in which the praise of the LORD has been added in order to stress the futility of the idols. The addition of these verses in the tradition of the MT went together with the splitting up of verse 5 into two parts. In the development of Scripture, usually elements were added, not deleted. Moreover, it is intrinsically more plausible that verses of praise were added than omitted.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Ben-Dov, Jonathan. \u201cA Textual Problem and its Form-Critical Solution: Jeremiah 10:1\u201316.\u201d Textus 20 (2000): 97\u2013128.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
10:5 Jer. 10:5 MT is split into two different parts in the LXX, with the Greek parallel to 10:9 MT intervening. The sequence of elements in the LXX may well be preferable to that of the MT, as the verses describing the work of the artisans on the idols (vv. 3, 4, 5a, 9) are juxtaposed in the Greek version.
\n5a. Wrought silver it is The MT reads: \u201cThey are like a scarecrow in a cucumber patch.\u201d Although the two texts differ greatly, their consonants are close: ktmr mqshh in the MT, and ktm mqshh in the Hebrew text underlying the LXX.
\n5a\u20135b Into the midst of these verses\u2014and with some rearrangement of sequence\u2014the MT adds verses 6\u20138: \u201c6O LORD, there is none like You! \/ You are great and Your name is great in power. \/ 7Who would not revere You, O King of the nations? \/ For that is Your due, \/ Since among all the wise of the nations \/ And among all their royalty \/ There is none like You. \/ 8But they are both dull and foolish; \/ Their doctrine is but delusion; \/ It is a piece of wood.\u201d The MT adds elements of praise to the shorter text of the LXX and 4QJerb, as do all other ancient versions. The situation is rather complex, since one of the MT\u2019s added verses (v. 8) speaks about idols, and since the sequence of verses in the LXX (vv. 5a, 9, 5b) differs from that in the MT.
\n5b The MT adds verse 10 (similar in nature to vv. 6\u20137): \u201cBut the LORD is truly God: \/ He is a living God, \/ The everlasting King. \/ At His wrath, the earth quakes, \/ And nations cannot endure His rage.\u201d For the phrase \u201cliving God,\u201d see also Jer. 23:36 MT. For the imagery in 10:10b MT, see Isa. 29:6.
\n9. gold of Mophas The MT reads: \u201cgold of Uphaz.\u201d The LXX reflects a misreading of the first letter of me-ophir, \u201cof Ophir,\u201d the traditional source of gold (see 1 Kings 10:11).
\n11 In the MT, this verse is written in Aramaic; it is the only Aramaic verse found in the Hebrew Bible, apart from the books of Daniel and Ezra. The reason for writing this verse in Aramaic is unclear, and the verse is often considered a late gloss (addition) to the biblical text at a period when Aramaic was spoken. However, some officials of Judah knew Aramaic in the period preceding Jeremiah (see 2 Kings 18:26). Therefore, the prophet could have included a verse in Aramaic. The Aramaic verse is ancient, since it was found in the parent text of the LXX, probably produced around 150 BCE.
\nto them These words refer to the idols, last mentioned in Jer. 10:9 MT or 10:5b LXX, and not in the preceding verse (10:10 MT), implying that verse 10 is indeed a later addition to the text.<\/p>\n
Jeremiah 27 (34 LXX)<\/p>\n
Jeremiah 27 of the Masoretic Text (MT) (34 in the Septuagint, or LXX) tells the tale of Jeremiah (Ieremias LXX) delivering a prophecy to a group of kings meeting in Jerusalem with King Zedekiah (Sedekias LXX). The prophet calls for the complete submission to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (Nabouchodonosor LXX) in accordance with God\u2019s plans. At the end of the chapter Jeremiah speaks out against the false prophets who prophesy optimistically to the Israelites, telling them that they need not surrender to Nebuchadnez zar. Among other things, Jeremiah opposes the claim of these prophets that the Temple vessels taken by Nebuchadnezzar (when he sent the people of Judah [Iouda LXX] and the inhabitants of Jerusalem [Ierousalem LXX] into exile in Babylon) will be returned. Jeremiah says that this will not happen, and that these prophets should implore God not to allow the remaining Temple vessels to be removed from Jerusalem.
\nMost of the expansions in the MT to the short text of the LXX are based on ideas or details in the context, or reflect stylistic or theological concerns. The MT devotes great attention on the fate of the Temple vessels, adding details from the context in Jeremiah and 2 Kings.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Stulman, Louis. The Other Text of Jeremiah: A Reconstruction of the Hebrew Text Underlying the Greek Version of the Prose Sections of Jeremiah. New York: University Press of America, 1985.
\nTov, Emanuel. \u201cExegetical Notes on the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX of Jeremiah 27 (34).\u201d Chap. 22 in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
34:1 Runs parallel to Jer. 27:2 MT. The LXX lacks 27:1 MT, which reads: \u201cAt the beginning of the reign of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD.\u201d In the earlier edition of the book, which was written before the MT and LXX, but is still reflected in the LXX, this chapter had no editorial heading linking the prophetic vision to a certain date or historic event (like chapters 2; 7; 16; 47). Such headings were added at a later stage in the MT edition. In this case, the MT heading from the preceding chapter mentioning Jehoiakim (26:1 MT) was added mistakenly to 27:1 as well. However, the events depicted in Jer. 27 (34 LXX) take place during the subsequent reign of Zedekiah (see 27:3, 12 MT).
\n3. the LORD The MT adds \u201cof Hosts\u201d (tzeva\u2019ot) referring to the heavenly powers (possibly meaning \u201cangelic armies\u201d) of God.
\n5. to King Nabouchodonosor of Babylon to serve him The MT reads: \u201cto My servant, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.\u201d The phrase \u201cMy servant\u201d recurs in Jer. 25:9 and 43:10 MT, but is also lacking in the parallel Greek verses, 25:9 and 50:10 LXX. The difference between 34:5 LXX and 27:6 MT probably arose because the original Hebrew text contained the root l\u2018vdw, which the MT translated as \u2018avdi, \u201cmy servant,\u201d and the LXX interpreted as le\u2018ovdo, \u201cto serve him.\u201d The choice of the infinitive verb form in the LXX also creates a pleasing parallel with \u201cto work for him\u201d in the same verse.
\nwork for him Following 34:5 LXX (27:6 MT), the MT adds verse 7: \u201cAll nations shall serve him, his son and his grandson\u2014until the turn of his own land comes, when many nations and great kings shall subjugate him.\u201d This addition states that Babylon, the instrument of God\u2019s punishment, will ultimately be punished itself (see also 25:14 MT). That this addition was not part of the underlying text is particularly evident in 27:6 MT, in which the added section does not flow smoothly within the surrounding text. In verses 6 and 8 of the MT, nations are told to surrender to Babylon, and in this context a punishment of Babylon itself is not expected. According to one explanation, the MT refers to the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, but Nebuchadnezzar did not have a grandson who ruled. More likely, the phrase \u201chis son and his grandson\u201d simply means \u201cmany generations\u201d after Nebuchadnezzar (cf. especially Jer. 2:9 MT LXX).
\n6. the nation and the kingdom The MT adds: \u201cthat does not serve him\u2014King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon\u2014and\u201d (v. 8). This stylistic addition is meant to stress beyond 27:6 MT that Nebuchadnezzar is God\u2019s instrument of punishment. A similar addition is found in the MT of Jer. 21:7 and 25:9 (against the LXX).
\n7. when they say The MT adds: \u201cto you, saying\u201d (NJPS: \u201cto you\u201d). The MT often adds l\u2019mr, \u201csaying,\u201d \u201cas follows,\u201d to the shorter underlying text (see, e.g., Jer. 1:4; 39:16 MT).
\n8. so as to distance you far from your land To explain this consequence of listening to false prophets and the like, the MT adds: \u201cI will drive you out and you shall perish.\u201d The addition is based on 27:15 MT, which is similar in content to the present verse.
\n9. on his own land The MT adds \u201cdeclares the LORD\u201d (27:11). This phrase has been added sixty-five times to the shorter underlying text by the MT.
\n10. Enter your neck The MT adds by way of explanation: \u201cunder the yoke of the king of Babylon; serve him and his people, and live!\u201d (27:12). The first part of this phrase has been repeated from 27:8, 11. The MT also rearranges the elements of 27:8 to form an additional verse (27:13): \u201cOtherwise you will die together with your people, by sword, famine, and pestilence, as the LORD has decreed against any nation that does not serve the king of Babylon.\u201d
\n11 Just before this verse, the MT reads: \u201cGive no heed to the words of the prophets who say to you, \u2018Do not serve the king of Babylon\u2019 \u201d (27:14). This section in the MT must be close to the original text, as the next words in both the MT and LXX\u2014\u201cbecause they are prophesying wrong things to you\u201d (34:11 LXX)\u2014are hard to understand without this preface. In the LXX, \u201cthey\u201d seems to refer misleadingly (and ungrammatically) to the king of Babylon, while in the MT \u201cthey\u201d refers correctly to the false prophets mentioned in the previous verse. Accordingly it stands to reason that these words were erroneously omitted by the LXX.
\n13. are returning from Babylon The MT narrows the time frame: \u201cshall shortly be brought back from Babylon\u201d (27:16 NJPS). This addition is probably based on the date mentioned in Jer. 28:3 MT (= 35:3 LXX) for the return of the Temple vessels (\u201ctwo years\u201d).
\n14. I did not send them The MT reads instead: \u201cGive them no heed. Serve the king of Babylon, and live! Otherwise this city shall become a ruin\u201d (27:17). The MT version is based on 27:12 and further on Jer. 25:18 and 26:9 MT.
\n15. let them counter me The MT expands on this greatly: \u201clet them intercede with the LORD of Hosts not to let the vessels remaining in the House of the LORD, in the royal palace of Judah, and in Jerusalem, go to Babylon!\u201d (27:18). While the challenge as declared in the LXX is general, in the MT it is very specific.
\n16. thus did the LORD say: Even some of the remaining vessels The MT version is more specific: \u201cthus said the LORD of Hosts concerning the columns, the tank, the stands, and the rest of the vessels remaining in this city\u201d (27:19). In the LXX, the prophet threatens that the vessels still left in the Temple will eventually be exiled to Babylon. These vessels are specified in the MT on the basis of Jer. 52:17 (= 2 Kings 25:13), where they are mentioned in a different sequence. Among other things, they include \u201cthe rest of the vessels remaining in this city,\u201d left in the royal palace (see Jer. 27:18, 21 MT).
\n17. the king of Babylon The MT reads: \u201cKing Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon\u201d (27:20). Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s name is often added in the MT to the shorter phrase \u201cking of Babylon\u201d; see Jer. 28:14; 29:3, 21; and so on.
\nIechonias Cf. the MT: \u201cson of Jehoiakim of Judah\u201d (27:20). One of the characteristic features of the MT is its frequent expansion of proper nouns by adding the name of the father or a title such as \u201cking (of Judah).\u201d Jeconiah\u2019s name is also expanded in this way in Jer. 28:4.
\nfrom Ierousalem The MT adds \u201cto Babylon, with all the nobles of Judah and Jerusalem\u201d (27:20), probably on the basis of Jer. 29:2. Following 34:17 LXX (= 27:20 MT), the MT inserts 27:21: \u201cfor thus said the LORD of Hosts, the God of Israel, concerning the vessels remaining in the House of the LORD, in the royal palace of Judah, and in Jerusalem.\u201d This stylistic addition repeats parts of 27:18\u201319 in order to remind the reader of the main issue. The editor of the MT has added so many elements in the preceding two verses that he feels obliged to repeat these details.
\n18. shall enter into Babylon, says the LORD Again, the MT version adds more detail: \u201cThey shall be brought to Babylon, and there they shall remain, until I take note of them\u2014declares the LORD of Hosts\u2014and bring them up and restore them to this place\u201d (27:22). The MT additions in this verse stress that the vessels still left in the Temple will be exiled to Babylon but subsequently will be returned to Jerusalem. The mention of their return is not consistent with the spirit of the surrounding verses, which deal with false prophets and not with the fate of the Temple vessels. Even if the vessels\u2019 fate were central to this verse, it would be anticlimactic to mention the ultimate return of the vessels to Jerusalem immediately after the threat of their plunder. Historically, the false prophets were right, since the Temple vessels were ultimately returned to Jerusalem (see Dan. 5:2\u20133; Ezra 1:7, 11; 6:5). The later text of the MT added these words, but without taking into consideration the tensions in the context.<\/p>\n
Jeremiah 43 (50 LXX)<\/p>\n
In the turbulent days after the capture of Jerusalem (Ierousalem LXX), Johanan (Ioanan LXX) and the other leaders bring the people to Egypt, against the wish of God as transmitted by Jeremiah (Ieremias LXX). According to the prophet, God wishes the people to instead remain in Palestine and surrender to Nebuchadrezzar (Nabouchodonosor LXX). God tells Jeremiah to perform a symbolic action in Tahpanhes (Taphnas LXX) at the entrance to Pharaoh\u2019s (Pharao LXX) palace signifying that Nebuchadrezzar will overpower even Egypt.
