Part 62
Judith Serves her Lord (12:10-13:10)
Judith's Promises to Holofernes (10:18-11:23)
The fourth night, Holofernes holds a drinking party (see 6:21). He asks Bagoas, the eunuch in charge of his personal affairs, to persuade the 'Hebrew woman' (12:11) to join the party; were she not to do so, he and his associates will be disgraced. Were Judith able to refuse his advances (the term refers to sexual intercourse; see Sus 54), she would make him a laughing-stock.
Judith's arrival stirs the enemy camp; the soldiers, judging by her, speculate that they had best destroy all the Israelite men; with 'women like this among them... they will be able to beguile the whole world!' (10:19). Holofernes rises from his ornate bed to greet Judith. He and his attendants are also struck by her beauty. After accepting her obeisance, Holo-
JUDITH 640
Bagoas' request is itself of double meaning. Addressing Judith as paidiske (12:13), h£ could be complimenting her as 'maiden' or insulting her as 'serving girl' or even 'prostitute'. With his invitation that she become as the women who serve Nebuchadnezzar in the palace (11:4) the sexual undertone continues. Unlike Vashti's response to the eunuchs who invite her to the king's banquet (Esth i), Judith affirms that she will do whatever is pleasing in the eyes of '[her] Lord' and that will be something to boast of until the day of her death.
Preserving her reputation, she also avers that nothing sinful, defiling, or disgraceful occurred. The people, in response, bless God.
Uzziah then praises Judith as most blessed of all women (see Judg 5:24 and Lk 1:48); his prayer is that her story redound to everlasting honour, for she risked her life to avert disaster. His calling her 'daughter' (v. 18) may be a continuation of his paternalism; it may also indicate her young age. Saying 'Amen', the people assent.
Judith's Military Instructions (14:1-10)
Seeing Judith reclining on lambskins, Holofernes' appetite becomes uncontrolled: having planned to have intercourse with her from the moment he saw her, he can almost taste conquest. He encourages her to enjoy herself (12:17) and to 'be with us' (see Gen 39:10; Tob 3:8; Sus 20—1); the sexual implications become increasingly overt. Judith feeds his fantasy by accepting his invitation to drink, for 'today is the greatest day of my whole life' (12:18). So delighted is Holofernes that he drinks more than he had ever before consumed. As it is growing late, his retinue leaves, and Bagoas closes the tent from the outside. Dead drunk, Holofernes lies sprawled on his bed. Judith, alone with him (for the full ten verses of 13:1—10), offers one final prayer for strength (she always prays before her major undertakings), yanks the general's sword from the bedpost, grabs his hair, and with two strokes beheads him. This new Jael, who struck the temple of Sisera after giving him something to drink and lulling him into a false sense of safety (Judg 5:26), or new David, who felled Goliath and then decapitated him (i Sam 17:51), Judith has rescued her people by striking the head of the enemy force. Holofernes' death is, as Judith had prayed, by the hand of a female.
Judith, taking control of military strategy, instructs Bethulia's leaders to hang Holofernes' head from the battlements of the town wall; the heads of Goliath (i Sam 17:54), Saul
(i Sam 31:9—10); Ahab's family (2 Kings 10:7—8); Nicanor (i Mace 7:47; 2 Mace 15:35); and John the Baptist (Mt 14:8) were similarly displayed. Then, at dawn, they are to prepare for battle but not descend to the plain. When the Assyrians see the attack forming, they will rush to Holofernes, only to find a decapitated corpse. While they panic, Israel will strike.
Summoned by Judith, Achior faints (lit. falls on his face; see 6:9) at the sight of the head. Revived, he prostrates himself before Judith, blesses her 'in every tent of Judah' (v. 7; see Judg 5:24), and asks her to relate her experiences in the Assyrian camp. When she finishes, the entire town cheers. Achior, seeing what the God of Israel had accomplished, submits to circumcision; his descendants, although Ammonites (see Deut 23:3), remain among Israel 'to this day' (v. 10; see Josh 6:25). Achior is reminiscent of Ruth who, as a Moabite, should also have been prevented from joining Israel. Both leave their people, their gods, and their land, and both affiliate not only with the covenant community but also through a female, maternal representative. Achior has also been seen as an expression of the ideology of proselytism and a type of Abraham (Roitman 1992), as well as a type of Barak (White 1992).
The decapitation has been interpreted both as a perverse sacrifice and as a scene of castration. Regarding the former, Judith does appear to function in a priestly manner: she wears special clothes, bathes for ritual purity, is sexually abstinent, painlessly slits the throat of the victim, receives the aid of a helper in disposing of the victim's parts, and retains a portion for communal (visual) consumption (see 16:18—20). Regarding the latter, the connection of the story of Judith to Gen 34 already provides a reference to genital wounding, and modern commentators read the symbolic value of Judith's action by connecting decapitation to castration (Dundes 1974; Levine 1992). Quickly leaving the tent, Judith hands Holofernes' head to her waiting servant, who puts it in the food sack. Then the women leave, as they had done the previous nights, 'to pray'. The female donkey, laden excessively with the spoils from Holofernes' tent, will later prove just as doughty as her mistress (Craven 1983).
Assyrian Defeat (14:11-15:7)
The Israelites, bolstered by Judith's deed, set outto the mountain passes; the Assyrian generals, so convinced of their opponents' weakness that they view the incursion as suicidal (14:13), go to wake Holofernes. Bagoas, expecting to find Holofernes sleeping next to Judith, begins the panic: seeing the headless corpse and then finding Judith's tent empty, he rushes out crying that the Hebrew woman has shamed the house of Nebuchadnezzar. Headless, the Assyrian soldiers flee to the hills; there the waiting Israelites kill many and pursue the rest to the Damascus borders. Other Israelites, those who had not directly engaged the Assyrian army (the women? the weak?) loot the camp; there being so much booty, every village prospers.
Return to Bethulia (13:11-20)
Returning to Bethulia, Judith calls the sentries to open the gate, for 'God is with us' (13:11). The entire town, surprised that she has returned and thus, apparently, not as secure in their faith as she, welcomes the woman. Then Judith publicly praises God, and in testimony to divine protection displays Holofernes' head and the canopy from his bed. Celebrating her action, she repeats her prayer now as thanksgiving, 'The Lord has struck him down by the hand of a women' (v. 15).
Israel Celebrates Victory (15:8-14)
Joakim the high priest, with the council, arrives to bless Judith, the 'great boast of Israel' who by her own hand (v. 9) rescued Israel. Having looted the Assyrian camp, the people present Judith with Holofernes' tent, silver dinnerware, and equipment. Judith loads the spoils on carts and hitches them to her mules. As the women of Israel come to praise her and
641 JUDITH
perform a dance in her honour (see 3 Mace 6:32, 35; 7:16), she distributes branches (thyrsus', see 2 Mace 10:7) to them. These branches were also carried by the Bacchantes, the worshippers of Dionysus. The book of Judith may even be read as a parody of the worship of the wine god: here the decapitated head is of Holofernes, not Pentheus, yet gender roles are still muddled and drunkenness leads to downfall.
fernes' property: the bed canopy becomes a votive offering, much like Goliath's sword (i Sam 21:9) and Saul's armour (31:10). For three months, the celebration in Jerusalem continues.
Epilogue (16:21-5)
Returning to Bethulia but not to her rooftop, Judith's fame does not abate. Many men seek to wed her, but she remains celibate until her death at the age of 105. At this time, she frees her slave (thereby belying artistic renditions which typically depict the slave as much older than Judith) and distributes her property to her near relatives and to those of her husband. Judith is interred in the same burial cave as Manasseh. The people mourn for her seven days (see Sir 22:12), a SecondTemple innovation.
Then all the women crown themselves with olive leaves and, with Judith at their head, dance; the men, armed and with garlands, follow her to Jerusalem.
Judith's Hymn (16:1-18)
Judith's hymn, sung also by all the people, is an amalgam of Hebrew and Greek ideas. For the Hebrew tradition, women's celebration of victory in song is a common motif (Ex 15:20—1; Craven (1983) proposes that Jdt 16 parallels Miriam's Song at the Sea; Judg 11:34; I ^am 18:6-7). Like the Song of Deborah
The last line recollects the stories of the Judges: no one threatens Israel again during her lifetime, or for a long time after her death.
