Deuterocanonical Additions to the Old Testament Books: Selected Studies 3110240521, 9783110240528

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Table of Contents
Addition or Edition? Deconstructing the Concept of Additions
Mordecai’s Refusal of Proskynesis Before Haman According to the Septuagint Traditio historical and Literal Aspects
Genderizing Piety: The Prayers of Mordecai and Esther in Comparison
Atonement in the Prayer of Azariah (Dan 3:40)
Ancient Criticism of Religion in Dan 14 (Bel and Dragon), Bar 6 (Epistle of Jeremiah), and Wisdom 14
Verstehst du die Tugenden der Klugheit? Anfragen zu Gott und zum Wert der von ihm geschenkten Einsicht
The Epistle of Jeremiah: Translation or Composition?
Susanna’s Career in Reformation Drama. A Reception Historical Perspective with an Outlook on Fine Art
Backmatter

Citation preview

Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Edited by

Friedrich V. Reiterer, Beate Ego, Tobias Nicklas

Volume 5

De Gruyter

Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books Selected Studies

Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-3-11-024052-8 e-ISBN 978-3-11-024053-5 ISSN 1865-1666 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2010 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York Printing: Hubert & Co GmbH & Co KG, Göttingen ’ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Prefaceȱ ȱ ȱ Theȱ presentȱ volumeȱ containsȱ selectedȱ papersȱ deliveredȱ atȱ theȱ InternaȬ tionalȱConferenceȱonȱtheȱDeuterocanonicalȱBooks,ȱheldȱatȱtheȱReformedȱ Theologicalȱ Academyȱ ofȱ Pápa,ȱ Hungary,ȱ 15Ȭ17ȱ May,ȱ 2008.ȱ Theȱ contriȬ butionsȱexploreȱvariousȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱdeuterocanonicalȱaddiȬ tionsȱtoȱtheȱprotocanonicalȱbooksȱofȱtheȱOldȱTestament.ȱ Theȱeditorȱexpressesȱhisȱgratitudeȱtoȱtheȱcontributorsȱforȱtheirȱkindȱ cooperationȱ bothȱ inȱ organisingȱ theȱ conferenceȱ andȱ inȱ completingȱ thisȱ volume.ȱ Specialȱ thanksȱ areȱ dueȱ toȱ Prof.ȱ Józsefȱ Zsengellér,ȱ whoȱ kindlyȱ compiledȱtheȱindicesȱofȱtheȱvolume,ȱandȱmadeȱinvaluableȱhelpȱinȱproofȬ readingȱ theȱ cameraȱ readyȱ material.ȱ Thanksȱ areȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ Rector,ȱ LórántȱOroszȱOFM,ȱandȱtheȱadministrativeȱstaffȱofȱSapientiaȱCollegeȱofȱ Theology,ȱ Budapestȱ forȱ theirȱ generousȱ supportȱ duringȱ theȱ editingȱ ofȱ theȱvolume.ȱ ȱ ȱ Budapestȱ 12.ȱMarch,ȱ2010.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ GézaȱG.ȱXeravitsȱ editorȱ ȱ

TableȱofȱContentsȱ ȱ ȱ Preface............................................................................................................... vȱ ȱ JózsefȱZSENGELLÉR:ȱ AdditionȱorȱEdition?ȱDeconstructingȱtheȱConceptȱofȱAdditions.............. 1ȱ BeateȱEGO:ȱ Mordecai’sȱRefusalȱofȱProskynesisȱBeforeȱHamanȱ AccordingȱtoȱtheȱSeptuagint.ȱTraditioȬhistoricalȱandȱLiteralȱAspects ... 16ȱ StefanȱSCHORCH:ȱ GenderisingȱPiety:ȱ TheȱPrayersȱofȱMordecaiȱandȱEstherȱinȱComparison ............................... 30ȱ ThomasȱHIEKE:ȱ AtonementȱinȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱAzariahȱ(Danȱ3:40)........................................ 43ȱ MichaelȱWOJCIECHOWSKI:ȱ AncientȱCriticismȱofȱReligionȱinȱDanȱ14ȱ(BelȱandȱtheȱDragon)ȱ Barȱ6ȱ(EpistleȱofȱJeremiah),ȱandȱWisdomȱ14 .............................................. 60ȱ FriedrichȱV.ȱREITERER:ȱ VerstehstȱduȱdieȱTugendenȱderȱKlugheit?ȱ AnfragenȱzuȱGottȱundȱzumȱWertȱderȱvonȱIhmȱgeschenktenȱEinsicht ... 77ȱ BenjaminȱG.ȱWRIGHTȱIII:ȱ TheȱEpistleȱofȱJeremiah:ȱTranslationȱorȱComposition? .......................... 126ȱ KarinȱSCHÖPFLIN:ȱ Susanna’sȱCareerȱinȱReformationȱDrama.ȱ AȱReceptionȱHistoricalȱPerspectiveȱwithȱanȱOutlookȱonȱFineȱArt........ 143ȱ ȱ IndexȱofȱSources .......................................................................................... 171ȱ IndexȱofȱAuthors ......................................................................................... 179ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