\nThe special nature of the Septuagint (LXX) is clearly revealed in this chapter, in which the features of the short Greek text\u2014particularly regarding the forms of names\u2014are easily visible when compared with the longer Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). The underlying text of this tradition must have been Hebrew, since the LXX has elements in common with the Qumran scroll 4QJerd (containing Jer. 43:2\u201310). The extent of that scroll helped to determine the scope of the section excerpted here from the LXX (50:4\u201310).<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
50:4, 5 [= MT 43:4, 5]. Ioanan The MT has \u201cJohanan son of Kareah.\u201d Most of the MT references to Johanan\u2019s parentage are missing in the LXX (e.g., those at 40:13, 15, 16 MT). Usually the LXX presents the full form in the beginning of each episode (see, e.g., \u201cIoanan of Karee\u201d at 40:13; 41:11; 43:2, all MT).
\n5. who had returned The MT adds: \u201cfrom all the countries to which they had been scattered and had sojourned \u2026 in Judah.\u201d The shorter text of the LXX implies that the Judeans returned from other places in Judah as well as from distant places. The MT specifically mentions the remote exile, here as well as in 40:12, where the expanded phrase \u201cAll these Judeans returned from all the places to which they had scattered\u201d is added in the MT to the short text of 47:12 LXX. The next phrase in 40:12 MT\u2014\u201cThey came to the land of Judah\u201d\u2014foreshadows the use of the full phrase \u201cthe land of Judah\u201d in 43:5 MT, against \u201cin the land\u201d in 50:5 LXX.
\n6. Nabouzardan Cf. the MT: \u201cNebuzaradan the chief of the guards.\u201d The full title occurs more frequently in the MT than in the LXX. Likewise, in 41:10 the short name Nabouzardan of the LXX is expanded to his full title in the MT.
\nGodolias son of Achikam The MT expands this to read: \u201cGedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan.\u201d Most of the MT references to Gedaliah\u2019s line of parentage are either shorter or missing altogether in the LXX (cf., e.g., 40:9, 11 MT with parallel 47:9, 11 LXX; or 41:2 MT with parallel 48:2 LXX). Only twice does the LXX give the expanded line of parentage, at the beginning of an episode (39:14; 40:5 LXX). Whenever the parallel text in 2 Kings refers to Gedaliah, it gives just the name alone, as in the Greek Jeremiah (Jer. 40:7, 9 LXX = 2 Kings 25:23, 24; Jer. 41:2, 3 = 2 Kings 25:25).
\n9. hide them The MT adds \u201cin mortar in the brick structure.\u201d The short text of the LXX indicates that the stones were concealed in the entrance of Pharaoh\u2019s palace, while the addition in the MT explains the technique used in concealing these stones. The details are unclear, however, since the words translated as \u201cmortar\u201d and \u201cbrick structure\u201d (NJPS) are very rare in biblical Hebrew.
\n10. And \u2026 say The MT adds: \u201cto them.\u201d The MT frequently adds clarifying phrases such as \u201cto them,\u201d or \u201cto me\u201d to verbs of saying (e.g., Jer. 17:19 MT).
\nthe LORD The MT adds \u201cof Hosts, the God of Israel.\u201d See the comment on Jer. 27:3.
\nKing Nebouchodonosor of Babylon The MT prefaces this title with \u201cMy servant,\u201d thus naming Nebuchadnezzar (rendered \u201cNebuchadrezzar\u201d at Jer. 43:10 NJPS), a non-Israelite, God\u2019s servant; that is, someone who performs God\u2019s plan for the world (just as Cyrus is named God\u2019s \u201canointed\u201d in Isa. 45:1). The full phrase \u201cMy servant, King Nebuchadnezzar [or Nebuchadrezzar] of Babylon\u201d occurs earlier at 25:9; 27:6 MT; in the parallel LXX verses, the king is not even mentioned. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar is known as God\u2019s servant in the MT of Jeremiah, but not in the LXX. Some scholars believe that this phrase was omitted by a Greek translator who would not accept the idea of a non-Israelite being God\u2019s servant.<\/p>\n
Proverbs 1<\/p>\n
Emanuel Tov<\/p>\n
After some general words of introduction to the book (vv. 1\u20137), Proverbs 1 gives short wisdom teachings on two topics: the deadly consequences of ignoring parental wisdom (vv. 8\u201319), and the risk of disregarding the prudent advice of the author of the book (vv. 20\u201333). The Septuagint (LXX) provides a free and often paraphrastic translation of its Hebrew parent text, which is much more closely reflected by the traditional or Masoretic Text (MT) for this chapter of Proverbs. At the same time, most of the discrepancies between the underlying Hebrew text, usually the MT, and the Greek probably derive from the free translation character of the LXX, which gives us insights into the exegetic and theological world of the Alexandrian-Hellenistic Jewish community. Some of these differences involve the transformation of general ideas in the Hebrew book of Proverbs into religious thoughts in the Greek translation. This pertains especially to the Hellenistic-Jewish tendency to stress the virtues of the pious and vices of the impious (see the comments on vv. 10, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32 below) as well as the Jewish adherence to the nomos, Torah. Other changes involve a desire to clarify the Hebrew text to the Greek readers in the Hellenistic period, and even to formulate equivalent wisdom sayings that approximate the implication of the Hebrew text. More than anywhere else in the LXX, the translation of Proverbs often presents double or even triple translations of the same verse (see comments on vv. 7, 14, 21, 27 below).<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Cook, Johann. The Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish and\/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 69. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
\nTov, Emanuel. \u201cRecensional Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Proverbs.\u201d In The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, chap. 28. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
1:3. subtlety of words and to understand The MT reads: \u201cthe discipline for success\u201d (or: \u201cinstruction in wise dealing\u201d [NRSV]). The LXX did not render musar, \u201cdiscipline,\u201d according to its base meaning, but possibly derived the word from the root s-w-r, \u201cto turn aside,\u201d while adding \u201cof words,\u201d influenced by the translation \u201cwords of prudence\u201d in verse 2. The Hebrew haskel, rendered \u201csuccess\u201d or \u201cwise dealings,\u201d is not connected in the LXX with the preceding word, as in the MT. It is linked with the following words and accordingly rendered as \u201cand to understand.\u201d
\ntrue righteousness and to direct judgment Cf. the MT: \u201cRighteousness, justice, and equity.\u201d Having linked haskel with the following and not the preceding words (see previous comment), the LXX restructured the sentence, creating a parallelism that is not found in the Hebrew. While doing so, the translator added the adjective \u201ctrue\u201d and changed the noun \u201cequity\u201d into a verb: \u201cto direct.\u201d
\n7. The beginning of wisdom \u2026 is the beginning of perception The first line of Prov. 1:7 MT\u2014\u201cThe fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge\u201d\u2014is translated in three different ways in 1:7 LXX. The first rendering (v. 7a) is literal, with the elements of the MT version reversed stylistically. The second rendering (v. 7a\u2019) is a variation on verse 7a, at the same time echoing Ps. 111:10 MT (110:10 LXX): \u201cThe beginning of wisdom is the fear of the LORD; \/ all who practice it gain sound understanding.\u201d The third rendering (Prov. 1:7a\u201d) is also literal, although different from verse 7a. The triple rendering reflects either different original translation attempts or mistaken combinations of details from various Greek manuscripts.
\n10. impious men The MT reads \u201csinners.\u201d Here, as often elsewhere in the Greek translation of Prov. (see introductory comments), a general term for sinners (hata\u2019im) has been rendered by a religious term (aseb\u0113s, lit. \u201cungodly\u201d), implying that the text speaks about sins committed against religion.
\n11. and let us hide a just man unjustly in the earth Cf. the MT: \u201cLet us lie in wait for the innocent \/ (without cause!).\u201d The difference between the MT and the LXX probably resulted from the translator\u2019s reading of the MT intransitive nitzpenah, \u201clet us lie in wait,\u201d as transitive natzpinah, \u201clet us hide.\u201d The transitive understanding of the verb required the addition of a phrase, namely \u201cin the earth.\u201d
\n12. Hades For the concept of Hades in the LXX, see the comment on 1 Sam. 2:6.
\nand let us remove his remembrance from the earth This translation differs significantly from the MT: \u201cWhole, like those who go down into the Pit.\u201d There seems to be no connection between the Hebrew and the Greek, and therefore the LXX is probably based on a different Hebrew text such as Ps. 34:17: \u201cThe face of the LORD is set against evildoers, \/ to erase their names from the earth.\u201d
\n14. and let us all acquire \u2026 one wallet The parallel line in Prov. 1:14 MT\u2014\u201cWe shall all have a common purse\u201d\u2014is rendered twice in the LXX, once freely (v. 14b: \u201cand let us all acquire a common purse\u201d), and once literally (v. 14b\u2019: \u201cand let us have one wallet\u201d). Possibly, version 14b\u2019 is a correction of version 14b (see the comment on 1:7 above).
\n18. For they who take part in murder A free translation of the MT version: \u201cBut they lie in ambush for their own blood; \/ They lie in wait for their own lives.\u201d The Greek translator has rendered the MT \u201ctheir own blood\u201d as \u201cmurder\u201d (as in the translation of Prov. 28:17 (NJPS: \u201cbloodguilt\u201d) and \u201cambush\u201d as \u201ctake part.\u201d The words \u201cand the destruction by transgressing men is evil\u201d reflect a free moralizing addition loosely based on v. 27.
\n19. all who perform lawless deeds; for by impiety they take Cf. the MT: \u201call who pursue unjust gain; \/ It takes \u2026\u201d Here, the MT betza\u2018 (\u201cunjust gain\u201d in the materialistic sense) is transformed in the LXX to religious transgressions (a-noma, \u201clawless deeds,\u201d deeds against the nomos, Torah). By the same token, the LXX adds the word \u201cimpiety,\u201d describing the actions of the evildoers.
\n21. on the top of the walls The MT reads: \u201cAt the head of busy streets.\u201d The difference between the MT and LXX was created through an interchange of similar-looking Hebrew letters (MT hmywt, \u201cbusy streets\u201d; LXX \u1e25mwt, \u201cwalls\u201d).
\nand at the gates of the powerful \u2026 she speaks boldly The MT, which reads simply \u201cAt the entrance of the gates, in the city, she speaks out,\u201d has been rendered twice in the LXX. Translation 21b is based on an interchange between similar-looking words (MT she\u2018arim, \u201cgates\u201d; and LXX sarim, \u201crulers\u201d). A similar interchange is reflected in Prov. 8:3 (MT \u201cgates\u201d; LXX \u201cgates of rulers\u201d). Proverbs 1:21b\u2019 LXX reflects the MT faithfully. In that translation, \u201cboldly\u201d may reflect an etymological rendering of \u2019amareha, \u201cher words,\u201d according to the root hit\u2019amer, \u201cto boast.\u201d
\n22. As long as the innocent \u2026 will not be ashamed The \u201csimplicity\u201d characterizing the \u201csimple ones\u201d in the MT is changed in the LXX to a positive characterization, \u201crighteousness.\u201d At the same time, the rhetorical question of the MT appears in the LXX as an assertive statement.
\nimpious In the Greek translation, \u201cfools\u201d (NRSV) has been filled with religious content (for similar examples, see the introductory comments).
\n27. and, when affliction \u2026 or when ruin comes upon you The MT version (\u201cWhen trouble and distress come upon you\u201d) has been rendered twice, more or less literally in Prov. 1:27c LXX, and with changes from the MT in verse 27c\u2019.
\n28. evil people will seek me Cf. the MT: \u201cThey shall seek me.\u201d In his wish to create a contrast between \u201cgood\u201d and \u201cbad\u201d people, the Greek translator has added the word kakoi, \u201cevil people,\u201d as in 1:18.
\n31. their own impiety The MT version: \u201ctheir own counsels\u201d\u2014has been given a religious content in accord with the translator\u2019s system of translating (for similar examples, see the introductory comments). Likewise, \u201cfools\u201d (NRSV) in verse 32 has been rendered \u201cimpious\u201d in the LXX.<\/p>\n
Selections from Esther<\/p>\n
Emanuel Tov<\/p>\n
The book of Esther is a historical novel that utilizes dramatic effects and suspense. In its base form in the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT), the story often lacks background information since it focuses on the actions of the heroes. The Septuagint (LXX) supplies some of this background information, but not for all details. When compared with the MT, the LXX adds, omits, and changes many small details, as well as complete verses. It also adds six large sections at key points in the book, including a section before the beginning and a section at the end. These additions, known as Additions to Esther A\u2013F, are an integral part of the translation but are traditionally discussed separately; see Additions to Esther.
\nThe LXX translation of Esther, produced in the late 2nd or early 1st century BCE, probably in Palestine, is a literary work distinct from that of the MT. In its Greek form, and probably also in its earlier Hebrew form, this work was considered Scripture. The LXX reshapes the story of the MT in many places. For example, in Additions B and E it gives a verbatim account of the king\u2019s edicts against the Jews (LXX Judeans; Add. Esth. B.1\u20137) and on their behalf (E.1\u201324). Probably the most characteristic feature of the LXX is the addition of a religious background to a book that lacks even the mention of God\u2019s name in the MT (e.g., in Esther 2:20; 4:8; 6:13; also, the LXX Esther is concerned about observance of the dietary laws, unlike Esther of the MT). The Greek Esther thus conforms to the remainder of Scripture by explaining the events in Israel\u2019s history as determined by its God.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Crawford, Sidnie W. The Additions to Esther: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections. Vol. 3: The New Interpreter\u2019s Bible, 941\u201372. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.
