Additions to Esther
Online Text for Additions to Esther
Online Resources for Additions to Esther
Offline Resources for Additions to Esther
Information on Additions to Esther
Demetrius R. Dumm writes: "Est has been preserved in two substantially
different forms: a Hebr text, assumed by most scholars to be original; and a
Gk text (also existing in two rather divergent forms—LXX and Lucian), which
freely translates the Hebrew and adds to it six large (deuterocanonical) sections.
When Jerome translated this book, he lumped the Gk sections together at the
end of his work. In this commentary, they are restored to their proper places,
where they are designated by capital letters. The Gk numbering (11:2-12:26;
13:1-7; 13:8-14:19; 15:1-16; 16:1-27) is adopted in many translations. The Greek
additions to Est are the 'deuterocanonical' portions, and they were, as usual,
questioned by Jerome. But they were finally recognized as canonical by the Council
of Trent." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, p. 628)
James King West writes: "There are six items contained in these five sections.
(1) 11:2-12 prefaces the story with a dream in which Mordecai receives a premonition
of the events that are to follow and gives a variant of the story of the plot
against the king discovered by Mordecai, which is related in 2:21-23 and alluded
to in 6:2. (2) In 13:1-7 the text of the decree drafted by Haman in the king's
name is supplied. (3) 13:8-18 and 14:1-19 supply appropriate prayers offered
by Mordecai and Esther as she prepares to enter the presence of the king to
intercede for the Jews. In Mordecai's prayer is a pious explanation for his
refusal to bow to Haman; Esther's prayer ends with the striking petition, 'And
save me from my fear!' (4) 15:1-16 is a much more elaborate account of Esther's
preparation, entrance, and reception by the king than the brief statement in
5:1-2 which it replaces. (5) 16:1-24 supplies the royal decree nullifying the
original one against the Jews and making provisions for their self-defense.
Here we learn the surprising fact that Haman is not a Persian but a Macedonian!
(16:10) The edict also provides the explicit connection of this letter with
the Feast of Purim (cf. the colophon 11:1). (6) As the Greek Esther opens with
an account of Mordecai's dream, so it closes with its interpretation and a note
as to how it had been fulfilled. The appended colophon credits the Greek translation
to one Lysimachus of Jerusalem. Several discrepancies between the Greek and
the Hebrew texts make it appear likely that the additions were made at a later
time in order to clarify and 'correct' the older version (cf. 12:2 with 2:21-23;
12:5 with 6:3; 12:6 with 3:2-6; 16:10 with 3:1; 16:22-23 with 9:20-28)."
(Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 456)
David J. A. Clines writes: "The Additions are found only in the Greek
Bible, and not in the Hebrew, but some of them seem to have existed earlier
in a Hebrew or Aramaic form. This is the case with Additions A, C, D, and F,
where traces of a Semitic original are still visible. Additions B and E (the
royal letters), on the other hand, are obvious examples of flowery Greek rhetorical
style and must have been composed originally in Greek. All the Additions are
most probably Jewish in origin, especially Additions A and F, which breathe
an anti-Gentile spirit. The Semitic Additions are quite likely Palestinian in
origin, while the Greek Additions more probably come from a Jewish community
outside Palestine, such as that in Alexandira, Egypt where the LXX version of
the Bible was made. The date of the Additions is witnessed to by the unusual
colophon or conluding bibliographic notice attached to the book at 11:1 (omitted
by NAB). This librarian's note records that the Greek Esther, including the
Additions, was brought from Jerusalem, where it had been translated, to Egypt
in the fourth year of Ptolemy and Cleopatra. The date is therefore ca. 114 B.C.
(but ca. 77 or ca. 48 B.C. are also possibilities, since there was more than
one Ptolemy with a wife named Cleopatra)." (Harper's Bible Commentary,
p. 815)
David A. deSilva writes: "The date, however, helpfully records the year
in which Dositheus brought the scroll to Alexandria. Unfortunately, every successor
of Ptolemy I took the name Ptolemy, and several were married to a Cleopatra.
Bickerman (1944: 346-47) determined that the translation was accomplished in
78-77 B.C.E., the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy XII Auletes and Cleopatra
V. The other popular date is 114-113 B.C.E., the fourth year of the reign of
Ptolemy VIII Soter II and an earlier Cleopatra (Moore 1977: 250; Jacob 1890:
279-80). Bickerman rejects this possibility—as well as a third, Ptolemy
XIII, the brother and husband of the famous Cleopatra—since the queen was
acting in both cases as a regent for a younger Ptolemy in the fourth years of
those reigns, and official documents listed Cleopatra first in those cases,
unlike the colophon of Esther. In addition to two lively possibilities for the
date of the translation, the colophon also preserves a name, Lysimachus—a
resident of Jerusalem, probably with an Egyptian Jewish background (his father's
name, Ptolemy, suggests this), thus perhaps explaining why the book should speak
so well to the Egyptian Jewish situation, whither it was sent (Pfeiffer 1949:
311)." (Introducing the Apocrypha, p. 117)
J. Alberto Soggin writes: "As we have seen, the proto-canonical book does
not mention the name of God once, nor is it very concerned with Jewish belief;
these elements appear continually in the additions. It is therefore easy for
those who defend the need to read Esther with the additions to show that without
them the book would be theologically void and its presence within the canon
incongruous, to say the least. But notwithstanding the presence of these theological
elements, the additions, like the Hebrew text, have a strongly nationalistic
attitude which is also projected on to almost a cosmic plane, in this way far
transcending the original dispute between Mordecai and Haman. They thus become
a kind of anti-Gentile manifesto, carrying on a discourse which we have seen
to be extremely problematical in itself. This is probably the reason why they
were not admitted into the Hebrew canon, despite the theological element, which
admirably completes what is lacking in the proto-canonical Esther." (Introduction
to the Old Testament, pp. 440-441)
Daniel J. Harrington writes: "The Hebrew Esther is canonical for Jews
and Protestants. In the Roman Catholic and Greek and Russian Orthodox churches,
the expanded Greek version with the additions is the canonical form. The canonical
status of Esther was debated in antiquity among both Jews and Christians. It
is the only book in the Hebrew Bible not represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Indeed, the revised and expanded Greek version of Esther was most likely produced
to make the book more acceptable." (Invitation to the Apocrypha,
p. 53)