PDA

View Full Version : Problem with the date of Esther 3:13



Shane Mohammed
11-12-2011, 12:00 AM
In Esther 3:13 the Hebrew text states that the lot fell on the month of Adar, the 13th day, but in Esther B:6 it states in the letter that the date is on the 14th of Adar. I am aware that in chapter 9 there are two days of battle, namely, the 13th and 14th; but this does not seem to justify B:6. I know the letter is legit because Josephus quotes it in Ant. Book XI, he too states the date is fourteen but in the second letter by Artaxerxes (chapter E) he states it is the 13th. What am I not seeing here as this appears as a contradiction?

bkMitchell
11-13-2011, 06:20 AM
In Esther 3:13 the Hebrew text states that the lot fell on the month of Adar, the 13th day, but in Esther B:6 it states in the letter that the date is on the 14th of Adar. I am aware that in chapter 9 there are two days of battle, namely, the 13th and 14th; but this does not seem to justify B:6. I know the letter is legit because Josephus quotes it in Ant. Book XI, he too states the date is fourteen but in the second letter by Artaxerxes (chapter E) he states it is the 13th. What am I not seeing here as this appears as a contradiction?

Both, Adar 13th and Adar 14th are accurate dates (One might also add the 15th as well). The Battle field was a wide geographic incorporating most of the Providences of the Kingdom and the fighting did not begin nor did it end at exactly the same time in all the areas. The Holy Days of Chag-Purim were also celebrated on different dates of the calendar depending on the area.

Shane Mohammed
11-13-2011, 02:36 PM
Both, Adar 13th and Adar 14th are accurate dates (One might also add the 15th as well). The Battle field was a wide geographic incorporating most of the Providences of the Kingdom and the fighting did not begin nor did it end at exactly the same time in all the areas. The Holy Days of Chag-Purim were also celebrated on different dates of the calendar depending on the area.

I understand that in Susa the Jews faught on the 13th and 14th and celebrated on the 15th, but does B:6 specifically contradict 3:13 (as it follows 3:13)?

3:13 reads: And the letters were sent by posts into all the king's provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.


B:6 reads:
Therefore have we commanded, that all they that are signified in writing unto you by Aman, who is ordained over the affairs, and is next unto us, shall all, with their wives and children, be utterly destroyed by the sword of their enemies, without all mercy and pity, the fourteenth day of the twelfth month Adar of this present year:

bkMitchell
11-13-2011, 08:27 PM
I understand that in Susa the Jews faught on the 13th and 14th and celebrated on the 15th, but does B:6 specifically contradict 3:13...?

No, not at all.

First, the text that you call 'B:6' is Known in BibleWorks as Apocrypha (Ester Greek) and the section of that book you mention is 13:1-16 and verse 13:6. It can also be found on the Sacred-texts.com at here (http://sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/aes013.htm). Josephus (a Hellenistic Jew) Wrote in Greek and quoted from what has come to be known as the LXX (Septuagint) witch includes the Apocrypha of which you quoted. Had, Josephus been proficient in Hebrew and had he had access to the Massoretic text he would not have quoted from the LXX.

Second, within normative Judaism and Protestant faiths the Apocrypha is not accepted as scripture because it was not included in the Massoretic Text. However, Catholics and the Orthodox do accept the Apocrypha and it would be interesting to hear their response on this issue. In general, I stick with the Massorah, but then again that's my prerogative.

Third, the LXX is a Midrashic interpretation/Translation of the Hebrew texts which sometimes attempts to fill in the gaps and make things more understandable to Jews living in the diaspora. It is true that the LXX does not always appear to line up with the Hebrew Text and is different from it. However, this was not necessarily a contradiction in the minds of some early Jewish sects who often took a 'both and' approach rather than an 'either or' approach.

So, is there a problem here?
No, not at all because we are essentially dealing with two different canons of scripture from two different communities of faith (and some communities of faith may accept both and more canonical readings as being valid).