\nOmanson, Roger L., and Philip A. Noss. A Handbook on the Book of Esther: The Hebrew and Greek Texts. UBS Handbook Series. New York: American Bible Society, 1997.<\/p>\n
Esther 1<\/p>\n
In the Masoretic Text (MT), as in the Septuagint (LXX), Esther 1 describes the extent of King Ahasuerus\u2019s (LXX Artaxerxes\u2019) empire, his banquets, the banquet hosted by Queen Vashti (Astin LXX), the invitation extended to her by the king, her refusal to make an appearance, and the subsequent dramatic banishment of the queen. The version in the LXX covers the same events but with certain revisions. A major change in the Greek translation is the addition of Mordecai\u2019s (Mardochaios LXX) dream before the beginning of the Hebrew story. This dream, traditionally named Addition A, foreshadows Mordecai\u2019s actions narrated in the canonical book and introduces Artaxerxes and Haman. See also Additions to Esther.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
1:1. after these things This phrase is added in the LXX after \u201cIt happened\u201d of the MT. It reflects a typical Hebrew expression (ahar hadevarim ha\u2019eleh, \u201cafter these things\u201d) that must have been included in the parent text of the LXX, since it reflects Hebrew and not Greek idiom. The addition of this expression suits the LXX version of Esther 1:1, which follows immediately upon Addition A, containing a lengthy dream of Mordecai\u2019s. The LXX adds the same phrase at the beginning of verse 4.
\nArtaxerxes \u201cAhasuerus\u201d of the MT, usually identified with Xerxes (485\u2013465 BCE). However, Midr. Esth. Rab. 1:3 and the LXX identify him throughout as Artaxerxes.
\n3. for his Friends and \u2026 other nations The MT has: \u201cfor all the officials and courtiers.\u201d The term \u201cFriends,\u201d which is capitalized in the English version of the Greek translation, was an official title used at the Ptolemaic court for the king\u2019s close associates. The same term is used in Esther 1:13 LXX for the king\u2019s \u201csages learned in procedure\u201d (MT).
\n5. when the days of the wedding feast were completed The LXX gives the MT\u2019s more general phrasing in verse 5 (\u201cAt the end of this period\u201d [literally, \u201cthese days\u201d]) a very specific twist by describing the \u201cbanquet\u201d of 1:3 MT as a \u201cwedding feast.\u201d This interpretation is not reflected in any other ancient source, but runs parallel to the wedding banquet the king arranges for Esther (2:18), likewise called \u201cwedding feast\u201d in the LXX. See also the comment on 1:11 below.
\nfor six days The second banquet, held \u201cfor the nations present in the city,\u201d lasted six days according to the LXX, but seven according to the MT and all other sources.
\n6. It had been decorated Here, the LXX clarifies that the decorations described in this verse pertain to the courtyard mentioned in verse 5. The beginning of verse 6 is not present in the MT.
\n6\u20137. linen and cotton curtains \u2026 goblets \u2026 of gold and silver The story goes into great detail describing the finery of the banquet hall. Although not all the technical terms are understandable in either language, it is clear that the Greek LXX expands upon the Hebrew MT\u2019s portrayal of the curtains, couches, and cups, with details reflecting the array of riches in Hellenistic times, possibly at wedding feasts of wealthy people (see v. 5). Indeed, various historical sources describe the great opulence displayed in the Persian cities of Susa and Persepolis.
\n7. thirty thousand talents An enormous amount of money, each talent being valued at approximately 30 kilograms of gold (for example, according to 1 Kings 10:14, King Solomon received 666 talents of gold each year).
\nThe wine was \u2026 sweet The MT calls it \u201croyal,\u201d equivalent to the LXX\u2019s expression \u201cwine \u2026 which the king himself drank.\u201d
\n8. this wine party was not by established law According to several Assyrian texts, when the king drank at a banquet, everybody drank; the king usually determined the amount of drink consumed, which may be translated as the \u201cestablished law\u201d (NJPS) mentioned in MT. However, in the LXX the drinking procedure at this wine party\u2014described as a departure from the normal convention (probably, the customary restrictions)\u2014is diametrically opposed to that described in 1:8a MT, which literally translates as: \u201cand the drinking was according to convention, no one compelled [the guests to drink]\u201d (NJPS: \u201cAnd the rule for the drinking was, \u2018No restrictions!\u2019 \u201d). These words in the MT should be viewed in light of the following words, \u201cto comply with each man\u2019s wishes\u201d (v. 8b), understood similarly by the LXX, although the exact implication of the LXX is unclear. Thus, 1:8b NJPS: \u201cFor the king had given orders to every palace steward to comply with each man\u2019s wishes\u201d; 1:8b LXX: \u201cand he ordered his stewards to do as he and his men wanted.\u201d
\n10. Haman In the Greek version, the MT\u2019s Mehuman (LXX: one of the seven eunuchs who attended the king) is identified with Haman, that is, the central character in the Esther story who appears at 3:1, possibly because the two names reflect the same Hebrew root. In B. Meg. 12b and Midr. Abba Gorion 1, Memucan is likewise identified with Haman. This Memucan, the king\u2019s \u201cclose adviser\u201d in 1:14 MT, is not mentioned in the LXX list at 1:14 (see the commentary on v. 14).
\nHaman \u2026 Tharaba The Greek names of the \u201cseven eunuchs who attended\u201d differ from those in the MT, either because of textual corruption in the transmission of the Greek manuscripts or because the translator used a slightly different Hebrew manuscript.
\n11. in order to proclaim her queen In the LXX, the king calls for the queen to attend her own coronation ceremony, also reflected in Esther 1:5 where the LXX refers to her wedding feast. \u201cTo proclaim her queen\u201d in the LXX (representing himlikh, \u201che crowned\u201d) probably reflects the similar consonants in the MT (ha-melekh, \u201cthe king\u201d). The phrase used in 1:10 MT (\u201cbefore the king wearing a royal diadem\u201d) does not necessarily refer to a wedding ceremony.
\n13\u201315 In these verses, the LXX creates an action and dialogue instead of the parenthetical remark in verses 13\u201314 MT on the content of verse 13.
\n13 Cf. 1:13 MT: \u201cThen the king consulted the sages learned in procedure [literally, \u2018who knew the times,\u2019 probably court astrologers]. (For it was the royal practice [to turn] to all who were versed in law and precedent.)\u201d The LXX adds some color to this description by referring to the queen\u2019s reply and by having the king explicitly ask the sages for their \u201cruling and judgment,\u201d foreshadowing the formulation of verse 15.
\n14 Here, the MT lists the names of the king\u2019s \u201cclosest advisers,\u201d while in the LXX, those \u201cwho were close to the king \u2026 approached him.\u201d The LXX translator probably misunderstood the consonants of the MT, reading wehaqarov, \u201cand the one who was closest [to the king],\u201d as wehiqriv, \u201cand he approached.\u201d The MT has a longer list of the ministers of Persia and Media: \u201cCarshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan.\u201d The number of these ministers is recorded as \u201cseven\u201d in the MT, while no explicit number is given in the LXX.
\n15. And they reported to him The addition of these words in the LXX is almost required by the different scenario followed in that version. In the MT, the king addresses his advisers in verse 13a, but because of the long parenthesis explaining the task of the advisers (vv. 13b\u201314), the king\u2019s question is posed only in verse 15. The reply, from the mouth of the adviser Memucan, is contained in verse 16. However, in the LXX the king poses his question already at the end of verse 13, his advisers approach him in verse 14, and the introduction to the first reply is contained in the added words, quoted above, at the beginning of verse 15.
\n16. the queen has wronged not only the king According to the LXX, the queen sins not only against the king, but also against \u201call the rulers and governors of the king.\u201d In the MT, she sins against a larger body of people, namely \u201call the peoples in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus.\u201d
\n17\u201318 While including the queen\u2019s sin of defying the king as in the MT, the LXX leaves out the suggestion that her actions will stir up all the wives in the kingdom. This idea has been moved in the LXX to the next verse: \u201cwill similarly dare to dishonor their husbands.\u201d In rewriting verse 18, the LXX translator omitted the last words of 1:18 MT: \u201cand there will be no end of scorn and provocation.\u201d
\n19. the queen Cf. the MT, which says simply \u201cVashti.\u201d Following the king\u2019s rejection of Vashti, the MT no longer refers to her as \u201cqueen\u201d (see also 2:1, 4, 17 MT). Although the LXX does not share this subtle distinction in 1:19, in chapter 2 it reflects the MT.
\n20. kingdom The MT adds: \u201cvast though it is.\u201d MT emphasizes the extent of the king\u2019s realm as presented in v. 1.
\n22. throughout the whole kingdom The LXX has shortened the MT\u2019s longer list (\u201cto all the provinces of the king, to every province in its own script and to every nation in its own language\u201d) by omitting the superfluous mention of \u201cscript,\u201d which would be closely connected to differences in language.
\nso that they had fear in their homes A rephrased and shortened version of the MT, which reads: \u201cthat every man should wield authority in his home and speak the language of his own people.\u201d<\/p>\n
Esther 3<\/p>\n
In the book of Esther, the Septuagint (LXX) omits and changes various details found in the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT). The Greek translation also adds details, among them the exact text of the king\u2019s decree after verse 13 (so-called Addition B).
\nEsther 3 is a key chapter in the book since it introduces Haman and narrates how he plotted against the Jews (Judeans LXX). In this chapter the reader hears how Mordecai (Mardochaios LXX) brings down Haman\u2019s anger upon himself and the Jewish people, and how the king approves Haman\u2019s plan and issues a decree to destroy the Jews.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
3:1. a Bougean In the MT, the standard description of Haman is \u201cAgagite,\u201d usually explained as a descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites, traditionally bitter enemies of the Israelites (see Exod. 17:8\u201316; Num. 24:20, etc.). Accordingly Josephus describes Haman as \u201cby birth an Amalekite\u201d (Ant. 11.209). Bougaios could reflect a corrupted form of Agagite in Greek, or it could mean \u201cbraggart.\u201d Various midrashim also say that Haman was an Amalekite. This tradition is also reflected in the Torah portion read on Purim, which is Exod. 17:8\u201316 concerning Amalek (B. Meg. 31a).
\nFriends See the comment on Esther 1:3 in the previous chapter.
\n2\u20134 Many details in the MT version of these verses are omitted in the LXX in order to produce a smoother translation.
\n4. that Mardochaios was opposing the commands of the king In specifying that Mordecai\u2019s opposition to the king\u2019s command is why the Friends speak to Haman about him, the LXX is more explicit than the MT, in which the king\u2019s courtiers tell on Mordecai \u201cin order to see whether Mordecai\u2019s resolve would prevail.\u201d
\n6. And so he planned to destroy all the Judeans (Jews) The LXX omits the beginning of verse 6 MT: \u201cBut he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone; having been told who Mordecai\u2019s people were.\u201d Cf. also the LXX phrase \u201cdestroy all the Judeans [Jews] under the rule of Artaxerxes\u201d with the longer MT version: \u201cdo away with all the Jews, Mordecai\u2019s people, throughout the kingdom of Ahasuerus.\u201d The shorter LXX version was probably meant to streamline the translation.
\n7. in the twelfth year The MT adds here as well as in verse 12 the exact date: \u201cIn the first month, that is, the month of Nisan, in the twelfth year \u2026\u201d
\nand cast lots The subject in the LXX is Haman, while in the MT the lots are cast \u201cbefore Haman.\u201d The latter phrase is lacking in the LXX.
\nto destroy the people of Mardochaios on \u2026 the fourteenth of Cf. the MT, which does not mention the purpose of casting the lots in this verse since the purpose is clear from the preceding verse. Nor does the MT mention the result of casting the lots (only in v. 13 MT does the reader hear that the \u201cthirteenth day\u201d of Adar has been chosen).
\n9. I will pay The MT adds: \u201cto the stewards.\u201d This detail was probably omitted by the translator for stylistic reasons.
\nten thousand talents of silver The MT also cites this sum. Josephus, however, increases this amount to 40,000 talents of silver, to emphasize Haman\u2019s hatred of the Jews (Ant. 11.213).
\n10. and put it on the hand of Haman The LXX is more explicit here than the MT, which reads: \u201cand gave it to Haman.\u201d
\nto seal what had been written against the Judeans (Jews) Here, the LXX differs completely from the MT, which simply says the king gave the ring to Haman, \u201cthe foe of the Jews.\u201d Possibly the LXX translator understood the root tz-r-r (MT: \u201cfoe\u201d) as \u201cto bind,\u201d as in the LXX of Gen. 42:35; Prov. 30:4, and so on.