(Judg 5), Judith's hymn invokes the God who crushes wars and delivers Israel, personalizes the enemy in terms of its threats, and celebrates the heroine's role. Reflecting its Hellenistic context even as it highlights Israel's supremacy, the hymn compares the captivating and successful Judith with the inability of the Titans as well as the Medes and the Persians to defeat Holofernes.
Bal, M. (1994), 'Head Hunting: "Judith on the Cutting Edge of Know-
ledge"', 63: 3-34. Camponigro, M. S. (1992), 'Judith, Holding the Tale of Herodotus,' in
Judith then sings a 'new song' to the invincible God, who can move mountains and melt rocks, whom no one can resist. Emphasizing her maternal role, she speaks of the threats to her infants, children, young men and women (v. 4). Highlighting again the Hellenistic setting, she exalts herself even over the Titans (v. 6). Celebrating the Israelites' miraculous victory, she contrasts the Assyrian might with their defeat by 'sons of slave girls' (or young women, v. 12).
VanderKam (1992:47-59). Craven, T. (1983), Artistry and Faith in the Book of Judith, SBLDS 70
(Chico, Calif: Scholars Press). Dundes, A. (1974), 'Comment on "Narrative Structure sin the Book of
Judith" ', in W. Wuellner (ed.), Protocol Series of the Colloquies of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, n: 28-9. Haag, E. (1963), Studienzum Buchejudith: Seinetheologische Bedeutung
und literarische Eigenart, Trierer Theologische Studien, 16 (Trier: Paulinus-Verlag). Levine, A.-J. (1992), 'Sacrifice and Salvation: Otherness and Domes-
She ends with the wisdom motif that fear of the Lord is more precious than sacrifice and the apocalyptic image of the eternal vengeance taken by God against those who rise against Israel.
tication in the Book of Judith', in VanderKam (1992:17—30). Moore, C. A. (1985), Judiffo. A New Translation with Introduction and
The image of consigning flesh to fire and worms (see Sir 7:17; 2 Mace 9:9 on the fate of Antiochus Epiphanes; Mk 9:48) may suggest a belief in life after death and so be another indication of a relatively late date.
Commentary, 40 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Roitman, A. D. (1992), 'Achior in the Book of Judith: His Role and
Significance', VanderKam (31—45). VanderKam, J. (1992) (ed.), 'No One Spoke III ofHef: Essays on Judith, Early Judaism and its Literature, 2 (Atlanta: SBL). Van Henten, J. W. (1995), 'Judith as Alternative Leader: A Rereading of
Celebration at the Temple (16:18-20)
Judith 7-13', in Athalya Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna (Sheffield: Academic Press), 224—52. White, S. (1992), 'In the Steps of Jael and Deborah: Judith as Heroine',
In Jerusalem, the parade of people worship; once purified, they sacrifice their burnt offerings, votive offerings, and gifts. While entry into the temple would require worshippers to be in a state of ritual purity, the explicit mention of this ritual highlights two motifs of the book: the concern for Jewish piety and the defeat of the Gentile forces. Judith dedicates Holo-
in VanderKam (1992: 5-16). Wills, L. (1995), The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press).
42. Esther (Greek) A D E L E REINHARTZ
A. Background. Vivid testimony to the popularity of the story of Esther in the Hellenistic Jewish milieu is the presence of a lengthy Greek version in the Septuagint (LXX Esther). This is generally considered to be a free translation of a Hebrew text similar to, or perhaps even identical with, the later Masoretic version (MT Esther) included among the Writings of the Tanak. Greek Esther shares with its Hebrew counterpart the engaging characters of Vashti, Ahasuerus, Mordecai, Esther, and Haman, its basic story-line concerning Haman's antiJewish plot and the means by which it is thwarted, as well as many of the details of setting, dialogue, and description. Yet the presence of six major sections (the Additions) not attested in the MT (or presumably, its Heb. Vorlage), the many smaller additions and omissions, and, most strikingly, the presence of over fifty references to God, transform LXX Esther into a different story. This story contrasts with MT Esther not only in portraying the inner spiritual struggles of its main characters but also in attributing the outcome of the plot to the divine hand.
(Moore 1977: 175). A similar conclusion emerges from discrepancies within ATand Greek Esther concerning the date of the anti-Jewish pogrom: the thirteenth of Adar, reflecting the Hebrew original (3:12; 8:12; 9:1; E 16:20), or the fourteenth (B 13:6; Moore 1977: 192—3). To the free rendition of Hebrew Esther were added six sections, four of which appear to have been translated from a Hebrew source or sources independent ofthe Hebrew Vorlage ofthe MT (Additions A, C, D, F) and two of which were probably composed in Greek (Additions B, E).
3. More complex is the relationship between the AT and LXX. Paton (1908: 38) considered AT to be a recension of some form of the LXX, arguing that there were too many parallels between them to view the latter as an independent translation ofthe Hebrew. Bickerman (1950) suggested that the AT was a recension of an abbreviated Greek Esther, as was Josephus' paraphrase, Ant. n 11183—96, which lacks the first and sixth ofthe Additions which are present in both ATand LXX. More recently Emanuel Tov (1982: 25) has contended that the AT is a translation or more accurately, perhaps, 'a midrash-type of rewriting ofthe biblical story' which corrects the LXX towards a Hebrew or Aramaic text which differed from the later MT. Fox (1992: 209-10) suggests a similarly complex theory. He posits the existence of a proto-AT, as the Greek translation of an original Hebrew text that differed from the Hebrew text used by the translator of LXX Esther. Proto-AT was then redacted by someone who had access to LXX Esther. Comparing proto-AT and LXX, this redactor drew on the latter to supplement the former. Hence the redactor did not set out to borrow the deutero-canonical Additions but rather moved sequentially through the two texts, transferring material from the LXX to fill the gaps perceived in proto-AT. Most scholars, however, hold to the view that AT is a separate Greek translation based upon a Hebrew or Aramaic text quite different from the MT (Clines 1984: xxv). The Additions in AT were borrowed directly from the LXX, as indicated by the strong verbal agreement between their respective forms of these sections. Hence the AT has become an important factor not only in the textual history ofthe Greek versions but also in the composition history of the Hebrew Esther (Fox 1991/7; Clines 1984; Wills 1990; 1995).
B. Textual History. 1. In addition to LXX Esther, the story of Esther exists in another Greek version, often referred to as the Alpha Text (AT). The AT is similar though not identical to LXX Esther in the content and wording of the six Additions, but differs substantially from it in those sections that are paralleled in MT Esther. AT Esther is shorter than LXX Esther, due in part to the absence of many personal names, numbers, dates, and repetitious elements. Differences in content also abound. For example, AT omits the theme ofthe unalterability of Persian law, as well as the aetiology of the Purim festival and the lengthy instructions for Purim observance (cf AT Esth 8:30, 47). Equally striking is its ending. In contrast to the LXX, in which Addition F concludes the book with a colophon, and the MT, which ends with a testimonial to the greatness and popularity of Mordecai, AT's version of F ends with Mordecai's interpretation of his initial dream (cf. A).
2. How does one account for the similarities and differences among the Hebrew and Greek versions of Esther? The body of LXX Esther is similar to MT Esther (and therefore presumably to the Heb. version available to the Gk. translator) in the content and structure of its story. These similarities support much of LXX Esther being based on a Hebrew original similar to the MT. Significant differences in wording, however, suggest that LXX Esther was a rather free translation of the Hebrew original. Some of the differences reflect stylistic or theological changes, as in 2:20, in which Mordecai's words to the newly chosen queen include not only the instruction to keep her Jewish identity a secret but also to maintain the fear of God and keep God's laws. A number of substantive differences also exist. For example, MT Esth 2:19 refers to the king's 'gate'. Assuming that the translator found 'gate' in his Hebrew version, the Greek should have read pule. The fact that aide
C. The Additions: Introductory Issues. 1. The six major Additions are as follows:
A. Mordecai's dream and the plot of the two eunuchs
against the king. B. The text ofthe king's edict authorizing the destruction
of Persian Jewry. C. The prayers of Mordecai and Esther. D. Esther's approach to the king. E. The edict reversing the decree of destruction. F. The interpretation of Mordecai's dream, followed by the
(court) appears instead, however, suggests copyist error
colophon.