Shane Mohammed
11-13-2011, 09:11 PM
To bkMitchell:

Look at Jos. Ant. Book XI:281 (Chapter E in Catholic/Orthodox Bibles) and compare it to XI:219 (Chapter B in Catholic Bibles), then compare it to Est. 3:13, 8:12, and 9:1; does not Josephus contradict these two dates in his own Antiquity as the LXX reads both dates in B and E? Do you think that since chapter E has the 13th (being the seputagint) that chapter B along with Josephus made an error? I understand what you are saying about two different canons, but I am making a new Greek version of my own (to conforn to the Hebrew) and am including this, should I change it to say 13th?

P.S. If you can read Greek compare both Josephus' account with the LXX; the Septuagint version seems more of a periphrastic translation of a semitic original. Josephus, on the other hand may have had a semitic original in front of him, compare them (as I do not think he used the LXX here). Also to back my statement up, in the LXX Haman is called a Macedonian in chapter E, while Josephus calls him an Amalekite. What do you think about both of these questions (top paragraph)? Thanks.

bkMitchell
11-14-2011, 01:52 AM
I am making a new Greek version of my own (to conforn to the Hebrew) and am including this, should I change it to say 13th?
(1)If, your point is to make a new translation, from the Massoretic text, then it is probably better to ignore the reading found in the LXX. (added for clarification: On the other hand if your point is to make a new translation based on the LXX, then stick with it and ignore the Masoretic text)



does not Josephus contradict these two dates in his own Antiquity
(2) Sure, but that does not answer why?
Was it because:
(a) Josephus wasn't a modern Western Historian and like many ancient historian had no issue with what we might think to be contradictions.
(b) Josephus recorded two different accounts of the same event indiscriminately.
(c) Josephus recorded two different accounts of the same event because he had access to two letters.
(c) A later Scribe or redactor added the other date.
(d) The text of Josephus is corrupt here.
(e) Josephus fabricates and embellishes.
(f) Josephus or a later redactor merged the fourteen of Dystros with the 13th of Adar.



Josephus, on the other hand may have had a semitic original in front of him
I doubt that very seriously, but I think he may had a proto-LXX or some-other Greek text but it is pretty clear in my mind he did not have access to the Hebrew Bible.

POST SCRIPT:
Texts From Josephus:
JOS Antiquities of the Jews 11:219 καὶ τοῦτο γενέσθαι βούλομαι τῇ τετράδι καὶ δεκάτῃ τοῦ δωδεκάτου μηνὸς τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος ἔτους ὅπως οἱ πανταχόθεν ἡμῖν πολέμιοι μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ διαφθαρέντες τοῦ λοιποῦ μετ᾽ εἰρήνης(Ant 11:219 JOS)
JOE Antiquities of the Jews 11:219 and this I will to be executed on the fourteenth day of the twelfth month of this present year, that so when all that have enmity to us are killed, and this in one day, we may be allowed to lead the rest of our lives in peace hereafter.'' (Ant 11:219 JOE)

JOS Antiquities of the Jews 11:290 καὶ τοῦτο μὲν προσέταξε τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὁ βασιλεὺς μηδὲν ἀντιλέγειν Ἐσθῆρι δυνάμενος οἱ δὲ πάλιν συστραφέντες τῇ τετράδι καὶ δεκάτῃ τοῦ Δύστρου μηνὸς ἀπέκτειναν τῶν ἐναντίων ὡς τριακοσίους καὶ οὐδενὸς τῶν ἐκείνοις ὑπαρχόντων ἥψαντο κτημάτων (Ant 11:290 JOS)
JOE Antiquities of the Jews 11:290 So the king permitted the Jews so to do, as desirous not to oppose Esther. So they gathered themselves together again on the fourteenth day of the month of Dystros, and slew about three hundred of their enemies, but touched nothing of what riches they had.
(Ant 11:290 JOE)

JOS Antiquities of the Jews 11:292 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ ἐν Σούσοις Ἰουδαῖοι τὴν τετράδα καὶ δεκάτην καὶ τὴν ἐχομένην τοῦ αὐτοῦ μηνὸς συναθροισθέντες εὐωχήθησαν ὅθεν καὶ νῦν οἱ ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ Ἰουδαῖοι πάντες τὰς ἡμέρας ταύτας ἑορτάζουσιν διαπεμπόμενοι μερίδας ἀλλήλοις (Ant 11:292 JOS)
JOE Antiquities of the Jews 11:292 In like manner the Jews that were in Susa (Shushan) gathered themselves together, and feasted on the fourteenth day, and that which followed it; hence it is that even now all the Jews that are in the habitable earth keep these days as a festival, and send portions to one another. (Ant 11:292 JOE)