\n12. from India to Ethiopia This is a harmonizing addition (reconciling the presence of this phrase at Esther 1:1 MT; 8:9 MT LXX) not found in the MT. The LXX omits the MT \u201cto every province in its own script and to every people,\u201d occurring also in 1:22 and 3:14, as well as \u201cand sealed with the king\u2019s signet,\u201d occurring also in 3:10 and 8:8, 10.
\n13. in one day of the twelfth month, which is Adar The exact day of the planned destruction of the Jews, almost a year after the edict, is not mentioned here in the LXX. It is difficult to know whether this omission is intentional, as this date is mentioned in 8:12, also in the LXX. The general content of the king\u2019s edict is given in 3:13\u201314 MT, while the verses added after verse 13 of the LXX (also designated B.1\u20137) present its exact wording.<\/p>\n
Esther 8<\/p>\n
Esther 8 tells how the bad fate of the Jews (Judeans LXX) is reversed. The king gives Haman\u2019s property to Esther and promotes Mordecai (Mardochaios LXX) (vv. 1\u20132). Esther pleads for her people and obtains the means to their salvation (vv. 3\u20138). In the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT), the king issues an edict, dictated by Mordecai (v. 9), allowing the Jews to take revenge on their enemies (vv. 11\u201314), while in the Septuagint (LXX), the parallel verses display various important differences. Among other things, the letter of King Ahasuerus (Artaxerxes LXX) is written by the king himself (vv. 11\u201314 LXX), and not dictated by Mardochaios (vv. 8\u20139 MT). Verses 8\u201313 MT are rewritten as two separate letters in the LXX, one by Mordecai to the Jews (v. 9) and one by the king to the satrapies (Addition E of the LXX). Mordecai\u2019s letter, written in the name of the king, allows the Jews \u201cto live in accordance with their laws\u201d (which the MT does not say) and mitigates the MT\u2019s extensive description of the self-defense and revenge now permitted of the Jews against their enemies (v. 11 MT). The second letter constitutes a new literary creation. (For more on this, see Additions to Esther.)
\nThe rewritten Greek verses 8\u201313 are in harmony with Addition E of the LXX, and were probably created by the same individual who in these verses acted as a translator and in the Addition freely wrote a letter in Greek without reference to a Hebrew underlying text.
\nVarious details in Mordecai\u2019s criticism of Haman included in Addition E echo the phrasing of the earlier criticism of Haman against the Jews in Esther 3.
\nAmong the Hellenistic elements in the Greek Esther 8 are the summoning of Mordecai by the king (v. 1) and the reconstructed edict included in Addition E. Exegetic changes in the LXX include the naming of Haman as a Macedonian in Esther 9:24 LXX as well as in Addition E.10; Esther\u2019s concern about her own safety (Esther 8:6); and the king\u2019s active participation in the hanging of Haman (8:7).<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
De Troyer, Kristin. \u201cThe Letter of the King and the Letter of Mordecai.\u201d Textus 21 (2002): 175\u2013207.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
8:1. Artaxerxes \u201cAhasuerus\u201d in the MT. See the comment on Esther 1:1, Artaxerxes.
\nall that belonged to Haman The MT literally reads: \u201cHaman\u2019s house\u201d (NJPS: \u201cthe property of Haman\u201d). A similar translation occurs in 8:7.
\nthe slanderer [Greek diabolos] The MT has here \u201cthe enemy of the Jews\u201d (tzorer hayehudim). The same term is used in Esther 7:4\u2014\u201cfor the adversary is not worthy of the king\u2019s trouble\u201d\u2014while elsewhere in Esther, tzorer has been rendered as \u201cenemy\u201d (3:10 and 9:24). It is unclear whether diabolos already possessed the meaning of \u201cdevil\u201d as in the LXX translation of Job (MT: satan). In any event, in the present verse, where the LXX does not reflect the words \u201cof the Judeans (Jews),\u201d diabolos is probably intended as \u201cdevilish person\u201d in general.
\nwas summoned by the king Here, the LXX translator transforms the general statement of the MT, which literally reads: \u201ccame before the king\u201d (NRSV) (NJPS: \u201cpresented himself to the king\u201d) to the reality of Hellenistic times, in which ordinary persons could not come before the king unless summoned. \u201cTo come before\u201d (sometimes, per NJPS: \u201cto enter the king\u2019s presence\u201d) is also used elsewhere in this way (1 Kings 1:23, 28, 32 MT).
\nthat he was related to her Cf. this interpretation to the MT, starting with the RSV, the most literal version (\u201cwhat he was to her\u201d; NJPS: \u201chow he was related to her\u201d; and Vulg.: \u201cthat he was her uncle.\u201d). Note that the MT in its most literal reading can also be interpreted as Esther\u2019s revealing her feelings toward Mordecai, rather than a familial relationship.
\n2. took the signet ring, which he had taken from Haman Cf. the MT: \u201cThe king slipped off his ring, which he had taken back from Haman) \u2026\u201d (NJPS). According to the MT, the king at first gave his own ring to Haman (Esther 3:10), wore it again, and upon removing the ring from his finger gave it to Mordecai. According to the LXX, the king did not wear the ring in the interim period.
\n3. and pleaded that he The MT reads literally: \u201cand fell at his feet and besought him with tears\u201d (RSV). The omission of Esther\u2019s tears in the LXX may have been intentional, but more likely the LXX translator abbreviated the parent text from which he was working.
\nHaman The MT adds \u201cthe Agagite.\u201d Except for the first occurrence of \u201cthe Agagite\u201d in Esther 3:1, that word is not represented in the LXX (3:10; 8:3, 5; 9:24).
\nwhat he had done to the Judeans The interpretation by the LXX takes the MT version (NRSV: \u201cthe plot that he had devised against the Jews\u201d) one step further. The same phrase has been rendered similarly in 9:25 LXX: \u201cas much evil as he had devised to bring upon the Judeans.\u201d
\n5. If it pleases you, and if I have found favor The LXX abbreviates the longer version of the MT: \u201cIf it please Your Majesty, and if I have won your favor and the proposal seems right to Your Majesty, and if I am pleasing to you \u2026\u201d (NJPS). In this and the next verse, the LXX changes the official use of the third person of the MT (the king) to the informal speech in the second person. On the other hand, the same phrase \u201cIf it please Your Majesty\u201d is rendered literally in 5:4, 8 LXX.
\n6. how can I be saved The implication of the LXX is: \u201cIf all my relatives are killed, how can I expect to be saved?\u201d while the MT says: \u201cAnd how can I bear to see the destruction of my kindred!\u201d continuing the first part of the verse, where Esther expresses her distress at the idea of watching her people suffer. In the second part, in the MT Esther expresses concern for her relatives, while in the LXX she is concerned about her own safety. This interpretation in the LXX is probably directly related to Mordecai\u2019s warning to Esther in 4:13 MT: \u201cDo not imagine that you, of all the Jews, will escape with your life by being in the king\u2019s palace.\u201d
\n7. to Esther \u2026 to you \u2026 you seek In the MT, the king speaks \u201cto Queen Esther and Mordecai the Jew.\u201d The omission of Mordecai in the LXX could reflect a tendentious change\u2014that is, a tendency to leave Mordecai out based on some bias favoring Esther\u2014but such an assumed tendency is not paralleled by other details in the broader context except that \u201cyou\u201d (\u201cto you \u2026 you seek\u201d) is in the singular form in the rest of 8:7. For in the next verse, the LXX reads, \u201cYou [pl.] also write \u2026 and seal [pl.]\u201d (as in the MT); and Addition E of the LXX, inserted after Esther 8:12, places Mordecai more in the foreground than does the MT.
\nhim I hanged In the LXX, the king has an active role in the execution as opposed to the MT, which reads \u201che has been impaled on the stake\u201d (NJPS). Likewise, in 2:23 LXX the king plays an active part in the hanging of the two eunuchs: \u201cSo the king interrogated the two eunuchs and hanged [or \u2018hung\u2019] them\u201d; cf. the MT: \u201cThe matter was investigated and found to be so, and the two were impaled on stakes\u201d (NJPS).
\nwhat more do you seek? These words are lacking in the MT. In this LXX addition, the king points out to Esther that he has done everything that could be done. The added phrase may imply a mild rebuke.
\n8. You \u2026 write The MT adds \u201cwith regard to the Jews.\u201d The possible omission of this phrase in the LXX or its addition in the MT is stylistic rather than tendentious. In the next verse, both the Hebrew and Greek versions speak about Mordecai\u2019s edict being directed \u201cto the Jews.\u201d The king is quoted in this verse in the third person in the MT (\u201c\u2026 in the king\u2019s name \u2026 the king\u2019s signet \u2026\u201d), but in a more lively way using the first person in the LXX (\u201cin my name \u2026 my ring \u2026\u201d).
\nYou (pl.) also write in my name as it pleases you (pl.) Significantly, in MT the king turns to both Esther and Mordecai, while Mordecai dictates the letter alone (v. 9). See the commentary on verse 9.
\n9 This verse, containing 43 words and 192 letters, is the longest verse in Hebrew Scripture. It contains Mordecai\u2019s letter, parallel to Esther 3:12 MT describing Haman\u2019s letter. The two verses are phrased in very similar words in Hebrew, but not in Greek.
\nin the first month \u2026 of the same year According to the LXX, Mardochaios\u2019s letter is sent only 10 days after that of Haman in 3:12. In the MT, on the other hand, exactly 70 days intervene between the two letters, the second one being sent \u201con the twenty-third day of the third month, that is, the month of Sivan.\u201d The figure of 70 days may have a special meaning in the MT (cf. the 70 years of exile at Jer. 25:11\u201312; 29:10; Dan. 9:2).
\nand they \u2026 commanded The MT reads: \u201cand letters were written, at Mordecai\u2019s dictation, to the Jews \u2026\u201d According to the MT, the king allows Mordecai to formulate a letter in his name and to send it as a royal edict to the Jews, the satraps, the governors and the officials. In the Greek version of the edict, Mardochaios\u2019s name is omitted in Esther 8:9, possibly in order to give the edict more credence as a royal document. More important, in the rephrased Greek version, the letter is sent only to the Judeans (Jews), quoting commands that have been given earlier to the \u201cadministrators and rulers of the satrapies.\u201d
\nThe separate languages in which these letters are written are mentioned only once in the Greek version of verse 9, but twice in the MT, in which the Hebrew version is singled out: \u201cto every province in its own script and to every people in its own language, and to the Jews in their own script and language.\u201d A separate mentioning of the Hebrew language in v. 9 of the LXX would have been inappropriate, since the end of that verse refers to the letter written in many languages and not to a letter of Mardochaios to the Jews as mentioned in the MT.
\n10. couriers The MT adds: \u201criding steeds used in the king\u2019s service, bred of the royal stud.\u201d The Greek translator probably considered these details superfluous.
\n11. to live in accordance with their laws These words have been added in the LXX to the MT\u2019s \u201cThe king has permitted the Jews \u2026\u201d This tendentious addition in the LXX stresses an element that must have been important to the author of this translation and to the Diaspora Jews to whom the translation was sent. Without any base in the MT, the added words stress the right of the Jews to live according to their own laws. A similar remark is found in Add. Esth. E.19\u201320: \u201cand to allow the Judeans to live in accordance with their own precepts and to join in helping them in order that they might defend themselves against those who attack \u2026\u201d The mention of the laws (nomoi) of the Judeans should be viewed in light of Esther 3:8, where they are presented as opposed to those of the king.
\nto deal with their adversaries \u2026 as they wished The Greek version\u2014probably meant not only for Jews, but also for Gentiles\u2014mitigates the harsh language of the revenge permitted to the Jews in the MT: \u201cto assemble and fight for their lives; if any people or province attacks them, they may destroy, massacre, and exterminate its armed force together with women and children, and plunder their possessions\u201d (NJPS). Note that the killing of Jewish \u201cchildren and women\u201d as in structed in Haman\u2019s edict in 3:13 MT is likewise lacking in the LXX (although the Greek version does prescribe taking the Judeans\u2019 \u201cyoung children as plunder\u201d).
\n12 A long, 24-verse addition to the MT in the LXX (the so-called Addition E) provides the text of Artaxerxes\u2019s letter to his 127 provinces, running parallel to Mardochaios\u2019s letter to the Judeans contained in the Greek Esther 8:9. The Greek tradition reconstructs that edict verbatim, not as a historical document, but as a literary device. A similar letter is included in the alternative Greek translation (the Alpha-Text) and summarized in Josephus (Ant. 11:273\u201383), and a different letter is included in the Tg. Sheni to Esther after verse 13. This letter by Artaxerxes heralding the salvation of the Judeans runs parallel to the letter inserted within Esther 3 LXX (the so-called Addition B; see Additions to Esther), announcing the destruction of the Judeans as instigated by Haman.
\n13. to fight against A milder version of the MT\u2019s \u201cto avenge themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n
Additions to Esther<\/p>\n
Michael V. Fox<\/p>\n
The Septuagint (LXX) of the book of Esther includes six supplemental passages (Additions A\u2013F), as well some expansions and changes elsewhere. The Additions are the responses of early readers to the book, who sought to address several problematic issues in the story (such as Esther\u2019s dietary practices in the palace and her sexual relations with the king) and also to adjust the theology to contemporary expectations. The Additions appear inserted at the appropriate points of the book and must be read in context. Ideally they should be read in a complete translation of the LXX. The placement and content of each Addition is as follows:<\/p>\n
Addition A (A.1\u201317 [NRSV 11:2\u201312:6]; appears at the beginning of the book of Esther: It includes Mordecai\u2019s dream (A.1\u201311 [NRSV 11:2\u201312]) and his exposure of a conspiracy (A.12\u201317 [NRSV 12:1\u20136]).