643 ESTHER GREEK
2. There is little doubt that the Additions are secondary to the body of the text, that is, not present in any Hebrew Vorlage. The Additions are not found in any of the standard versions of Esther, except those that are recognized as having been based on the LXX, such as Old Latin, Coptic, and Ethiopic as well as Seferjossipon, a tenth-century work in which Hebrew translations of Josephus' versions of the Additions are present
LXX Esther may be dated to the late second or early first century BCE.
3. Provenance is difficult to determine, and is directly related to the assessment ofthe text's purpose. Moore (ibid. 167) suggests that the royal edicts, Additions B and E, may have originated in some sophisticated non-Palestinian centre such as Alexandria, whereas the others may have originated in Palestine, since their theological content is compatible with that of other Palestinian texts of this period such as Daniel, Judith, and some ofthe Qumran material. Linda Day (1995: 231—2) suggests that the AT, which does not emphasize the Purim festival, may be the product of a Hellenized Jewish community in a diaspora setting, facing the challenge of living Jewishly among a Gentile (i.e. non-Jewish, polytheistic) majority. In contrast, LXX Esther, which retains the MT's emphasis on the aetiology and celebration of Purim, may have been shaped by a Jewish community in Palestine itself or, alternatively, a traditionally observant diaspora Jewish community experiencing increased tension or discrimination at the hands of non-Jews. Such tension would account for the anti-Gentile sentiments expressed in Additions A, C, and F. If so, the story's intent may have been to underscore the necessity of, and dangers inherent in, working with the Gentile power structure while maintaining a primary allegiance to the Jewish people (Wills 1995: 120).
(Moore 1977: 154). Origen (i85?-254), in his Epistle to Africanus, 3, testifies that several Additions, namely the prayers of Esther and Mordecai (C) and the royal letters (B, E), did not appear in the Hebrew texts current in his own day. Because of their absence from the Hebrew, Jerome (34O?~42o) placed the Additions at the end of the canonical portion of his own Latin translation rather than in the locations in which they are found in LXX Esther. Finally, Additions A and F (Mordecai's dream and its interpretation) are not present in Josephus' paraphrase of Esther, though this is not evidence that they were not yet in existence at this time.
3. Four of the Additions (A, C, D, F) give clear internal evidence of having been translated from Hebrew (though no Heb. source is extant) while Additions B and E, the royal edicts, are Greek compositions (Moore 1977: 155; 1982: Ixx). All six Additions, however, probably had a Jewish origin
(Moore 1977: 160), betraying the concerns and perspectives of diaspora Jewry. Their presence in the LXX and the Vulgate led the Christian church to regard them as canonical, and they were sanctioned by the Council of Carthage in 397 CE and by several later councils, including Trent in 1546. Luther and later Protestants, however, considered the Additions to be apocryphal rather than canonical.
E. Purpose and Genre of LXX Esther. 1. Why did the translator include the six Additions and make the numerous other changes that distinguish LXX Esther from its Hebrew prototype? Most answers to this question reflect upon LXX Esther's inclusion of over fifty references to God, in contrast to MT Esther in which direct divine references are absent. Divine titles and other references to God are found primarily in the Additions. Addition C, which conveys the prayers of Esther and Mordecai, mentions God in virtually every verse, as does Addition F, the interpretation of Mordecai's dream. But the LXX translator has added a number of references to God in the canonical material as well. For example, 2:20, which describes Esther's obedience to Mordecai in her decision not to divulge her ethnic identity, also indicates that she is to fear God and keep his laws even as she commences a new life in the harem of a Gentile king. In 4:8 Mordecai calls upon Esther not only to go to the king but also to call upon the Lord in her effort to avert the evil decree instigated by Haman. Artaxerxes' insomnia is attributed to the Lord in 6:1, while the premonition of Haman's wife concerning Haman's downfall is ascribed to the fact that the living God is with Mordecai (6:13). The Greek word used most frequently in reference to the divine is ikeos
D. Date and Provenance. 1. The earliest possible date is that of the final form of the Hebrew version, probably the early Hellenistic period, though earlier versions may have gone back to the late Persian period. The latest possible date is £.93-4 CE, when Josephus used Additions B, C, D, and E in his paraphrase. LXX Esther, however, ends with a colophon, which, if authentic, provides the basis for a more precise dating. The colophon attributes the translation to one Lysimachus son of Ptolemy, in Jerusalem, and claims that it was brought to Egypt by a priest and Levite named Dositheus in the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra. Questions have been raised about the authenticity of the colophon, based on its content. How can Dositheus be both priest and Levite? Why would the translation have been done in Jerusalem and for whom (Enslin 1972:19)? Many scholars, however, accept the colophon as authentic. Moore (ibid. 161), for example, argues that the body of the story as well as all the Additions were translated by Lysimachus except B and E, whose original language is Greek. Because Greek was present in Graeco-Roman Palestine, notes Bickerman (1944: 357), LXX Esther is a remarkable and unusual example of Palestinian Greek.
(God), with kyrios (Lord) as the next most frequent term. Other descriptive terms are 'king' (basileus, C 13:9, 15; 14:3, 12), and 'saviour' (sotcr, 15:2). Phrases, such as 'the living God, most high and mighty' (E 16:16), 'the God of Abraham' (C 13:15; 14:18) and 'the all-seeing God' (D 15:2; 16:4) are also employed.
2. If the colophon is authentic, then identifying the reigning Ptolemy provides a date for the Greek translation as a whole. Several Ptolemies had a reign of at least four years and wives named Cleopatra, including Ptolemy XII (77 BCE), favoured by Bickerman (1944), Ptolemy XIV (around 48 BCE), and Ptolemy VIII Soter II, who lived in around 114 BCE, favoured by Moore (1977: 250). In general terms, therefore,
2. The effect of these references, both in their variety and quantity, is to insert God very securely into the story as the one through whom the salvation from danger occurred. God's prominence in the plot is in contrast to the MT's emphasis on the human agents, Mordecai and Esther (Fox 19910: 273). Moore comments, however, that LXX Esther's
ESTHER GREEK 644
religious concerns are reflected not only in the addition of references to God but also in the emphasis on particular themes, such as God's providential care of Israel (A, F), God's miraculous intervention in history (D 15:8), the efficacy of prayer and fasting (C), and the importance of cult and temple (C 14:9).
placement ofthe Additions at the end of his translation, are also included.
G. Outline Addition A: Mordecai's Dream (11:2-12); The Eunuchs' Plan
(12:l-6)
3. Clines, however, argues thatthe function ofthe Additions is not wholly or even primarily to introduce the explicit language of divine causation into a deficient Hebrew original, but to recreate the book in the mould of post-exilic Jewish history, as exemplified by the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel. Just as God stirs up the spirit of Cyrus in Ezra 1:1 and of returnees in 1:5, so does he change the spirit ofthe king to gentleness in LXX Esther D 15:8 and keep him from sleeping in 6:1. In Dan 2, as in Additions A and F, the meaning of history is conveyed through dreams and their interpretations, while Ezra 9, Neh i, and Dan 9 contain exemplary prayers of supplication similar to the prayers of Mordecai and Esther in Addition C (Clines 1984: 169—70).