Shane Mohammed
11-14-2011, 02:08 AM
"If, your point is to make a new translation, from the Massoretic text, then it is probably better to ignore the reading found in the LXX."


thanks, but are you saying (since I want to keep these two letters in my new translation) that I should just change the date in the letter? (which I think the fourteenth is a scribal error/mixed date and should be thirteenth to conform to the rest of the text seeing it is masoretic text) If so would that be honest translating? what do you think?

p.s. my translation is pretty much finished (after many years), just smoothing some rough edges like this, it contains the 39 books of the OT (24 in TaNaCH), with 1 Esdras, 1 Maccabees, and these additions to Esther.

bkMitchell
11-14-2011, 02:46 AM
"If, your point is to make a new translation, from the Massoretic text, then it is probably better to ignore the reading found in the LXX."thanks, but are you saying (since I want to keep these two letters in my new translation) that I should just change the date in the letter? (which I think the fourteenth is a scribal error/mixed date and should be thirteenth to conform to the rest of the text seeing it is masoretic text) If so would that be honest translating? what do you think?


One, more time (this my point):
(1) If your point is to make a new translation from the Massoretic text, then translate from it...
(2) If your point is to make a new Greek revision based on the LXX, then translate from it...
(3) If your point is to make a new Latin revision based on the Vulgate then translate from it...
(4) If your point is to make a new Syriac revision based on the Peshitta then translate from it...
(5) If your point is to make a new translation based on Josephus then translate from him...
(5) and so on...

Shane, In general I say what I mean and mean what I say.
Therefore, If you have to interpret what I have said, then something has gone terrible wrong.
I am sorry for the misuderstanding and I'll try to say this again based on your question:


...I am making a new Greek version of my own (to conform to the Hebrew) and am including this, should I change it to say 13th?
(a) If, you are translating to conform to the Hebrew then stick with the Hebrew.
(b)If, you are translation a letter found primarily in the Greek text then stick with the Greek.
(c) But, Shane is it honest to make a translation to as you say conform to the Hebrew and then include a letter not found in the Hebrew text?

Shane Mohammed
11-14-2011, 07:32 PM
" But, Shane is it honest to make a translation to as you say conform to the Hebrew and then include a letter not found in the Hebrew text?"

I include it because I believe it is inspired, I also include it because it gives important historical background (I think the Jews took it out). Thanks for your advice bkMitchell, does anybody else have an opinion they would like to share?

bkMitchell
11-15-2011, 01:42 AM
I include it because I believe it is inspired, I also include it because it gives important historical background (I think the Jews took it out).

I agree that the Apocrypha is of historical value and that it was and is part of the Orthodox and the slightly smaller Catholic canon of Scripture( and indeed the received canon of much of the Church). However, the Greek Orthodox generally accept the LXX as their received text over the Massoretic text. You on the other hand are interesting to me in that you would like to mix elements of both the Massoretic text and the Greek LXX into one Eclectic canon.

Please, let me know when your translation is ready for the press.

POST SCRIPT:
I am curious if you think that some group or sect of Jews took the letter out of the Hebrew text, do you believe any other changes were made to the Hebrew text family?

Shane Mohammed
11-15-2011, 07:05 PM
"POST SCRIPT:
I am curious if you think that some group or sect of Jews took the letter out of the Hebrew text, do you believe any other changes were made to the Hebrew text family?"

Yes, I believe there was a text that included these additions, but also one that excluded them. I don't think that Josephus had a Tanach in front of him, but for these letters, being a historian, may have had a semitic original of just the letters before him. Another example of Jews using some of these texts is seen in the DSS; for example, even though I reject Tobit (for historical reasons, though a good novel) it along with Sirach is found in the Qumran caves; four Aramaic for Tobit one in Hebrew, Hebrew for Sirach.