\nAddition B (B.1\u20137 [NRSV 13:1\u20137]; follows MT 3:13): The royal decree to kill the Jews.
\nAddition C (C.1\u201330 [NRSV 13:8\u201310]; follows MT 4:17): Mordecai\u2019s prayer (C.1\u201311) and Esther\u2019s prayer (C.12\u201330).
\nAddition D (D.1\u201316 [NRSV 15:1\u201316]; follows C.30: Esther\u2019s entry to the throne room. Addition E (E.1\u201324; follows MT 8:12): The royal decree to spare the Jews.
\nAddition F (F.1\u201311 [NRSV 10:4\u201311:12]; follows MT 10:3): Mordecai\u2019s interpretation of his dream in Addition A.
\nColophon (F.11 [NRSV 11:1]; follows F.10).<\/p>\n
Authorship and History<\/p>\n
The Additions were composed and inserted into the LXX at different times, between the late 2nd century BCE and the middle of the 1st century CE. Their likely origin is Ptolemaic Egypt, a background reflected in Additions B and E in particular. It was a time of severe anti-Semitism alongside a degree of royal patronage for the Jews. Additions B and E have the same author and were composed in Greek. Additions C and D are really a single unit. It is unclear whether Additions A, C, D, and F were written by the same person. F is an interpretation of A, probably by a different author, since there is some incongruity between the dream and its interpretation; see the comment on A.5, below. It is likely that Additions A, C, D, and F (or parts thereof) were composed in Aramaic or Hebrew.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
The Additions, together with some other supplementary material, place God explicitly in the center of the events and adjust the book to attitudes and usages found elsewhere in the Bible. The most important difference between the Additions and the Hebrew text (Masoretic Text) is the central role of God, who is not mentioned in the MT. God is often mentioned in the Additions and sometimes in other verses in the LXX as well, namely Esther 2:20; 4:8; and 6:13.
\nThe Additions are integrated into the LXX and should be read in that context. For the most part, the LXX is fairly close to the MT, but there are a few significant differences. Like the Additions, the smaller LXX changes typically enhance the role of God, piety, and Jewish law. Following are examples of LXX changes on the verse level.
\nEsther 2:16 (NJPS): \u201cEsther was taken in to King Ahasuerus \u2026 in the tenth month, which is the month of Tebeth\u201d Esther 2:16 (LXX): \u201cSo Esther went in to King Artaxerxes in the twelfth month, which is Adar.\u201d The reason for this change is unclear. (The 10th of Tevet did have significance as the onset of the siege of Jerusalem.)
\nEsther 2:20 (NJPS): \u201cBut Esther still did not reveal her kindred or her people, as Mordecai had instructed her; for Esther obeyed Mordecai\u2019s bidding, as she had done when she was under his tutelage.\u201d Esther 2:20 (LXX): \u201cEsther had not disclosed her country\u2014such were the instructions of Mordecai; but she was to fear God and keep his laws, just as she had done when she was with him.\u201d The LXX adds mention of God.
\nEsther 3:7 (NJPS): \u201cpur\u2014which means \u2018the lot\u2019\u2014was cast \u2026 [until it fell on] the twelfth month, that is, the month of Adar.\u201d Esther 3:7 (LXX): \u201cThe lot fell on the fourteenth day of the month of Adar.\u201d A different Greek version has, correctly, \u201cthirteenth.\u201d The Hebrew of v 7b reads, literally, \u201cfrom day to day and from month to the twelfth month, the month of Adar.\u201d The day of the month is missing, though required by context. The Greek Alpha Text (but not the LXX) reads \u201cthirteenth.\u201d This either reflects the correct Hebrew text or supplies the date on the basis of 8:12; 9:1; and 9:17.
\nEsther 4:8 (NJPS): Mordecai shows the eunuch Hathach the written law calling for the Jews\u2019 destruction, then bids him to \u201cshow it to Esther and inform her, and charge her to go to the king and to appeal to him and to plead with him for her people.\u201d Esther 4:8 (LXX): Mordecai sends this message to Esther via the eunuch Hachratheus: \u201cHaman, who stands next to the king, has spoken against us and demands our death. Call upon the LORD; then speak to the king in our behalf, and save us from death.\u201d This prepares the way for Esther\u2019s prayer in Addition C. In the LXX Mordecai instructs Esther to pray, which is the expected response to a perilous situation like this.
\nEsther 6:13 (NJPS): Haman\u2019s wife says, \u201cIf Mordecai \u2026 is of Jewish stock, you will not overcome him; you will fall before him to your ruin.\u201d Esther 6:13 (LXX): Haman\u2019s wife says, \u201cIf Mordecai is of the Jewish people, \u2026 you will surely fall. You will not be able to defend yourself, because the living God is with him.\u201d The LXX makes explicit the religious reason for Haman\u2019s doom.
\nEsther 8:17 (NJPS): \u201cAnd many of the people of the land professed to be Jews.\u201d Esther 8:17 (LXX): \u201cAnd many of the Gentiles were circumcised and became Jews.\u201d The MT\u2019s mityahadim is ambiguous. It may mean \u201cprofessed to be Jews\u201d or \u201cbecame Jews.\u201d The LXX makes it clear that the Gentiles in question fully converted to Judaism.
\nEsther 10:3 (NJPS): \u201cFor Mordecai the Jew \u2026 was highly regarded by the Jews and popular with the multitude of his brethren; he sought the good of his people and interceded for the welfare of all his kindred.\u201d Esther 10:3 (LXX): \u201cMordecai \u2026 was great in the kingdom, as well as honored by the Jews. His way of life was such as to make him beloved to his whole nation.\u201d The MT has, literally, \u201cspeaks peace\u201d where NJPS translates \u201cinterceded for the welfare.\u201d The Greek translation explains this idiom as describing Mordecai\u2019s personal behavior rather than his political services on behalf of the Jews.
\nIn the LXX Esther, God has scripted the events in advance (see Addition A), and he has determined the outcome. The Jews are explicitly pious and scrupulous in following the demands of Torah. In crisis, they pray (Add. Esth. A.9; C). The Jews\u2019 strength lies not in their personal fortitude, and not at all in military tactics and courage, but only in prayer and faith in God.
\nThough the Additions are Jewish in origin, they have been maintained only in Christian traditions, particularly the Greek Orthodox, for whom the LXX is still sacred Scripture. Some of the material of the Additions became known to the Jews through Josippon, a 10th-century chronicle of the Jews traditionally ascribed to Joseph ben Gurion. The chronicle derives its material largely from Josephus\u2019s Jewish Antiquities. The Additions have some parallels in the midrashim, in Tg. Esth. I (Tg. Rishon) and, especially, in the periphrastic and expansionistic Tg. Esth. II (Tg. Sheni). The parallel passages were composed independently of the Greek Additions, in response to the same perceived lacks, above all the mention of God, the history of Israel, and the prayers of the Jewish heroes. One possible case of a shared tradition is Addition E; see the introduction to Addition E, below.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Clines, David J. A. \u201cThe Esther Scroll, 168\u201374.\u201d Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 30. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1984.
\nDay, Linda. \u201cThree Faces of a Queen.\u201d Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 186. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
\nDorothy, Charles. \u201cThe Books of Esther: Structure, Genre, and Textual Integrity.\u201d Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 187. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
\nFox, Michael V. \u201cCharacter and Ideology in the Book of Esther, 168\u201374, 265\u201373.\u201d Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1999.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Redaction of the Books of Esther: On Reading Composite Texts. SBL Monograph Series 40. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.
\nLevenson, Jon D. \u201cEsther, 27\u201334 and passim.\u201d Old Testament Library. Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997.
\nMoore, Carey A. \u201cDaniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions.\u201d Anchor Bible 44. Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1977.
\nNETS. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University. Esther, translated by Karen Jobes: pp. 425\u201341.
\nVialle, Catherine. Une Analyse narrative compare d\u2019Esther TM et LXX. Louvain: Universit\u00e9 Catholique de Louvain, 2007.
\nWace, Henry. \u201cThe Rest of the Chapters of Esther.\u201d In The Holy Bible: Apocrypha, 1:361\u2013402. London: John Murray, 1888.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Addition A<\/p>\n
A.1\u201311 The LXX Esther begins with a dream that introduces explicit theological concerns into the book. Whereas God is not mentioned in the traditional Hebrew text, he is prominent in the Additions and several other places in the LXX Esther. Addition A imagines the struggle between Mordecai and Haman as a cosmic cataclysm, a clash between the forces of good and evil. Mordecai\u2019s dream is not entirely coordinated with the story and seems to have an independent origin. In the dream proper (Add. Esth. A.4\u201310), the two dragons threaten the whole world. Contrary to the traditional Hebrew text of Esther, all Gentile nations are arrayed against Israel. The Jews cry out to God, and he sends hope\u2014a \u201ctiny spring,\u201d which, as the reader will learn, represents Esther\u2014and from this comes a \u201criver\u201d of salvation. The events of the book of Esther are thus predetermined (A.12).
\nA.1 In the second year of the reign of Artaxerxes the Great One year before the Hebrew Esther begins. The Hebrew calls the king Ahasuerus, which is actually the Hebrew form of Xerxes (that is, Xerxes I, \u201cthe Great\u201d\u2014485\u2013465 BCE), not Artaxerxes (that is, Artaxerxes II, 404\u2013358 BCE). The LXX, however, consistently calls the king Artaxerxes.
\nNisan March\u2013April.
\nA.3. with King Jeconiah That is, in 597 BCE, in the first wave of exiles from Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:6\u201317). Mordecai is identified again in Esther 2:5.
\nA.5. two great dragons If the dream arose as an independent tradition quite separate from Addition F (as some scholars have suggested), both dragons would seem to have originally represented evil forces threatening the entire world (or perhaps, more specifically, the king and Haman). That both dragons were evil would seem only logical, since at their roaring, \u201cevery nation prepared for war, to fight against the righteous nation.\u201d The \u201crighteous nation\u201d is clearly Israel; if the roaring dragons stir up the other nations to make war on Israel, then both dragons must be evil. Moreover, in the NJPS Bible translation, various sea monsters are God\u2019s enemies (e.g., Isa. 27:1; Ps. 148:7; Job 7:12; 26:13). In apocalyptic literature as well, dragons are consistently symbols of evil (2 Bar. 29:3\u20138; 2 Esd. [4 Ezra] 6:52; Rev. 12:3; 13:2; 20:2). However, later on in the Additions (Add. Esth. F.7), when Mordecai explains the meaning of this dream, he says that the dragons represented Haman and himself. In the light of the foregoing, such an interpretation seems strange. First of all, it is unexpected to find a dragon representing the force of good. Second, the dragons do not actually clash in the dream in A. It is likely that F represents a later author trying to apply an originally independent allegory to the book of Esther.
\nA.7. a day of darkness and gloom In biblical eschatology, the end-time is often pictured as one of darkness (e.g., Jer. 4:28; Joel 2:10\u201311; Zeph. 1:15).
\nA.9. they cried out to God Though the \u201ctiny spring\u201d foreshadows redemption, it is the Jews\u2019 outcry and prayer that actually bring about God\u2019s salvation.
\nA. 12\u201317 Mordecai\u2019s discovery of the eunuchs\u2019 plot. This event is reported in Esther 2:19\u201323 in both the MT and the LXX.
\nA.12. Gabatha and Tharra Permutations of Hebrew Bigthan and Teresh (Esther 2:21 NJPS).
\nA.13. lay hands on That is, harm.
\nA.17. a Bougean The LXX calls Haman a \u201cBougean\u201d in Esther 3:1 as well, while the Hebrew identifies him as an Agagite (3:1), a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag (see 1 Sam. 15:8) and, hence, of Amalek himself, Israel\u2019s archenemy (Deut. 25:17\u201319). No ethnic group called Bougean is known. Some associate the name with Bagoas, a eunuch companion of Alexander the Great. Most likely it is a made-up name, playing on Greek bougaios, \u201cbully, braggart.\u201d This verse gives a motive for Haman\u2019s hatred of Mordecai. According to the Josippon, the eunuchs were Haman\u2019s relatives.<\/p>\n
Addition B<\/p>\n
Addition B replaces Esther 3:13\u201314 (MT) and gives a fuller form of the royal edict to destroy the Jews. Its style is pompous and convoluted, emulating Ptolemaic bureaucratic prose. The king claims that his motive in ordering the mass murder is to ensure the peace of the realm. Tg. Sheni too has an expanded royal decree, but it is quite different from the one in Addition B. A very similar edict for the destruction of the Jews\u2014this one ordered by Ptolemy IV Philopator\u2014appears in 3 Macc. 3:11\u201330, written in the 1st century BCE. The quotation of putative royal records in Additions B and E heightens the impression of authenticity and makes outsiders testify to the truth of the Jewish religion (Add. Esth. E.16, 18).