Setting the Stage (1:1—3:13) Addition B: The King's Edict against the Jews (13:1-7)
The Plot is Revealed (3:14-4:17) Addition C: The Prayers of Mordecai and Esther: (13:8—14:19) Addition D: Esther's Approach to the King: (iyi—i6)
The Villain is Unmasked (5:3-8:12) Addition E: The Official Repeal ofthe First Edict: (16:1-24)
Events of Adar (8:13—10:3) Addition F: Interpretation of Mordecai's Dream (10:4—13); Colophon (11:1)
4. In addition to religious motivations and concerns, the Greek translation may have been intended to increase the story's dramatic appeal (Moore 1977:153). The aura of authenticity is strengthened by Additions B and E which in florid Greek purport to be the texts of royal edicts authorizing (B) and repealing (E) the mass destruction of Persian Jewry. Moore (ibid. 220—2) suggests that Esther's prayer (C) and the detailed description of her emotions and behaviour upon approaching the king (D) combine to make Esther a more realistic character and to suggest a similarity to Judith, a link frequently made by the Church Fathers as well as by contemporary scholars (Day 1995: 222—5). Certainly LXX Esther differs from its Hebrew Vorlage in describing the inner thoughts and feelings of its principal characters.
Addition A (11:2-12; 12:1-6)
(11:2-12) Mordecai's Dream LXX Esther begins with an introduction to Mordecai and a description of his dream. Mordecai is described in terms of his lineage (son of Shimei, son of Kish, ofthe tribe of Benjamin), ethnic identity (a Jew), home (Susa), status (a great man), occupation (serving in the court ofthe king), and, perhaps most important, his personal history. This history, repeated in 2:6, links him strongly with the national history of Israel: he was a captive of King Nebuchadnezzar after the Babylonian conquest of Judea in 597-6 BCE. It also, however, poses a chronological difficulty. Even if Mordecai were only a year old at the time ofthe Conquest, he would still have been about 115 years old in the third year of Xerxes (1:3) and about 119 years old at Esther's ascension to the throne, when Esther herself would have been approximately 60 years old (1:6). The problem may be resolved in several ways. Perhaps the one exiled was not Mordecai but Kish, his great-grandfather (cf NRSV translation of MT Esth 2:6). Alternatively, the text may have disregarded historical accuracy in order to connect this story to the larger biblical framework of exile and redemption. Similar 'errors' occur in other Jewish novels from this period, as in Jdt 1:1, in which Nebuchadnezzar is described as the ruler of Assyria based in Nineveh.
5. Such observations have led some scholars to conclude that LXX Esther is a Hellenistic Jewish novel, influenced by the Graeco-Roman novel genre (Wills 1990; 1995). This suggestion does not rule out a didactic purpose or a historical kernel, but does emphasize the imaginative and entertaining aspects ofthe book, including its fanciful setting, adventurous tone, and detailed portrayal of its central figures (Wills 1995: i). Day's (1995: 215-22) study, which focuses on the characterization of Esther in MT, LXX, and AT, argues that there is not enough direct correspondence between these Esthers and the heroines of Greek novels to conclude that LXX and AT were intended as explicit reworkings of their Hebrew prototypes towards the Greek novel genre.
This lengthy and detailed introduction to Mordecai serves two purposes. First, it impresses upon the reader his importance, both as a character in the story and as a player in the king's court. Here is a Jew who spends much time in contact with Gentile royalty and officialdom. Second, it indicates that he had previously experienced suffering at the hands of Gentile kings, having been exiled from the land of Israel to Babylonia. The story therefore immediately raises the question of Gentile—Jewish relations and evokes the historical tensions in that relationship.
F. Procedure in the Commentary. 1. This commentary will focus on LXX Esther, which is the basis ofthe NRSV translation. The attempt will be made to see it in its own terms, as a text which is coherent in and of itself. Some comparative comments will be made throughout, however, both with respect to the AT and, more frequently, with respect to the MT. Relatively greater attention will be paid to the Additions, but the material which parallels the MT will also receive comment. In keeping with the judgement that LXX Esther is a novel, the primary emphases in the commentary will be upon the development of plot and character. The Additions will be referred to by letter (Additions A to F), but the chapter and verse designations ofthe NRSV, which are based on Jerome's
It is this information, then, that we carry into our reading of Mordecai's dream. In images similar to the prophecies against the Gentiles in Joel 3:2, Zeph 1:15, and Zech 14:2 (Moore 1977: 180), this dream describes a battle between two dragons, and the persecution of 'the righteous nation' at the hands of 'the
645 ESTHER GREEK
(edokeri) Haman to Mordecai as part of his reward for revealing the plot may intimate Mordecai's later replacement of Haman as the king's right-hand man (AT 8:52; cf. NRSV 8:15:10:3). Setting the Stage (1:1-3:13) After these prefatory incidents, LXX Esther begins with the story proper, paralleling the opening episodes of MT Esther. The setting is Susa, the capital of the Persian empire, in the third year of Artaxerxes' reign, that is, one year after the dream recounted in Addition A. The king's lengthy and decadent drinking party is described in lavish detail (1:1—8), with brief mention of the drinking party that Queen Vashti holds in the king's palace for her friends
nations'. When the righteous nation calls for help, however, God intervenes. A great river springs forth, there is light, sun, and the exaltation of the lowly who devour those held in honour. Mordecai realizes that this dream is a foretelling of God's plan, and he continues to ponder it after he awakes.
The dream provides an interpretative framework for the book which it introduces, encouraging us to see it as an apocalyptic battle in which the Gentiles' attempt to destroy the Jews will be thwarted by God, resulting in salvation and the reversal of the status quo in which the Jewish nation is in a subordinate position to others. The broad context of danger and salvation is provided not only by the reference to the Babylonian Exile, but also by the date of Mordecai's dream, namely, the first of Nisan. The main event of this month in the Jewish calendar is the festival of Passover, which celebrates God's incursion into history to redeem the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. The Exodus is traditionally seen both as the finest example of God's providential care for Israel and as the prototype of future salvation. The allusion to the Exodus is strengthened by the reference to Israel's outcry (11:10), which calls God into action in Mordecai's dream as it does in Ex 3:7 (cf. also Jdt 4:9). Finally, the dream, which is similar to other late biblical dreams such as Dan 2:19, readjusts the focus of the story from that of conflict between Haman and Mordecai, or between Haman and the Jews, or between the Jews and their enemies, to a wider focus, namely, a cosmic conflict between Israel, which is God's righteous nation, and the rest of humankind (Clines 1984: 171-2). (12:1-6) The Eunuchs' Plan The transition to the second episode is abrupt. Mordecai overhears two of Artaxerxes' eunuchs plotting to lay hands on the king; they confirm their plan to him, and he informs the king, who cross-examines the eunuchs, extracts a confession, and then executes them. Mordecai is rewarded by the king and given a position in the royal court. The entire event is then portrayed as the cause of Haman's grudge against Mordecai. The episode therefore introduces Haman as Mordecai's adversary and provides a rationale for his hatred as well as for Mordecai's position as a courtier, essential for the rest of the story.
(1:9). Vashti's refusal to answer the king's call to display her beauty before his guests leads in this version, as in the MT, to a lengthy and farcical flurry concerning the potential threat that her insolence poses to family harmony and male authority throughout the kingdom (1:16-22). Only by banishing Vashti and issuing a solemn declaration ordering women to obey their husbands can the king alleviate this threat.
But whereas the Ahasuerus of the MT later remembered, and perhaps regretted, Vashti's fate (2:1; for the rabbis' views on the king's remorse see Esther Rab. 5:2), the Artaxerxes of the LXX forgets about her, and, as in MT, proceeds to choose her successor by means of a contest among the eligible young women in the kingdom (2:2-5). Mordecai is reintroduced by his lineage and personal history as a captive of Nebuchadnezzar, but the narrative focus shifts quickly to Esther, Mordecai's beautiful niece and foster-child. Esther immediately begins the elaborate and lengthy preparations which will result in her selection as the new queen. Throughout this process Esther remains silent about her Jewish identity, as instructed by Mordecai (2:10). Her selection as queen is celebrated by the remission of taxes, and predictably, by a lengthy banquet reminiscent of the feast which had led to the banishment of Esther's predecessor.