Well, my purpose for this task is similar to Origen, I want to make an accurate LXX as I think it should be (conform to the Hebrew, and include parts the Jews omitted). I would say it matches the ben Chayyim text 95% (for the 39 books a fresh translation; using Bambas as a base text [Kathrevousa Greek, almost identical to Koine, same voc. ], with some obvious errors corrected from the MT (i.e. 1 Chron. 9:41 Ahaz was omitted in Masoretic Text, Gen 4:8, Psa 145:13 last part, etc. As to why I stated 95% and not more).


I included 1 Maccabees because there are no historical errors in the book, was written in Hebrew (according to modern scholars), and is important to intertestamental history (chanukkah, and gospel of John mentions it (feast of lights). I included 1 Esdras because it tells an inportant history not found in the Jewish Ezra/Nehemiah/2 Chronicles (2 Esdras in the LXX), i.e. chapter 2:30-5:6; Josephus used it in preference to Ezra/Nehemiah (possibly because of its quality Greek; modern scholarship holds to an Hebrew original which I personally believe is the original). I included additions to Esther because they are important historical documents that the Jews took out (I am speaking of Chapter B and E only). So my canon has a total of 41 OT books. This is fine as the Catholics (Trent) chose which to include and exclude from the LXX canon.

Well, I am also making a New Testament edition with very unique Greek readings, I am proofing the text currently. The New Testament I wanted to make a Koine Greek edition that matches the KJV, a task that has not been done to its potential. The KJV has its errors, but, I believe the greek text used in it is superior. I am aware of Scrivener's edition, but it falls short of doing the task (i.e. John 10:16 flock for fold, I back translated the vulgate unum ovile to mia aule in Greek, Acts. 19:20 word of the Lord for Word of God, 1 John 5:8 outoi is missing but found in the clementine vulgate, and over 50 other readings). Through many years of comparing manuscripts I was able to find the greek text to conform to the KJV except in about 5 places, in which I used the Old Syrian, Vulgate mss., Peshitta, Coptic, etc. This is as I feel honest because modern translators used various texts for their OT (i.e. Vulgate, Samiritan Pentateuch, Targums, LXX, etc.), I feel some readings may have been lost from the original greek. Please let me know what you think, or if you know a way I can get it copyrighted. This work is critical and I even used the CNTTS as a guide (thanks Bibleworks), i.e. Heb. 10:23 faith is found in some mss.

P.S. I would like my text available in Bibleworks after I get it copyrighted.

bkMitchell
11-16-2011, 03:21 AM
Hello Shane Mohammed,

Copyrighting your work is the easy part see here:
http://www.wikihow.com/Copyright-a-Book

And here:
http://www.copyright.gov/eco/

Much of what you describe is New Testament textual criticism in practice. Overall, I think your concepts are fascinating.
I also agree that the DSS/Qumran manuscripts contain a multiplicity of textual types I would also add that the Cairo Genizah collection also has much of interest for textual critics of the Hebrew Bible.

As, for getting Greek(or Hebrew) text into the version database compiler beware that: "text intended for use with the Version Database Compiler must be in ASCII text for non-Greek/Hebrew versions and in CCAT format for Greek and Hebrew versions" BibleWorks 9 Help File

A Macro from converting unicode Greek to CCAT format can be found on the BibleWorks blog (http://bibleworks.oldinthenew.org/) .

Shane Mohammed
11-16-2011, 03:33 AM
Thanks, another point bkMitchell to show that I believe that the Jews took out parts of the canon can be seen in Daniel. In 1894 the Song of the Three Jews (between Dan.3:23-24) was found in Aramaic, taught to be used by Theodotion. Another part is the Dragon (from Bel and the Dragon) found in Aramaic by Gaster.

I provide the Article here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/daubney/additions.txt

Shane Mohammed
11-18-2011, 09:32 PM
The new Septuagint part of my Bible edition is now officially finished and is ready for the press, just need to get it copyrighted and then I am hoping to make it available for Bibleworks (for a small fee, not as an official Bibleworks download, but a second party website possibly). Will try to keep this updated.