\nB.4\u20135. a certain hostile people \u2026 doing all the harm they can The king expands Haman\u2019s allegations against the Jews, calling them hostile to all nations and a threat to the public order. These accusations were commonplaces of Greco-Roman anti-Semitism.
\nB.6. our second father That is, as dear to Artaxerxes as a second father, and also a source of advice and wisdom, second only to the king\u2019s real father. Cf. the way Joseph is appointed \u201cfather to Pharaoh\u201d (Gen. 45:8), that is, his chief counselor.
\nfourteenth In the MT, the day of the decreed destruction is the thirteenth of Adar. The LXX in its present form is contradictory, specifying \u201cthirteenth\u201d in Esther 8:13; Add. Esth. E.20; and Esther 9:1, but \u201cfourteenth\u201d in Esther 3:7 and Add. Esth. B.6. The reason for the contradiction is unknown. Perhaps the first day of fighting was confused with the first day of celebration. The Greek Alpha Text (see note 4) also has \u201cthirteenth.\u201d<\/p>\n
Addition C<\/p>\n
Addition C supplies something whose absence in the traditional Hebrew text surprised later readers: prayers for salvation. In the MT, these are only hinted at\u2014in Mordecai\u2019s mourning (Esther 4:1) and in the fast that Esther declares (4:16). The prayers of Mordecai and Esther in Addition C draw heavily on biblical models, especially the prayers of Daniel (Dan. 9:3\u201319), Nehemiah (Neh. 9:6\u201337), Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 20:5\u201312), and Ps. 22. In response to this same absence, Tg. Sheni gives Mordecai a lengthy prayer at 4:1 and Esther, at 5:1 (on Esther\u2019s prayer, see below). In Esther 4:8b (LXX), a few verses before Addition C, the LXX expands the Hebrew sentence by having Mordecai urge Esther to \u201ccall upon the LORD,\u201d so as to prepare the way for Esther\u2019s prayer, as shown in the introductory comments of this chapter.
\nC.5. it was not in insolence or pride Readers must have been puzzled by Mordecai\u2019s refusal to bow down to Haman, which could only endanger the entire community. Nothing forbids a Jew to bow before a mortal. Israelites do so, for example, in Gen 33:3; 42:6; 1 Kings 1:23; and Esth 8:3. The author seems to be imputing to Mordecai the Greek attitude that it is disgraceful to bow to humans; see Herodotus, Hist. 7.136. This notion of dignity would have been shared by others in the Hellenistic period, which is the likely time of Esther\u2019s authorship. The resistance to bowing to humans would have been exacerbated by the ancient ethnic enmity between Jews and Amalekites, from which Haman the Agagite was descended. In the LXX, Mordecai justifies his refusal on the grounds that he acted not out of personal pride, but only out of respect for God\u2019s honor. LXX\u2019s explanation too seems to reflect the Greek objection to bowing to humans reported by Herodotus. The Rabbis did not share this attitude and so had to seek for other explanations. They supposed that Haman considered himself divine (B. Sanh. 61b) or that he had embroidered an idol on his clothing (Esth. Rab. 7:8; cf. Tg. Rishon on 3:2). Bowing to Haman would constitute idolatry, a cardinal sin that one must not commit even at risk of death (Dan 3:18; 6:11; B. Sanh. 74a). Another Rabbinic explanation is that Haman had earlier sold himself as a slave to Mordecai (Tg. Rishon [3:2; B. Meg. 15ab]). It was beneath Mordecai\u2019s dignity to bow to a former slave. Mordecai\u2019s prayer concludes with a plea for deliverance.
\nC.11. And all Israel cried out The communal outcry was on the occasion of the fast that Esther had proclaimed for the Jews in Esther 4:16.
\nfor their death was before their eyes They saw themselves on the brink of destruction.
\nC.14\u201317 Esther\u2019s entreaty strongly resembles Jewish prayers of the Persian period and beyond, for example in Dan. 9:3\u20135. Both Daniel and Esther are Jews in Persia. They both make supplication with fasting and sackcloth and ashes (Dan. 9:3; Add. Esth. C.13). They declare God\u2019s faithfulness to Israel and praise his deliverance of the ancestors (Dan. 9:4; Add. Esth. C.16). They confess Israel\u2019s sinfulness (Dan. 9:5; Add. Esth. C.17\u201318). The Targumim to Esther ascribe prayers to Esther; these are quite different from Add. Esth. C.13\u201317. An Aramaic version of her prayer was found in the Vatican library. This is apparently derived from the Yossipon. Esther\u2019s prayer has some associations with Ps. 22. The speakers of both are in danger and declare that God is their only helper (Add. Esth. C.14; Ps. 22:11\u201312). Both refer to God\u2019s deliverance of the ancestors (Add. Esth. C.16; Ps. 22:5\u20136) and to the lion\u2019s mouth (Add. Esth. C.14, 22; Ps. 22:24). Esther\u2019s story and her words are brought into even tighter association in Rabbinic retellings. In B. Meg. 15b, as Esther comes into the \u201cChamber of Idols,\u201d the Divine Presence leaves her, and she says: \u201cMy God, my God, why have you abandoned me?\u201d (Ps. 22:2). Do you perhaps judge inadvertent offenses like purposeful ones and forced actions like willing ones? Or perhaps [you have abandoned me] because I called him a dog, as it says, \u201cSave my life from the sword, my precious life from the clutches of a dog.\u201d (Ps. 22:21) She retracted and called him a lion, as it says, \u201cdeliver me from a lion\u2019s mouth (Ps 22:22).\u201d Like the retelling of the story in B. Meg., Addition C makes Esther pious and\u2014insofar as possible\u2014observant of Jewish law. Midr. Teh. makes Esther the speaker of Ps. 22 and has her uttering three prayers.
\nC.13. ashes and dung A sign of mourning and penitence.
\nC.15. for my danger is in my hand I am taking my life in my hands.
\nC.16. I have heard in the tribe of my family She knows Israel\u2019s history from family traditions rather than from study of Scripture.
\nC.17\u201321. now we have sinned before you \u2026 because we glorified their gods Esther\u2019s confession has no basis in the Hebrew Esther, which does not hint at Israelite defection to foreign gods. Rather, it tells about an unexplained and unpredictable crisis. The belief that the Exile and the consequent national suffering was punishment for worshiping other gods is standard throughout the Bible. Nehemiah and Daniel make very similar confessions (Neh. 9:32\u201337; Dan. 3:1\u201317).
\nC.18. You are righteous, O LORD! That is, you are justified in all the tribulations you have brought upon us; cf. Neh. 9:33.
\nC.24. the lion The king, awesome and terrifying (Add. Esth. D. 6\u20137). In her prayer in B. Meg. 15b, Esther first calls the king a dog, then calls him a lion, quoting Ps. 22:22: \u201cDeliver me from a lion\u2019s mouth.\u201d
\nC.26\u201329 Esther insists that she takes no pleasure in her luxurious state or her marriage to the foreigner. These things have been imposed on her.
\nC.26. the splendor of the wicked \u201cWicked\u201d is plural and refers to Gentiles generally, or at least the wicked among them, and not specifically the king.
\nand abhor the bed of the uncircumcised Intermarriage with various nations is forbidden in Deut. 7:3\u20134; this interdiction is explicitly expanded to include marriage with any foreigner in Ezra 10:2 and Neh. 13:23\u201327. The Addition makes it clear that Esther had no choice in the matter. (In the Hebrew narrative, her induction into the harem is described in passive verbs that emphasize her passivity, but whether the intermarriage in itself is disturbing is left open.) The Rabbis, troubled by the thought that Esther would have intercourse with her Gentile husband, bring out her passivity by suggesting that she was just \u201cnatural soil,\u201d tilled without her consent (B. Sanh. 74b).
\nC.27. the sign of my proud position Her royal turban.
\na filthy rag Literally, \u201cmenstruous rag.\u201d This was considered ritually impure and caused defilement (Lev. 15:19\u201320, etc.).
\nC.28. And your servant has not eaten Like Daniel and his friends (Dan. 1:8, 13, 15), Esther has managed to keep kosher in a foreign court.
\nthe wine of libations Greek banquets, the model for Artaxerxes\u2019s banquets here, would begin by pouring out a little wine as an offering to the gods. For Jews, drinking the remaining wine would be tantamount to an act of idolatry.<\/p>\n
Addition D<\/p>\n
In the MT, Esther simply enters the throne room\u2014at peril to her life\u2014and awaits the king\u2019s response, hoping that he will extend his scepter and spare her. In Addition D, she is a more nervous, frail, and stereotypically feminine creature than in the MT. She gasps and faints in anxiety when approaching the powerful and frightening king and does so once again when he shows her mercy. She flatters him by claiming that her swoon was due to awe of his splendor rather than fear for her life. These qualities are intended to make her more appealing to a late Hellenistic readership, which might be uncomfortable with the Hebrew Esther\u2019s boldness. In Addition D (as in Additions B and E), the king is treated with respect, whereas in the MT he is something of a buffoon. In Addition D, glory radiates from him as he sits on his throne. He is also a kindly husband, aiding and reassuring his timorous wife. Addition D embellishes all aspects of the scene: the beauty of Esther\u2019s clothing, the king\u2019s anger, her trepidation, and\u2014after God\u2019s intervention\u2014the king\u2019s graciousness. The closest parallel to this scene is in the Hellenistic Jewish book of Judith.
\nD.10. for our law applies only to our subjects That is, the decree in 4:11 that anyone who appears before the king uninvited is to be put to death, unless the king grants clemency. A similar Persian law is reported by Herodotus (Hist., 3.772, 77, 84, 118, 140), though in Herodotus\u2019s telling it was possible to request an audience.<\/p>\n
Addition E<\/p>\n
The king writes a letter to all his subjects. As in Addition B, the style is ornate and diffuse. The king excuses his earlier decision on the grounds that it was made under deception, and he cancels \u201cHaman\u2019s\u201d decree (which was actually the king\u2019s). Addition E presents a more flattering view of Gentile royalty than one gets from the Hebrew book. The king comes across as something of a philosopher and public benefactor. He was duped but not actively complicit in Haman\u2019s scheme. His enlightenment about the dangers of slander may reveal what Jews think kings should be like. Tg. Sheni 8:13 has a similarly expansive letter in which the king proclaims his own humility and the Jews\u2019 honesty and peacefulness, and also blames the entire episode on Haman. Moreover, the Targum ascribes Haman\u2019s scheme to a desire to steal the kingdom. It even says that Haman was once \u201cfather of the king.\u201d The similarities suggest at least an awareness of a tradition of the king\u2019s second letter common to both Tg. Sheni and Addition E. However, extensive differences in wording argue against direct dependence of Tg. Sheni on Addition E.
\nE.2\u20138 Artaxerxes explains that some men (such as Haman) are led by excessive honors to become arrogant and to scheme against their benefactors. Moreover, the men in authority are often persuaded to become accomplices in the shedding of innocent blood. He promises to ignore slanderers in the future.
\nE.10\u201316 The king describes Haman\u2019s scheme against the Jews as a plot against the empire itself, an attempt to transfer power from the Persians to the Macedonians (to which nation Haman is said to belong).
\nE.10. A Macedonian On the face of it, to designate Haman as a Macedonian assumes that \u201cMacedonian\u201d is an insult and refers to an enemy (as \u201cAgagite\u201d does in MT 3:1; see the comment on A.17.a, above). But this is strange, since the Jews held no particular hostility toward the Macedonians. On the contrary, Jewish legend portrayed Alexander of Macedon favorably, and some Jews in Alexandria even styled themselves Macedonians. Moreover, LXX Esther treats royalty with some respect, and royalty for the author of this Addition would have been the Ptolemaic dynasty, which was a successor to Macedonian rule. Just possibly calling Haman a Macedonian is a gibe at Jews who took the designation for themselves. Or perhaps Haman is called a Macedonian just for the sake of the anachronistic notion that the ultimate betrayal a Persian could attempt would be to surrender the kingdom to the Macedonians, that is to say, the Greek empires founded by Alexander. Since this actually happened, calling Haman a Macedonian would be ironic, with the irony directed at the Persians.
\nE.14. would transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians What the Persian king feared did come to pass, when Alexander defeated Persia in 331 BCE. Perhaps this historical reminiscence is supposed to be a prophecy\u2014unintentional on the king\u2019s part\u2014that the Macedonian kingdom would prevail. A Hellenistic Jewish audience could savor the irony.
\nE.15. the Jews \u2026 are governed by most righteous laws The king praises the Jews and their Law.
\nE.16. children of the living God An echo of Deut. 14:1 (\u201cYou are children of the LORD your God\u201d). In Addition E, the king recognizes Israel\u2019s God as the universal deity and ruler of Persia\u2019s destiny past and present. A motif of biblical and postbiblical Jewish literature shows a foreign ruler, usually after a difficult experience, recognizing the rulership of Israel\u2019s God over all the earth; see Dan. 2:46\u201347; 3:28\u201333; Num. 22\u201324; and Jdt. 5:5\u201321. Especially close is Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s \u201cconfession of faith\u201d in Dan. 3:31\u20134:34.