Three discrepancies between MT and LXX Esther may be mentioned briefly. According to Moore (1977: 186), the translator failed to see the three phrases in MT 2:1 ('he remembered Vashti', 'what she had done', and 'what had been decreed against her') as parallel to one another, and instead thought the latter two to be explanations of the first, concluding therefore that the king remembered Vashti herself no longer. A second difficulty occurs in 2:7. According to the MT, Mordecai took E sther to be his daughter, a more reasonable statement in light of the narrative context than the LXX's assertion that he took her as a wife. In this case too Moore (ibid.) posits the LXX translator's misreading of the Hebrew consonants (bt), which are the same for 'daughter' as for 'house'. A third discrepancy, concerning the length and timing of each candidate's 'audience' (or audition) with the king, does not permit a similar solution. Whereas both the MTand the AT describe the young woman as spending the night with the king, that is, from the evening (MT: 'ereb; AT: hespera) of one day to the morning (MT: boqer, AT: proi) of the next, the LXX uses less specific temporal designations that may imply that she spent from the afternoon (deile) of one day to some unspecified time the following day (hemera) (2:14). From this language Day (1995: 42-3) concludes that the choice of queen was made on more than sexual ability, since the longer time together would have
In doing so, however, the episode also differs from MT Esther as well as from the LXX story itself as it develops in subsequent chapters. Puzzling is the designation of Haman as bougaios (Bougean), a term repeated in 3:1 but completely distinct from the MT identification of Haman as an Agagite. Also unclear is the precise nature of Mordecai's position in the royal court. Is he a courtier before the story begins, as the first episode (11:3) might imply, or does he become so only in this episode (12:5)? Furthermore, the incident contradicts 3:3—6, which attributes Haman's hatred to Mordecai's refusal to bow down. Finally, what is the connection between this episode and the dream? Though the AT 1:11 claims that the eunuchs' plot makes plain to Mordecai the significance of his dream, its full meaning will become clear only as the book proceeds, to be confirmed in Addition F with which the narrative concludes. Nevertheless, the AT 1:18 version of this episode may foreshadow the plot structure of the story as a whole, by referring to the hatred of Haman and his desire to take revenge on Mordecai and his people (cf. 12:6). Similarly, the otherwise curious comment in AT 11:17 that the king 'gave'
ESTHER GREEK 646
to his benefit. Of even greater benefit, perhaps, are the ten thousand talents of silver which Haman offers to the king's treasury. Although the king's comment: 'Keep the money' might be taken to imply altruism, it is not in fact a refusal of the money but rather has the force of 'if you really want to spend your money that way, be my guest' (Moore 1977: 189). The king takes the bait and gives his signet ring to Haman, authorizing him to do whatever he wished with 'that nation' (3:10-11).
included meals, conversation, evening's entertainment, possibly a palace tour in addition to a sexual encounter at night. This suggestion seems highly speculative, however, given the indeterminate meaning of the Greek terms and the questionable assumption that the king's sexual activity was limited to the nocturnal hours.
Whether or not other activities took place, it is clear from the processes of preparation and selection that the main criteria for the king's choice were beauty and sexual satisfaction. Hence Esther's success emphasizes not only her beauty but also the fact that she had sexual relations with a Gentile king. Both of these points will be addressed later on in the story (Addition C).
Addition B (13:1-7): The King's Edict against the Jews
Addition B purports to be the letter sent throughout the kingdom to put Haman's plan into place. Though broadcast in the king's name, the context, particularly 3:12, makes it clear that the letter has been written by the king's secretaries in accordance with Haman's instructions. The letter features three main themes: first, the ostensible desire of the king to restore peace and tranquility to the land (v. 2), second, the aggrandizement of Haman, the king's second in command who through his superior judgement, goodwill, and fidelity has determined the course of action to assure this result (v. 3), and finally, the vilification of the Jews, that alien and disobedient people wilfully preventing the kingdom from attaining stability (w. 4-5).
This section also introduces a narrative thread concerning the relationship between Mordecai and Esther. From the beginning of Addition A, it is clear that Mordecai, as Esther's elder and a man, dominates this relationship, a position that is reinforced by his role as her guardian, her obedience to his command not to reveal her people or her country (2:10), and his monitoring of her welfare in the courtyard of the harem
(2:11). Her ascension to the throne, however, is a potential threat to Mordecai's dominant position in their relationship. The threat is defused, for the moment, by the narrator who goes beyond the MT in emphasizing that Esther continued to obey Mordecai's word not only in this matter but in all matters pertaining to faith and lifestyle: she was to fear God and keep his laws, 'just as she had done when she was with him' (2:20). Though her wordly status may now surpass Mordecai's, the essential structure of their relationship remains unchanged. At the same time, however, her royal role, along with his own still-vague status as a courtier, provides occasion and justification for Mordecai's continued presence in the king's courtyard.
Florid and bombastic in style, Addition B has been compared to various other purported edicts recorded in biblical and apocryphal works. Clines (1984: 173) sees B's closest parallel in the letter to King Artaxerxes written by the Samaritans against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem in Ezra 4:11-16. Moore (1977: 199) points out similarities between B and Ezra 4:17-22, the reply of Artaxerxes to the Samaritans (cf also Ezra 1:2-4; 6:3-12; 7:11-38). He argues, however, that B is closest to, and may have been modelled after, Ptolemy Philopator's letter in 3 Mace 12-29, though LXX Esther as a whole predates 3 Maccabees. Whether or not B drew directly from any of these sources, its effect is to deepen the impression of historicity and strengthen the royal Persian setting of the story (ibid. 159).
Mordecai's presence in the royal precincts sets the stage for his discovery of the plot by two of Artaxerxes' eunuchs to kill their master, a fact which Mordecai divulges to Esther who in turn informs the king. The king investigates and hangs the two, and writes a memorandum praising Mordecai, to be put in the royal library. This episode, which parallels closely MT Esther 2:19-23, points to the secondary nature of the similar plot recounted in the second part of Addition A. In this section, however, as in the MT, the intrigue is conveyed to the king by Esther and not by Mordecai directly as in Addition A. This point may be further indication of the adjustment in their relationship wrought by Esther's new role. The reward for Mordecai is, as yet, no more than appreciative recognition.
The tone, style, and content emphasize Haman's hand in the matter. To a diaspora Jewish reader, however, the accusations against the Jews may have sounded quite familiar, echoing views expressed by various Graeco-Roman writers (e.g. Diodorus; cf. Stern 1974: 180-4). The edict permits the (Graeco-Roman Jewish) audience to compare their experience with that of the Jews in Esther's story, and therefore implicitly encourages a belief that divine deliverance will come to them as it does to the Jews of Artaxerxes' Persia by the end of the story. The Plot is Revealed (3:14-4:17) The posting of the document throws Mordecai and the Jews of Susa into mourning. Mordecai is not permitted to enter the court in mourning garb, and refuses Esther's offer of other clothing. Under these conditions, the two protagonists must formulate and communicate a plan of action through the good offices of Esther's eunuch Hachratheus. In MT Esther, Mordecai's initial message to Esther is not conveyed in direct speech but is summarized briefly by the narrator who focuses on the courtier's charge that Esther entreat the king on behalf of her people. In LXX Esther, however, the words of Mordecai are given.
At this point Haman is again introduced, this time as the newly appointed chief Friend (MT: minister) of the king. His plot against the Jews has its roots in the enmity between Mordecai and Haman. Although this enmity had been attributed in Addition A to Mordecai's action vis-a-vis the two eunuchs, in 3:2-6 it is portrayed as a consequence of Mordecai's refusal to do obeisance to Haman once the latter has been elevated to chief Friend of the king (3:1). Because Mordecai's refusal is apparently related to the fact that he is a Jew (3:4), Haman's (rather exaggerated) response is to plot to destroy all the Jews under Artaxerxes' rule. The fourteenth day of Adar is chosen by lots as the date for the pogrom, and the king is persuaded that the destruction of these people, who observe different laws and 'do not keep the laws of the king', would be
647 ESTHER GREEK) While the substance is the same as the summary in MT, in the LXX Mordecai takes this opportunity to remind Esther of the days when you were an ordinary person, being brought up under my care', an admonition intended to give greater force to his command to 'Call upon the Lord; then speak to the king on our behalf, and save us from death' (4:8). This speech serves both to maintain the 'proper' hierarchy of relationship between Mordecai and E sther and to emphasize that an appeal to God through prayer is essential if tragedy is to be averted.
conflict between God, the trueking, and Artaxerxes, whoclaims to be God. Finally, Esther prays for eloquent speech, in what may be an allusion to Ex 3 and Moses, who similarly desired eloquent speech in order to speak to a foreign king (Ex 4:10).
