The Relationship of the Additions to the Book of Esther to the Maccabean Crisis

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF ESTHER TO THE MACCABEAN CRISIS

ANNE E. GARDNER

Newcastle-on-Tyne

The book of Esther in the LXX and the so-called Lucianic') recension contains six major additions and a colophon over and above the Massoretic text. It is usually accepted that BICKERMANN2) is correct in his hypothesis that the colophon is an official librarian's s note which was affixed to the book when it was added to the library's collection. This note would fix the date of the book's in- ception if it were clearer which Ptolemy and Cleopatra were being referred to. BICKERMANN himself argues that there were only three Ptolemies associated with a Cleopatra in the fourth year of their reign, but in the case of two of them, Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyros (114-10 B.C.) and Ptolemy XIII (49-48 B.C.) Cleopatra was a Regent acting on behalf of her son and brother respectively. On official documents during a regency the verb "reign" was plural and the name of the Queen preceded that of the King whereas in Esther "reign" is singular and the name Ptolemy is before that of Cleopatra. Thus BICKERMANNasserts that the Ptolemy to whom the colophon refers is Ptolemy XII Auletos and the Cleopatra is Cleopatra V, his sister and his wife in 78-77 B.C.3). Unfortunately not every scholar agrees with BtcxERMnNrr on this issue, preferring one or the other of the above named figures4).

1) C. A. MOORE,"A Greek Witness to a Different Hebrew Text of Esther", ZAW 79 (1967), pp. 351-8, throws considerable doubt upon the identification of Greek Text 'A' as Lucianic. 2) Cf. "The Colophon of the Greek Book of Ester", JBL 63 (1944), pp. 339-62. 3) Cf. BICKERMANN,op. cit., pp. 346-7. 4) B. JACOB,"Das Buch Esther bei LXX", ZAW 10 (1890), pp. 27-80 prefers Ptolemy Soter as do WILLRICHand EWALD(cf. R. H. PFEIFFER,History of New Testament Times with an Introductionto the Apocrypha, New York, 1949, p. 310). JACOB,WILLRICH and EWALDof course formed their hypotheses prior to BICKER- MANN'sarticle, although PFEIFFER,who knew BICKERMANN'swork, still thinks it possible that Ptolemy IX was intended. 2

The six major additions in the Greek text of Esther are tradi- tionally indicated by the letters A-F. A encompasses 11:2-12:6 and includes Mordecai's dream, Mordecai's denunciation of the two eunuchs and Haman's intended revenge. It is noteworthy that Josephus and the Old Latin text omit 11:12-12:6. B is 13:1-7. It tells of the Edict of Artaxerxes against the Jews. All versions based upon the Greek text include these verses. C is 13:8-18 and 14:1-19. It relates the prayers of Mordecai and Esther. 14:6-12 are not in Josephus nor in one codex of the Old Latin. D is 15:1-16, Esther's admission to the King. All versions based upon the Greek text include this addition. E is 16:1-24, the decree of Artaxerxes on behalf of the Jews. All versions based upon the Greek include this. F is 10:4-13, the interpretation of Mordecai's dream. Josephus omits F and the Aramaic Targum and the M.T. have considerable differences here. The presence of these extra verses in the LXX raises the question of the latter's relationship to the Massoretic text. Is it merely a translation plus the additions? Apparently not. H. J. CooK5) has shown that text A-the so-called Lucianic text-which follows the Hebrew M.T. renders it even more closely than text B (LXX) up to 8:5 but then differs from it consistently for no apparent reason. The conclusion drawn from this is that the Greek texts and the Massoretic draw from different semitic Vorlagen. This was originally suggested by ToRREY6) and followed by several scholars, including C. A. MooRE7), to whose work CooK, in the present article, is con- sciously adding. The possibility is now raised, that the additions in the Greek text, may have been present in their semitic Vorlage either as part of the original tale or as a slightly later addition. For the pur- pose of this article it is extremely important to ascertain the original language and context of composition if any part of the additions is to be adduced as resulting from the Maccabean crisis in Palestine or the Diaspora. Unfortunately scholars who have analysed addi-

5) "The 'A' Text of the Greek Versions of the Book of Esther", ZAW 81 (1969), pp. 369-76. Cf. especially pp. 374-5. 6) "The Older Book of Esther", HThR 37 (1944), pp. 1-40. 7) Op. cit.