\nE.17\u201324 The king orders his people\u2014on pain of death\u2014to allow the Jews to obey their own customs and requires his subjects to support the Jews in their hour of trial. Moreover, the Persians too are to celebrate the day as a reminder of deliverance and the destruction of enemies. Addition E depicts the resolution of the crisis in less violent terms than does the body of the book, in which there is as much bloodshed as in the Hebrew version (Esther 9:1\u201315).
\nE.18. has been hanged \u2026 with all his household This is a slip, since Haman\u2019s sons are not hanged until several months later; see Esther 9:10.<\/p>\n
Addition F<\/p>\n
Mordecai decodes the symbolism of his earlier dream by identifying its components with the events he has just been through. Not all items are explained, and some explanations, such as of the two dragons, do not conform well to the events of the dream; see below.
\nF.3. light and sun That is, salvation and joy. This is based on LXX Esth. 8:16 (NRSV): \u201cAnd the Jews had light and gladness.\u201d The \u201cday of darkness and gloom\u201d of Add. Esth. A.7 is left unmentioned, perhaps because it did not come to pass in the present story.
\nF.7. two lots These are not mentioned earlier but are suggested by the name Purim, a plural noun meaning \u201clots.\u201d Possibly, the number two was associated with the two days of Purim (9:27), though that is not explicit. The lots here are understood as figures for God\u2019s determination of the day when Israel will be saved and its enemies punished, namely the thirteenth and fourteenth of Adar. At the same time, Addition F divides humanity into two \u201clots\u201d or groups\u2014Israel and the Gentiles\u2014each with its own fate. This is similar to the way the Covenanters in Qumran divided the world into two \u201clots\u201d: the lot of God and the lot of Belia\u2019al (1QS 2:1, 5). The lot of God is the Covenanters\u2019 own community. The lot of the demonic Belia\u2019al comprises all the wicked, which for the Covenanters meant all other Jews and all Gentiles.
\nF.11 This concluding remark\u2014the colophon to the Greek Esther\u2014is attached to Addition F. While it seems to give specific information about the translation of the book of Esther, it contains many ambiguities. Since several kings called Ptolemy had wives named Cleopatra, the notice allows for a dating in 114\u2013113, 78\u201377, or 49\u201348 BCE. Whoever wrote the notice does not endorse the claims about the origin of the document. The book was apparently translated in Jerusalem, but the author of the colophon does not clarify which of the LXX Additions were present in the document that was brought to Egypt. Note that the author refers to the book of Esther as the \u201cLetter about Purim.\u201d<\/p>\n
Job 34<\/p>\n
Emanuel Tov<\/p>\n
In chapter 34 of the book of Job, Elihu (Elious LXX), a friend of Job (Iob LXX), again refutes Job\u2019s contention of innocence. Starting with Job\u2019s claim to be righteous, which implies that God is not righteous, Elihu asserts that Job is wicked (vv. 7\u20139) and that God\u2019s righteousness is beyond question (vv. 10\u201328). In verses 34\u201337, Elihu remarks that \u201cwise\u201d men\u2014unlike Job\u2014realize that Job has spoken foolishly and risks multiplying his sins against God.
\nThe differences between the Septuagint (LXX) and the traditional Hebrew (Masoretic Text) stem from the Greek translator\u2019s free approach: the LXX rephrases and frequently streamlines ideas and verses in the MT, probably in response to the often verbose and repetitive Hebrew text.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Cox, Claude E. \u201cElihu\u2019s Second Speech according to the Septuagint.\u201d In Studies in the Book of Job, edited by W. E. Aufrecht, 36\u201353. Studies in Religion 16. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1985.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
34:2. give ear to what is good This is a tendentious rendering of the MT, which reads: \u201cgive ear to me.\u201d The words \u201cwhat is good\u201d are influenced by the end of 34:4 MT, which is omitted in the Greek translation.
\nFollowing 34:2, the MT adds verses 3\u20134: \u201cFor the ear tests arguments \/ As the palate tastes food. \/ 4Let us decide for ourselves what is just; \/ Let us know among ourselves what is good.\u201d These verses were omitted by the Greek translator, possibly because he felt that verse 3 did not advance the main argument and that verse 4 contained merely general introductory thoughts. Scribal error could also account for this omission, since the eye of a scribe or translator could have jumped from the first occurrence of \u201cwhat is good\u201d to the second one.
\n6. and played false in my judgment Job 34:6a MT reads: \u201cI declare the judgment against me false;\u201d and continues with verses 6b\u20137: \u201cMy arrow-wound is deadly, though I am free from transgression. \/ 7What man is like Job, \/ who drinks mockery like water; \u2026?\u201d Why the Greek translator omitted these lines is uncertain.
\n8. seeing that I have not sinned or acted impiously The absence of verses 6b\u20137 in the LXX means that 34:8 LXX is still part of Job\u2019s self-defense (as quoted by Elihu). The Greek translator has accomplished this by starting verse 8 with the last words of verse 6b, skillfully continuing with Job\u2019s complaint. In the MT, however, Job\u2019s quoted speech ends at verse 6b, and Elihu\u2019s negative description of Job resumes in 34:7. Accordingly, 34:8 MT is direct speech from Elihu.
\n9. For do not say Cf. 34:9 MT: \u201cFor he says, \u2018Man gains nothing \/ When he is in God\u2019s favor.\u2019 \u201d In the MT, this verse explains the previous one (\u201cFor \u2026\u201d). That is, Elihu is claiming that Job socializes with impious men in the belief that pleasing God will not benefit him. The translator probably did not understand the Hebrew, added a negation (\u201cFor do not say\u201d), and changed the idea of this verse to a positive thought (i.e., that men are looked upon by God).
\n11. Rather, he repays a person, according to what each of them does The MT goes on to say: \u201cAnd provides for him according to his conduct;\u201d (v. 11b). The translator may have considered this half-verse superfluous after verse 11a MT.
\n13 The LXX rephrases the MT (\u201cWho placed the earth in His charge? \/ Who ordered the entire world?\u201d) while expressing the same ideas.
\n15. whence too he was formed Not found in the MT.
\n18. Impious is he who says to a king The MT reads: \u201cWould you call a king a scoundrel,\u201d and adds verse 18b: \u201cGreat men, wicked?\u201d These words were probably omitted in the LXX because of the identical thoughts expressed in both parts of the verse.
\n19 In the MT, this verse speaks about God\u2019s impartiality to people: \u201cHe is not partial to princes; \/ The noble are not preferred to the Wretched; \/ For all of them are the work of His hands.\u201d In the LXX, on the other hand, the verse probably refers to the impious person who does not honor the great (mentioned in v. 18). The Greek of this verse does not speak of God, and the last words differ completely from the MT.
\n20 In the MT, this verse\u2014not connected with the preceding one\u2014describes turmoil, death, and havoc in society: \u201cSome die suddenly in the middle of the night; \/ People are in turmoil and pass on; \/ Even great men are removed\u2014not by human hands.\u201d On the other hand, the Greek translation seems to continue the description of the preceding verse, probably describing the results of the wrongdoing recorded in that verse.
\n23. For the LORD observes all people This half-verse presents a second translation of 34:21 MT. Cf. 34:23 MT: \u201cHe has no set time for man \/ To appear before God in judgment,\u201d implying that God can summon a man at any moment. This verse has been omitted in the LXX.
\n24. he who comprehends inscrutable things \u2026 without number Cf. the MT: \u201cHe shatters mighty men without number \/ And sets others in their place.\u201d In part, the difference between the LXX and MT versions arose because the translator confused two similar-looking Hebrew words: yd\u2018 in the LXX; and yr\u2018 in the MT. Furthermore, the Greek translator has rendered 34:24a MT twice in the LXX, while omitting v. 24b MT.
\n27. because they turned aside from God\u2019s law, and \u2026 his requirements Cf. the MT: \u201cBecause they have been disloyal to Him \/ And have not understood any of His ways.\u201d The LXX translator presents \u201cdisloyalty\u201d as specifically moving away from God\u2019s law (nomos), as in verse 37, and \u201cHis ways\u201d more narrowly as dikai\u014dmata (i.e., \u201crequirements,\u201d referring to the mitzvot). Emphasis on adherence to God\u2019s nomos reflects late biblical and later periods.
\nFollowing 34:27, the MT continues with verses 28\u201330: \u201cThus He lets the cry of the poor come before Him; \/ He listens to the cry of the needy. 29When He is silent, who will condemn? \/ If He hides His face, who will see Him, \/ Be it nation or man? 30The impious man rules no more, \/ Nor do those who ensnare the people.\u201d At the end of Job 34 MT, reasons are given why God acts against the wicked: they turned away from God (v. 27), the persons harmed by the wicked turn to God (v. 28), and God does not want the godless to reign (v. 30). In addition, Elihu says that God reveals himself only when he wishes (v. 29). The LXX presents only the argument in verse 27 MT. Given that Elihu\u2019s main argumentation is not harmed by this shortening, stylistic abbreviation is probably involved.
\nAlso lacking in the LXX are verses 31\u201333 MT, describing why the wicked are punished: \u201cHas he said to God, \/ \u2018I will bear [my punishment] and offend no more. \/ 32What I cannot see You teach me. \/ If I have done iniquity, I shall not do so again\u2019?\u201d \/ 33Should He requite as you see fit? \/ But you have despised [Him]! \/ You must decide, not I; \/ Speak what you know.\u201d The Greek translator may have removed these verses because the same ideas are presented in the preceding chapter (Job 33:14\u201333).
\n36. Nonetheless, learn O Iob! No longer give a response as fools do According to the MT, Job continues to be chastised: \u201cWould that Job were tried to the limit \/ For answers which befit sinful men.\u201d The LXX, however, is much more lenient, speaking about a learning process (possibly due to an interchange of similar-looking words: MT ybhn, interpreted in the LXX as ybyn).
\n37. lest we add to our sins \u2026 lawlessness In his concluding remark in the MT, Elihu makes harsh statements about Job\u2019s behavior. The LXX, on the other hand, refers to the combined sins of Job and his friends (\u201cwe \u2026 our sins\u201d). The explanation of LXX is also assumed by the Rabbis in Lev. Rabbah 4: \u201cSo did Job say, \u2018If indeed I have erred, My error remains with me\u2019 (Job 19:4). His friends replied, \u2018If he adds to his transgression, he will add sin amongst us,\u2019 (Job 34:37) amongst us do you add sin.\u2019 \u201d
\nThe paraphrase in the LXX specifies the type of transgressions involved, referring to anomia, \u201clawlessness\u201d\u2014that is, rejection of the nomos, the law (see also the comment on 34:27).<\/p>\n
Daniel 4<\/p>\n
Emanuel Tov<\/p>\n
Daniel 4 in the Masoretic Text (MT) tells of King Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s (Nabouchodonosor\u2019s LXX) dream of an enormous tree that provides shelter and food for many. By divine decree, the tree is felled with only its stump left remaining in the ground (vv. 1\u201314). Daniel\u2019s interpretation indicates that the dream refers to the king, and he tries to convince him to atone for his sins (vv. 15\u201324). However, the king\u2019s subsequent behavior attests to arrogance and madness (vv. 25\u201330). Finally, the king turns to God, is fully rehabilitated, and is returned to power as king (vv. 31\u201334). The commentary below covers only verses 1\u201324.
\nThe Septuagint (LXX) version of chapter 4, like that of chapters 5\u20136, differs greatly from the Aramaic text of the MT. (Daniel is one of the few biblical books that contain portions originally written in Aramaic.) The Greek text lacks a few sections, such as verses 3\u20136 of the MT, but on the whole is much longer (see vv. 14a, 30a\u2013c, 34a\u2013c). Its exegetic expansions depend much on the language and imagery of the stories and dreams in chapters 2\u20133 and 5\u20137. At the same time, the MT also seems to be expanded (see vv. 3\u20136), so that the exact relation between the two texts is complicated. The LXX reflects various theological interpretations that may derive from either the translator or the rewritten Aramaic composition. Thus, all MT verses referring to Daniel possessing a \u201cspirit of the holy gods\u201d are lacking in the LXX (4:5\u20136; 5:11, 14), the phrase \u201cMost High\u201d is added to the MT (v. 21), and the king\u2019s mania is described as resulting from his destruction of Jerusalem (vv. 1, 19).<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Henze, Matthias. The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4. Supplements for the Study of Judaism 61. Leiden: Brill, 1999.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
4:1 In the MT, the story of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s dream is preceded by an introduction that appears in Dan. 3:31\u201333. This introduction in the MT presents chapter 4 as an autobiographical letter of the king to all the peoples. The king\u2019s praise of God at the end of the chapter (4:34) forms the end of this letter. The LXX version of the story contains no such introduction. Instead, a passage corresponding to MT 3:31\u201333 has been added to verse 34 at the end of the story: \u201cAnd now, I will show to you the deeds that the great God has done with me (v. 34c LXX).\u201d; the king\u2019s account is here described as a \u201ccircular letter\u201d (4:34b LXX, corresponding to the MT\u2019s introductory remark\u2014correctly placed\u2014at 3:32). That verses 34a\u2013c LXX refer to the future, although the events they describe have already taken place in the preceding verses, indicates that their position at the end of the Greek chapter is probably a later change.