The justification of her behaviour that Esther includes in her prayer seems, like Mordecai's, to be directed more towards the reader (or listener, as during Purim) than to God. An audience dismayed and puzzled by the marriage of a pious Jewish maiden to a decadent Persian king may have been heartened by Esther's declaration of abhorrence of the 'splendour of the wicked', 'the bed of the uncircumcised and of any alien' (v. 15), and the royal crown, which she likens to a 'filthy rag' (lit. menstrual rag) not to be worn on days of leisure. Esther's royal life is a masquerade. Though she has slept with the Persian king, however reluctantly, she has not violated the dietary laws by eating at the royal table or by drinking the wine of libations to the gods. In this manner readers are reassured that she has maintained her resolve to fear God and keep the divine commandments, as she had been instructed by Mordecai (2:20).
The exchanges that follow are similar to those in the MT. Esther expresses her fears of entering the king's presence unbidden, fears that are countered by Mordecai's warning that she herself will not escape; if she does not co-operate, he threatens, help will come to the Jews 'from another [no doubt divine] quarter', but she will perish. Furthermore, Mordecai notes, Esther's ascension to royalty may have been intended for this express purpose. Esther agrees to go, asking only that the Jews of Susa gather and fast for three days and nights, as will Esther and her maids.
Addition C: The Prayers of Mordecai (13:8-18) and Esther
These prayers not only speak of Israel's cry for help, but actually constitute the means by which Israel's representatives, Mordecai and Esther, do so. For this reason Addition C functions as a turning point in the story, just as in Mordecai's dream the nation's outcry is followed by salvation. Secondly, the prayers constitute a blueprint for Jewish behaviour in the Diaspora: Jews should refrain from bowing down to human dignitaries, and should continue to maintain dietary laws, but may compromise even basic principles when necessary for survival, as Esther did in sleeping with an uncircumcised man. Third, the prayers provide a point of comparison with other texts. Clines (1984: 173) compares them to the exemplary prayers of supplication in Ezra 9, Neh i, and Dan 9, but perhaps more telling are the prayers in Jdt 9 and Tob 3:11—15 in which faith in God's saving acts is a central theme. Judith, like Esther, is a woman of prominence, the only person capable of saving her people from annihilation. Her act too is preceded by a prayer, and involves mortal danger, as well as a (potential) erotic connection to the Gentile leader, Holofernes, whom she must confront and deceive. There are differences, of course. Judith's act is more dramatic; Esther's enemy is not the king whose anger she fears but his viceroy, who engineered the plot to kill the Jews. Nevertheless, these two women protagonists are cut from similar cloth (cf Day 1995: 222-6; Moore 1977: 167; Enslin 1972: 15-21).
(14:1-19)
These prayers were presumably uttered during the three days of fasting stipulated by Esther. Mordecai's prayer, in 13:8-18, praises God as Lord and Creator of the universe and saviour of Israel, and clarifies—perhaps more for the reader's sake than for God's—that his refusal to bow down to Haman was not due to insolence or desire for personal aggrandizement but to a conviction that humans are not to be honoured above God. Mordecai begs God to save Israel, and invokes the memory of the Exodus as the time-honoured paradigm of salvation. After the prayer the narrator notes that all Israel cried out mightily, 'for their death was before their eyes'. This final remark, and indeed the prayer as a whole, are reminiscent of Mordecai's dream in Addition A. The fact that the outcry of'the righteous nation' inspired God's intervention in the prophetic dream assures the readers that Israel's outcry in Artaxerxes' Persia will also be followed by divine salvation.
These themes are repeated, though in a different context and at greater length, in Esther's prayer (14:1—19). Before praying, Esther changes her royal apparel for 'the garments of distress and mourning', anoints herself with ashes and dung instead of her usual perfumes, and thoroughly debases her physical body (v. 2). More than a sign of mourning, the change in clothing is consistent with her profound feelings of fear and despair as well as with her identity as a daughter of Israel. In contrast to Mordecai's prayer, which focused upon the past and God's love for and redemption of Israel, Esther's prayer is much more personal even when it refers to the same saving events of Israel's history. Esther places her fate directly in God's hands, speaking of what she has heard from infancy concerning God's election of Israel and God's fulfilment of the divine promises to Israel. Attributing Israel's dispersion to sin, she describes the impending destruction as an intensification of Israel's 'bitter slavery' under Persian rule.
Addition D (15:1-16): Esther's Approach to the King
This Addition is an expansion of the brief description of Esther's approach to the king in MT Esth 5:1-2. After three days of fasting and prayer, Esther prepares herself by changing her clothing. In this act Esther is similar to the Tamar of Genesis (34:14, 19), as well as to Judith (Jdt 10:3—4) an(^ Asenath (Joseph and Asendth, 14:14-15) who change their clothing as deliberate strategies in their encounters with the men who figure prominently in their plans. Just as she had to wear humble clothes when approaching God, her true King, so must E sther wear resplendent clothing to approach the earthly king whom she feared more, despite her own royal status.
The nations, declares Esther, magnify a mortal king. She pleads with God not to surrender the divine sceptre to that which has no being, apparently in oblique reference to Artaxerxes, although no direct claims for the king's divinity are made in LXX Esther. Hence the current crisis is portrayed as a
After invoking God's aid, Esther, supported by two maids, approaches the king, who, seated on a royal throne, clothed in
ESTHER GREEK 648
In a reprise of 3:12—13, the secretaries are summoned to write an edict, to be broadcast throughout the empire. The date, the twenty-third of Nisan, recalls both the month ofthe Exodus and that of Mordecai's dream in Addition A, and hence is associated with the theme of divine salvation. The edict is written with the king's authority, sealed with his ring, and conveys his command that the Jews observe their own laws and give themselves free rein in defending themselves against attack. The context makes it clear, however, that the letter was initiated by Esther (8:5), and written by her and Mordecai in the king's name (8:8), a point which seems to have been overlooked by scholars (such as Moore 1977: 234; Wills 1995: 126) who attribute the letter directly to the king.
the full array of majesty, and covered with gold and jewels, appears 'most terrifying' to her (v. 6). Initially, her fears about approaching him unsummoned seem to be justified: he responds to her approach with fierce anger. Esther saves her skin by behaving like the genteel woman she has dressed herself to be: she faints and collapses. God then changes the king's spirit to gentleness. Artaxerxes takes her in his arms till she comes to, comforts her with gentle words, and reassures her that she will not die 'for our law applies only to our subjects' (v. 10). Perhaps in explanation of her collapse, Esther describes the king as an angel of God who inspires fear at his glory, wonderful, and with a countenance full of grace, and promptly faints a second time, inspiring further attempts to revive and comfort her.
In this section, as in its parallel in MT Esther, the king gives Mordecai Haman's ring and his position as the king's righthand man, and Esther gives him authority over Haman's estate (8:2). Although the king's command to write a new edict and seal it with his ring is addressed only to Esther (8:7; in contrast to the MT in which both Esther and Mordecai are named), the fact that the verbs 'write' and 'seal' in 8:8 are in the plural indicates that both Esther and Mordecai are intended. In this section, therefore, Mordecai not only replaces Haman in relationship to the king, but also achieves parity with Esther, thereby eliminating the discrepancy between their relative status in the social realm and their father—child relationship in the private and religious spheres. The portrayal of Esther also changes, however. No longer fearful and coy, Esther is given a measure of royal power, which she exercises along with Mordecai in the composition ofthe edict.
The king's reference to himself as Esther's 'brother' (LXX; NRSV marg.) in this exchange is taken by most interpreters as a general term of warmth, though Brownlee (1966: 168) argues that in Egypt married couples referred to each other as brother and sister. In addition, there may be some irony in this form of address, given their ethnic differences and her extreme fear in approaching him.