\nIn the eighteenth year of his reign The LXX adds this historical heading to the first verse of the MT. Undoubtedly, this addition is meant to imply that the king\u2019s mania resulted from his destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, a link not made in the MT. The 18th year of King Nebuchadnezzar is also mentioned in Jer. 52:29 MT as the year of the destruction of the Temple. The same event is mentioned in an addition to Dan. 4:19 in the LXX: \u201chow you ravaged the house of the living God.\u201d
\non my throne This is a free rendering of the MT: \u201cin my palace.\u201d In the rewritten Greek Daniel, the king was at peace and prospering on his throne, probably because Jerusalem had been destroyed earlier in the same year.
\n2 The LXX contains a free paraphrase of the MT: \u201cI had a dream that frightened me, and my thoughts in bed and the vision of my mind alarmed me.\u201d It is unclear whether the \u201con my bed\u201d of the LXX reflects the end of v. 2 or the beginning of v. 7. The phrase \u201cin bed\u201d appears in verses 2, 7, and 10 MT, but is rendered in Greek only once within verses 2, 7 LXX.
\nAfter Dan. 4:2, the MT adds verses 3\u20136: \u201cI gave an order to bring all the wise men of Babylon before me to let me know the meaning of the dream. 4The magicians, exorcists, Chaldeans, and diviners came, and I related the dream to them, but they could not make its meaning known to me. 5Finally, Daniel, called Belteshazzar after the name of my god, in whom the spirit of the holy gods was, came to me, and I related the dream to him, [saying], 6Belteshazzar, chief magician, in whom I know the spirit of the holy gods to be, and whom no mystery baffles, tell me the meaning of my dream vision that I have seen.\u2019 \u201d
\nThis addition in the MT indicates that the king first summons the wise men. When the king realizes that they are unable to explain the dream (v. 4), Daniel is asked to explain it (vv. 5\u20136). In both versions, the dream itself is recited at this point (vv. 7\u201314). In chapter 4, the MT sequence is problematic, since the magicians are found unable to interpret a dream whose content has not yet been described.
\n7. I was sleeping The MT has a longer text\u2014\u201cIn the visions of my mind in bed I saw\u201d\u2014that was possibly abbreviated in the LXX.
\na tall tree In the LXX, the description of the tree in the king\u2019s dream is more elaborate than that of the MT, whose verse 7b reads simply: \u201cI saw a tree of great height in the midst of the earth.\u201d
\nIts appearance was huge Echoed nearly verbatim at verse 8 LXX: \u201cand its appearance was great,\u201d which likewise does not occur in the MT, unless it represents \u201cThe tree grew and became mighty\u201d (v. 8a MT).
\nthere was no other like it Like several other details in the LXX, this addition is based on Ezek. 31:8: \u201cNo tree in the garden of God \/ Was its peer in beauty\u201d (NJPS).
\n9, 8 These verses appear in reverse sequence in the MT (Dan. 4:8, 9). There seems to be no major reason for preferring one sequence to the other. Verse 8 continues the train of thought of verse 7 regarding the height of the tree, with both referring to its \u201cappearance,\u201d while verse 9 mentions other aspects of the tree. However, in the explanation of the dream in verses 17\u201318\u201319, the MT follows the sequence of the LXX (vv. 7\u20139\u20138). That tradition is also reflected in the similar picture in Ezek. 31:5\u20136, 10.
\n8. and its span to the clouds This translation, stressing the size of the tree, seems to be influenced by the picture of the large tree in Ezek. 31:10 MT: \u201cthrust its top up among the leafy trees.\u201d In the Greek version of Dan. 4:8, MT \u2018awotim is rendered \u201cclouds\u201d on the basis of \u2018awot, \u201cclouds.\u201d
\nThe sun and the moon dwelled in it This poetic image, indicating that the tree is exceedingly large, may represent a Babylonian astrological motif.
\nilluminated Probably represents a second rendering of \u1e25azuteh, \u201cits visage, image,\u201d translated as \u201cappearance\u201d in NETS earlier in the verse.
\n9. The Greek translation of Dan. 4:9 is a rephrased and somewhat rearranged parallel of the MT. The LXX includes an intriguing departure from the first line of the Hebrew verse (\u201cIts foliage was beautiful\u201d) by specifying the exceeding length of the branches (30 stadia is approximately 6,000 meters). The second line of the MT verse (\u201cAnd its fruit abundant\u201d) appears toward the end of the Greek verse (\u201cIts fruit was abundant\u201d). Two lines in the MT version (\u201cThere was food for all in it. \/ \u2026 All creatures fed on it\u201d) are merged in the LXX as \u201cit sustained all living creatures.\u201d The MT\u2019s \u201cin its leaves\u201d (NJPS: \u201con its branches\u201d) is rendered in the LXX as \u201cin it.\u201d The phrase \u201chatched their brood\u201d in the LXX is influenced by Ezek. 31:6 (NJPS: \u201cIn its branches nested \/ All the birds of the sky\u201d).
\n10. an angel was sent in power out of heaven The MT has \u201ca holy Watcher coming down from heaven.\u201d In the LXX, the angel does not just \u201ccome down from heaven,\u201d but is actually sent by God. The LXX word for angel (angelos) renders here and in Dan 4:20 the Aramaic \u2018ir, \u201cwatcher, guardian angel.\u201d These \u201cwatchers\u201d cannot be identified with any certainty in biblical literature before the time of Daniel, while in the extrabiblical literature they appear frequently in such Apocryphal books as 1 Enoch and Jubilees, and in various Qumran documents.
\n11. And he called The MT adds \u201cloudly.\u201d
\nCut \u2026 useless The MT has \u201cHew down the tree, lop off its Branches, \/ Strip off its foliage, scatter its fruit. \/ Let the beasts of the field flee from beneath it \/ And the birds from its branches.\u201d Both texts expand at different points, yet the general ideas are very similar. The MT depicts the cutting down of the tree in greater detail, while the LXX adds, \u201cfor it has been decreed by the Most High,\u201d thereby stressing that the real force behind the angel is God. The addition in the LXX of hypsistos, \u201cthe Most High,\u201d is one of the characteristics of the Greek Daniel, visible also in the explanation of the dream in Dan. 4:21 as well as in 5:1.
\n12. Spare one of its roots in the ground The MT has \u201cBut leave the stump with its roots in the ground,\u201d and adds: \u201cIn fetters of iron and Bronze, \/ In the grass of the field, \/ Let him be drenched with the dew of heaven.\u201d The stump signifies the hope of restoration as in Isa. 6:13; 11:1. The words \u201cin fetters of iron and bronze\u201d are not represented in the Old Greek, but they appear in the king\u2019s description of his dream in Dan. 4:14a LXX as \u201cwith shackles and bronze manacles.\u201d This image shows that the speaker is moving from tree imagery to beast imagery, but it is unclear how the \u201cfetters of iron and bronze\u201d relate to either one. One line of interpretation refers to the placing of metal bands on trees, while another ascribes this image to the king (cf. v. 14a). A third possibility is that the shackles were put on animals.
\nVarious changes differentiate the LXX from the MT: The LXX omits \u201cIn the grass of the field,\u201d moves \u201cwith the dew of heaven\u201d to the next verse, and expands the picture of the MT\u2019s \u201cAnd share earth\u2019s verdure with the beasts\u201d to \u201che may feed on grass like an ox \/ with the animals of the earth in the mountains.\u201d The \u201cox\u201d appears again in the interpretation of the dream (vv. 32\u201333) and is also mentioned in 5:21 \u201cHe was fed grass like cattle.\u201d There is no parallel in the MT of Daniel for the \u201cmountains\u201d of the LXX. Possibly this word indicates that these animals are closer to God.
\n13. his body may be changed \u2026 and he may graze The MT: \u201cLet his mind be altered from that of a man, \/ And let him be given the mind of a beast.\u201d The LXX mentions the \u201cox\u201d in the previous verse and \u201cgraze\u201d in the present one.
\nfor seven years This represents a free rendering of the MT: \u201cAnd let seven seasons pass over him,\u201d continuing the image of the previous verse (see also v. 29 LXX). Josephus, Jerome, and medieval Jewish commentators also explain the MT\u2019s \u201cseven seasons\u201d as seven years. Likewise Nabonidus\u2019s affliction in Prayer of Nabonidus, lasts seven years (see note 3).
\n14 Before this verse, the MT adds \u201cThis sentence is decreed by the Watchers; \/ This verdict is commanded by the Holy Ones.\u201d Cf. Dan. 4:20 LXX: \u201cthe verdict of the great God will come upon you.\u201d The involvement of the Watchers or God is not represented in the LXX, but the essence of their verdict is transferred to the next words.
\nuntil he acknowledges The supreme power of God must be acknowledged by the king, according to the LXX, and by all living creatures, according to the MT. The LXX states that God \u201cdoes with them whatever he wishes,\u201d while in the MT, \u201cHe gives it [i.e., the kingdom] to whom He wishes.\u201d Interestingly enough, the exact phrase in the MT is found in the LXX in Dan. 4:28, indicating that the reworked text of the LXX is based on a Hebrew and not a Greek text. The MT adds in v. 14: \u201cAnd He may set over it even the lowest of men.\u201d The closest parallels to the idea in the MT are probably Hannah\u2019s Song in 1 Sam 2:8 (\u201cHe raises the poor from the dust, \/ Lifts up the needy from the dunghill, \/ Setting them with nobles, \/ Granting them seats of honor\u201d) and Job 5:11.
\n14a. It was cut down before me \u2026 He ate grass with the animals There is a tendency in Dan. 4 MT to change details in the wording of the dream to agree with the subsequent description of its interpretation. The LXX goes one step further by reporting the fulfillment of God\u2019s command (vv. 11\u201314) in an added verse, 14a, within the dream itself. This new verse, using the words of the earlier verses, reports the cutting down of the tree and its change\u2014now symbolizing the king\u2014into a beast (for the wording, cf. v. 12). The diction of this added verse shows that it was originally composed in Aramaic.
\n15 The general contents of the Greek and Aramaic verses run parallel, but the details differ. In the LXX, the king calls upon Daniel for the interpretation of the dream; according to the MT, Daniel does not need to be called, since he has been on the scene from Dan. 4:5 onward. As in verses 3\u20136, the LXX does not mention the contest between Daniel and the magicians, which is a central element in the MT. Further, the equation between the names of Daniel and Belteshazzar made in the MT of this verse as well as in verses 5 and 16 is lacking in the LXX. It is found in both the MT and LXX of Dan. 1:7.
\n16. But \u2026 trembling seized him \u2026 his appearance changed The expanded text of the LXX reports Daniel\u2019s physical reaction following Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s account of his vision. The MT merely reads: \u201cThen Daniel, called Belteshazzar, was perplexed for a while, and alarmed by his thoughts.\u201d This expansion is probably influenced by his reaction following the appearance of the handwriting on the wall in Dan 5:6 MT: \u201cThe king\u2019s face darkened, and his thoughts alarmed him; the joints of his loins were loosened and his knees knocked together.\u201d
\n17\u201319. The tree \u2026 it is you, O king The interpretation of the dream in these verses leans heavily on the wording of the dream in Dan. 4:7\u20138, especially in the MT. In its reworking of the text, the LXX adds images referring directly to the figure of the king. Thus, the LXX adds a section about nations serving the king (v. 18). The growth of the tree symbolizes the king\u2019s \u201cpride and power\u201d (v. 19). This aspect is enhanced by the reference to the king\u2019s destruction of Jerusalem (v. 19: \u201cyou ravaged the house of the living God\u201d), which was considered a direct insult against God (see also the comment on v. 1, In the eighteenth year of his reign).
\n20 The detailed description of the tree\u2019s fate in the MT is shortened in the LXX, but some theological aspects are enhanced. As in verse 10, the LXX indicates here that God sends the angel and further adds that \u201cthe verdict of the great God will come upon you\u201d (cf. v. 21 MT).
\n21. and his angels The king will be pursued by God and the angels in the LXX, while only by God in the MT. The LXX thus names the unidentified agents who inflict the punishment on the king in the next verse in the MT.
\n22. prison \u2026 a desert place The LXX explains the punishment of the MT (\u201cdriven away from men\u201d) in more practical terms. At this point, the MT adds the precise details of the dream.
\n23. The LORD lives in heaven \u2026 over the whole earth Explains the parallel statement in the MT of verse 23 (\u201cHeaven is sovereign\u201d), which is the only reference in Scripture to \u201cheaven\u201d as a designation for God.
\n24. equity might be given \u2026 you might be long-lived \u2026 and not be destroyed The king\u2019s reward, should he repent, is described in detail in the LXX but not in the MT.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Bible Translated into Greek (The Septuagint) Introduction to the Septuagint Selections Emanuel Tov The text selections that follow, from the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT), are portions of ten books of the Bible and of one apocryphal book, 1 Esdras, which is not found in the … <\/p>\n