A more pressing question, however, is why indeed did Esther faint, not once but twice? Moore (1977: 218; cf Day 1995: 102), reasonably, comments that three days of fasting may indeed have weakened Esther, rendering her inadequate to the challenge of overcoming her fear, the challenge for which she had begged for divine assistance. Noting the parallels between Esther's description of the king and biblical portrayals of kingship, including Gentile monarchs (i Sam 29:9; 2 Sam 14:7, 20; 19:27; Ezek 28:2), Brownlee (1966: 164—70) suggests that despite the disclaimers in her prayer, E sther may have felt herself to have been in the presence of the angelic or divine, in which case fainting was not an inappropriate response. A final suggestion, plausible in light ofthe book's soteriology, is that Esther's fainting may be attributed to God, who may have required some human act as a catalyst for overcoming the king's anger and gaining her the sympathetic hearing necessary for turning the plot ofthe story.
Addition E (16:1-24): The Official Repeal ofthe First Edict
Similar in style to Addition B, Addition E undoes the substance ofthe earlier edict and carries forward the divine plan for the rescue ofthe Jews. Most ofthe Addition is devoted to the discrediting of Haman, beginning with a lengthy reflection on the fact that some people who receive great honours respond by plotting evil against their benefactors and the innocent (w. 2—6). The real threat to the peace and stability of the kingdom comes not from the Jews but from Haman. Haman was not a Persian by birth but an alien devoid of Persian kindliness, whose real goal was to use his position of power to transfer the kingdom ofthe Persians to the Macedonians (v. 14). The second theme, the role ofthe Jews, is dealt with rather quickly, by dismissing Haman's earlier charges and emphasizing the righteousness ofthe Jews' laws and their status as 'children ofthe living God, most high, most mighty', who also directs the affairs ofthe Persian kingdom (w. 15—16). Finally, the edict orders the populace not to put the earlier letters into execution, since their author himself has been executed. This new edict, which must be circulated and displayed, allows for the Jews to live under their own laws, and to be given reinforcements so that they may defend themselves from attack. The thirteenth day of Adar is to become a day of joy rather than destruction. The edict concludes by specifying this day as a festival day not only for the Jews but for the entire empire, as 'a reminder of destruction for those who plot against us' (v. 23) and promises swift punishment for those who transgress its stipulations (v. 24).
(5:3—8:12) The Villain is Unmasked The conflict between Haman and Mordecai comes to a head in this section. Just at the moment that Haman is ready to ask the king for permission to hang Mordecai on the giant gallows that he has prepared, the king, during a bout of insomnia, comes across the memorandum concerning the assassination plot which Mordecai had foiled and seeks Haman's advice on how to honour his saviour. Instead of executing Mordecai as planned, Haman must honour him as he himself would have wished to be honoured (6:1—13). Recognizing that Mordecai has the living God with him, Haman's friends and wife see this act prophetically, as a sign of Haman's future downfall. Shortly thereafter Esther unmasks Haman as villain at the second of two dinners at which the king and Haman are her only guests. Like her prayer in Addition C, Esther's plea to Artaxerxes is phrased in terms which emphasize that Haman's wicked plot threatens not only the Jewish people, but also Esther herself, as a Jew. Both plot lines are neatly resolved when Haman is hanged on the gallows which he had prepared for Mordecai and the king authorizes Esther to write a decree replacing the one dictated by Haman (7:7—10, 8:1—12).
649 ESTHER GREEK
Though ostensibly addressed to the Persian empire by Artaxerxes, the edict, like the prayers of Mordecai and Esther, is more plausible as a message from the implied author to the diaspora Jewish audience of Greek Esther itself. As such it sanctions the celebration of Purim, celebrates the reversal of fortunes and the fulfilment of Mordecai's dream, and, perhaps most important, stresses that Jews should live by their own excellent laws even in the Diaspora. This focus on the reader may also explain the edict's references to Haman as a Macedonian, which contrast with the earlier, obscure descriptions of Haman as a bougaios (A, 12:6; 3:1). Moore suggests that this variation is an updated term of reproach, meant not to provide historical accuracy but to identify Haman as a despised person from the point of view of the reader. The label can be used to support a Hasmonean date for the book, since the term 'Macedonian' would have been a term of disparagement familiar to readers in this period (Moore 1977:178, 236).
or not the colophon is authentic, and can therefore be used for dating the text, it, like Additions B and E, creates an aura of authenticity as well as providing explicit acknowledgement of the status of this story as a translation of a Hebrew original. The colophon is absent from AT, which follows the interpretation of Mordecai's dream with a concluding statement concerning the joyous celebration on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of Adar.
Conclusion
LXX Esther, like any translation, is also an interpretation of its sources. The six Additions as well as numerous smaller changes redraw the main characters, amplify some of the details, and, most noticeably, explicitly situate the story-line in the context of the covenantal relationship between God and Israel. While comparisons of LXX Esther with the versions of the Esther story in the MTand the AT are fruitful (cf Day 1995; Moore 1977), LXX Esther repays consideration in its own right, clearly reflecting the Hellenistic Diaspora situation and commonality of genre and concerns with other narrative works from the last two centuries BCE. The social dilemmas faced by Jews in the Diaspora, the importance of family, group identity, religious practice, the theological conviction that God continues to care for God's people in exile, and the necessity of compromise all figure in this story, contributing to its ancient popularity and its continuing relevance.
(8:13—10:3) Events of Adar This section describes the posting of the letter, the elevation of Mordecai, and the conversion of many Gentiles, albeit out of fear. The narrator apparently delights in the Persians' fear of the Jews, and of Mordecai in particular, whose name was to be held in honour throughout the kingdom (9:3). Esther continues to exercise a role as royal counsel, advising the king to let the Jews continue their killing on the morrow, and to hand the bodies of Haman's sons over to the Jews for hanging. These two points are responsible for Esther's post-biblical reputation as a bloodthirsty woman on a par with Jael of Judg 4—5 (ibid. 242). The narrator notes that on the next day 300 people were killed but no looting occurred, while in the countryside 15,000 Gentiles were killed (compared to 75,000 according to the MT), without plundering. The description, institution, and validation of the annual festival, whose main features are merrymaking and the giving of gifts to friends and to the poor, are associated with both Mordecai and Esther, implying their parity not only vis-a-vis the Persian kingdom but also as leaders of Persian Jewry.
Bickerman, E. J. (1944), 'The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther',
JBL 63: 339-62.
(195°), 'Notes on the Greek Book of Esther', PAAJR 20:101-33. Brownlee, W. H. (1966), 'Le Livre Grec d'Esther et la Royaute Divine',
KB 73:161-85. Clines, D. J. A. (1984), The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story (Shef-
field: JSOT). Day, L. (1995), Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of
Esther JSOTSup 186 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Enslin, M. S. (1972), The Book of Judith (Brill: Leiden). Fox, M. V. (19910), Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Co-
Addition F: Interpretation of Mordecai's Dream (10:4-13);
Colophon (11:1)
lumbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press).
The explanation of Mordecai's dream in its general outlines is no doubt superfluous to the reader/listener who has been led to recognize the Purim story itself as the fulfilment of that dream. Nevertheless the interpretation of its details provides a satisfying closure to the narrative. The river in the dream is Esther, while the two dragons are Haman and Mordecai. These identifications lead Moore (ibid. 181) to conclude that Esther is the human hero of the piece, rather than Mordecai, whom he sees as the hero of the MT Esther. The righteous nation is Israel; the surrounding nations—the Gentiles—are her enemies. The Lord rescued Israel, an event which led to joyous celebration on the thirteenth and fourteenth days of Adar. The dream and its interpretation, as introduction and conclusion, therefore provide a soteriological framework for the story as a whole, placing the events in the context of God's love for Israel and the divine propensity to come to Israel's rescue from persecution and destruction at the hands of idolatrous enemies.
(1991!?), The Redaction of the Books of the Esther: On Reading Composite Texts SBLMS 40 (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
(1992), 'The Redaction of the Greek Alpha-Text of Esther', in Michael Fishbane et al. (eds.), Sha arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns), 207-20. Moore, C. A. (1977), Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions, AB 44
(New York: Doubleday).
(1982) (ed.), Studies in the Book of Esther (New York: Ktav). Paton, L. B. (1908), The Book of Esther, ICC (Edinburgh: T. £T. Clark). Stern, M. (1974) (ed.), Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, i.
From Herodotus to Plutarch (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities). Tov, E. (1982), 'The "Lucianic" Text of the Canonical and the Apoc-
ryphal Sections of Esther: A Rewritten Biblical Book', in Shemaryahu Talmon (ed.), Textus: Annual of the Hebrew University Bible Project, 10 (Jerusalem: Magnes) 1—25. Wills, L. (1990), The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish
Court Legends, HDR 26 (Minneapolis: Fortress).
(i995), The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
Addition F concludes with a colophon that purports to provide the details of the text, its date, and its translation. Whether
43The Wisdom of Solomon WILLIAM HORBURY
A. Teaching. 1. This book, preserved in Greek and in versions made from the Greek, forms a high point not only in ancient Jewish literature but also in Greek literature as a whole; yet it belongs above all to the sapiential stream of Jewish biblical tradition, and crowns the series of earlier biblical wisdombooks: Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach). In the early church it was one of the books linked with Solomon, together with Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and the non-canonical Psalms, Odes, and Testament of Solomon (ET in Sparks 1984: 649-751); but Solomonic authorship was often questioned, and some ascribed Wisdom to the author of Ecclesiasticus (Jesus son of Sirach of Jerusalem, early 2nd cent. BCE), or to the Jewish philosopher-exegete Philo of Alexandria (c.25 BCE-C.5O CE) (Horbury 19940; 1995).
Secondly, to some extent by contrast, it is also focused on the people of God (9:7; 12:19, etc.), although Israel is not named—much as in i Peter the church is central, but the word ekklesia is lacking. A link with the mystical element is formed by verses on inspired or ecstatic communal praise (10:21; 19:9). Thirdly, it is permeated by zeal for righteousness (wis 1:1) in collective and individual morality; God helps the righteous, divine punishments are just (5:20; 12:15; 16:24), and God's people and their heroes are exemplars of virtue. Lastly, in accord with its emphasis on the nation (Barclay 1996:181-91), Wisdom shows deep familiarity with Scripture and interpretative tradition; artistic allusion is pervasive (Chester 1988). Many biblical characters are portrayed, but, like Israel, they are all unnamed (wis 4:10).
4. In biblical style, but with a tinge of philosophical language, Wisdom welcomes a number of Greek philosophical conceptions. Broadly speaking, the book sounds both Platonic and Stoic. Its mystical strand has affinities with Plato; 'understanding [ phronesis, cf 7:7] would arouse terrible love [cf 7:10; 8:2], if such a clear image of it were granted [cf. 7:22—8:1] as would come through sight' (Plato, Phdr. 2500). Wisdom is more particularly indebted to Plato, perhaps through intermediaries, on the virtues, pre-existence, primal matter, and beauty (8:7, 19; 11:17; I3-3)' an(^ in the treatment of the soul
2. The Wisdom of Solomon begins with instruction to kings on wisdom, as regards the suffering and vindication of the righteous (see chs. 1—5); the doctrine of immortality is presented as the confirmation of the righteousness of God. From these chapters, which are close to the judgement scenes in i
Enoch and the Psalms of Solomon, and opposed to the thiswordly emphasis of Ecclesiastes and Sirach, the church drew a theology of martyrdom and an interpretation of the passion of Christ. Then in chs. 6-10 King Solomon emerges by implication as the speaker, telling the Gentile kings how he prayed when young for the heavenly gift of wisdom, as is related in i Kings 3 and 2 Chr i. Recollections of his ardent love for wisdom are mingled with praise for her in terms that appropriately suggest 'the spirit of wisdom and understanding' promised to the Davidic king (Isa 11:2); she is an allpervasive loving spirit issuing from God, the fashioner and guardian and renewer of all things as well as the giver of knowledge and the guide of life. Wisdom is set in the divine realm, following Prov 8 with the young Solomon; these chapters differ markedly from Eccl 1-2, in which the old king views wisdom as an ultimately pointless human acquisition. Lastly, chs. 11—19 Praise God through a meditation on the Exodus that inculcates repentance and faith and defends providence (14:3; 17:2) and the election of God's 'people' (12:19, etc.); a digression (chs. 13-15) on the origins of Gentile idolatry has affinities with the beginning of Romans. Throughout chs. 11—19 the writer continues the address to God, rather than the kings of the earth, which was begun in ch. 9, and wisdom is named only in one passage (14:2, 5); these chapters recall Sirach in their theodicy (Crenshaw 1975) and in their dependence on the biblical histories, but otherwise they show less kinship with the sapiential books than with Jewish exegesis of Exodus and Christian paschal homily (17:1).
(wis A.3; 8:20; 9:15—17; 15:8); but Plato's theory of archetypal ideas (Stead 1994:18-21), which is central in Philo's theology, here stays in the background (9:8; 13:7). Wisdom's own central conception of a beautifully ordered world guided by immanent spirit (wis 1:7; 8:1; 19:18) has antecedents in the biblical sapiential tradition (wis A.I; A.3), but comes mainly from Plato as interpreted by the Stoics.
5. The book defends providence, afterlife, and the reward of virtue. These Platonic themes became central in the Stoic and Epicurean philosophies of the second and first centuries BCE (ACTS 17:18; Stead 1994: 40-53). Philosophers then nurtured by the Greek cities of Syria and Palestine include the Stoics Poseidonius of Apamea and Antiochus of Ascalon, and the Epicurean Philodemus of Gadara; all drew upon the classical philosophers, and were influential among educated Romans as well as Greeks (Hengel 1974: 86—7). Wisdom takes, broadly speaking, the Stoic side; Stoics argued for a universe pervaded and directed by a vital force (wis 1:7), and the survival of righteous souls, but Epicureans envisaged non-intervening deities and souls which perished with the body. In the first century CE Josephus (Vita, 12) compares the Pharisees to the Stoics, and his outline of Sadducaic opinion recalls Epicureanism.
3. Four great characteristics of Wisdom's teaching can be discerned throughout. First, it has an element of mysticism, in the sense of the soul's quest for the divine (wis 2:13; 13:6), especially divine wisdom (7:10; 8:2); conversely, the immanent deity is the lover of souls (1:4; 7:27; 11:26—12:1; 16:21).
6. 'Wisdom' itself (Gk. sophia, Lat. sapientia, 1:4, etc.) was a weighty term in philosophical vocabulary. In Plato it included morality and the art of government (Rep. 4.6,428s-429A), in Aristotle it was identified with abstract philosophy and knowledge of principles as opposed to practice (Eth. Nic. 6.7, H4ib),
651 THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON
resurrection, which could itself be envisaged spiritually (Mk 12:25). 10. Among the NT books Wisdom has affinity not only with Romans (wis A.2) but also with the speeches in Acts on repentance and faith, with the sapiential morality of James, and with the vindication of righteous suffering in i Peter. In the treatment of wisdom and logos as intermediaries (wis 7:22; 9:1) Wisdom also shows kinship with the Christology of word, spirit, radiance, and image in John, Paul, and Hebrews. From a wider range of ancient Jewish literature, Philo's philosophical exegesis of Scripture, Josephus's presentation of the Jewish schools of thought as philosophies, and 4 Maccabees on Jewish martyrdom as adherence to true philosophy, all broadly resemble Wisdom as Jewish expositions of Judaism using Greek philosophical terms. It should be stressed, however, that all these NT and other works are written in Greek prose, and are far removed from Wisdom's adherence to biblical poetic style (wis B.I). The portrayal of Christianity as a philosophical school by the Apologists, such as Justin Martyr (later 2nd cent.) and Tertullian (early 3rd cent.), adapts the philosophical interpretation of Judaism attested in Wisdom (wis A.4~8). Similarly, rabbinic biblical exposition current in third-fifth-century Galilee and embodied in the Talmud and Midrash, although it is handed down in Hebrew and Aramaic rather than Greek, evinces a debt to philosophical vocabulary and Greek conceptions of a spiritual cosmos which once again recalls Wisdom.