AdditionȱorȱEdition?ȱ DeconstructingȱtheȱConceptȱofȱAdditionsȱ JÓZSEFȱZSENGELLÉRȱ

Introductionȱ Inȱsearchingȱforȱliteratureȱonȱtheȱinternetȱaboutȱtheȱ“additions”ȱpreviȬ ouslyȱ unknownȱ toȱ me,ȱ Iȱ foundȱ aȱ niceȱ definitionȱ ofȱ theȱ additionȱ ofȱ Esther:ȱ AdditionȱofȱEsterȱEnolatesȱtoȱNȬAlkylȬ2ȬfluoropyridiniumȱSalts:ȱTheȱresultȱ isȱTotalȱSynthesisȱofȱ(±)Ȭ20ȬDeoxycamptothecinȱandȱ(+)ȬCamptothecin.ȱȱ

ThisȱisȱtheȱtitleȱofȱaȱfascinatingȱarticleȱpublishedȱbyȱaȱSpanishȱresearchȱ group1ȱinȱtheȱJournalȱofȱOrganicȱChemistry.ȱTheȱarticleȱconvincedȱmeȱthatȱ additionsȱhaveȱnothingȱtoȱdoȱwithȱEsther.ȱAfterȱthisȱfirstȱstepȱinȱdefiniȬ tionȱIȱdecidedȱtoȱexploreȱinȱanotherȱdirection.ȱ ȱ Inȱ thisȱ conferenceȱ weȱ areȱ dealingȱ withȱ aȱ veryȱ debatableȱ textȱ corpus.ȱ Thereȱareȱtwoȱproblemsȱofȱclassificationȱconcerningȱthisȱcorpus.ȱFirstȱofȱ all,ȱ thereȱ isȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ theȱ contentȱ ofȱ theȱ deuterocanonicalȱ literature.ȱ Whatȱ belongsȱ toȱ thisȱ category?ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Jamesȱ Charlesworth’sȱ popularȱdesignation,ȱ“thisȱancientȱliteraryȱcollectionȱcontainsȱ13ȱworksȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ oldȱ Greekȱ codicesȱ ofȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testament—namelyȱ Codexȱ Vaticanus,ȱ Codexȱ Sinaiticus,ȱ andȱ Codexȱ Alexandrianus…”2ȱ Theȱ 13ȱ worksȱ listedȱ byȱ Charlesworthȱ are:ȱ Epistleȱ ofȱ Jeremiah,ȱ Tobit,ȱ Judith,ȱ 3ȱ Ezra,ȱ Additionsȱ toȱ Esther,ȱ Theȱ Prayerȱ ofȱ Azariahȱ andȱ theȱ Songȱ ofȱ theȱ Threeȱ Youngȱ Men,ȱ Susanna,ȱ Belȱ andȱ theȱ Dragon,ȱ 1Baruch,ȱ Benȱ Sira,ȱ Wisdom,ȱ1ȱMaccabees,ȱ2ȱMaccabees.ȱButȱthereȱareȱdifferentȱmeasuresȱofȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ collectionsȱ ofȱ extraȱ (Hebrew)ȱ canonicalȱ textsȱ witnessedȱ byȱtheseȱgreatȱuncialȱmanuscripts.ȱCodexȱVaticanusȱcontainsȱadditionalȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1 2

ȱȱ ȱȱ

M.ȬL.ȱBENNASARȱetȱal.,ȱinȱJOCȱ67ȱ(2002)ȱ7465ȱȬ7474.ȱ CHARLESWORTH,ȱApocrypha,ȱ292.ȱCharlesworthȱcallsȱtheȱcollectionȱnotȱdeuterocanȬ onicalȱratherȱapocryphal.ȱSeeȱalsoȱ DESILVA,ȱIntroducingȱtheȱApocrypha.ȱKAISER,ȱTheȱ OldȱTestamentȱApocrypha,ȱ1.ȱ

2ȱ

J.ȱZsengellérȱ

toȱtheseȱ13ȱtextsȱ3ȱMaccabeesȱ4ȱMaccabeesȱandȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱManasseh.ȱ AlthoughȱCodexȱSinaiticusȱisȱnotȱcomplete,ȱitȱcontainsȱ4ȱMaccabeesȱasȱ anȱextraȱbookȱtoȱtheȱ13.ȱCodexȱAlexandrianusȱcontainsȱadditionallyȱ3Ȭ4ȱ Maccabees,ȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱManasseh,ȱPsalmȱ151,ȱOdesȱofȱSolomon,ȱandȱ PsalmsȱofȱSolomon.3ȱRabbinicȱliteratureȱalsoȱmentionedȱsefarimȱhitsonim,ȱ “outsideȱbooks,”4ȱthoughȱthereȱisȱnoȱlistȱofȱtheseȱtexts.ȱBenȱSira’sȱassoȬ ciationȱtoȱthisȱgroupȱwasȱdisputed,ȱandȱEstherȱwasȱdiscussedȱinȱconnecȬ tionȱ withȱ defilingȱ theȱ handsȱ orȱ not.5ȱ Inȱ hisȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ deuteroȬ canonicalȱ phenomenon,ȱ Gillesȱ Dorivalȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ concordȱ eitherȱ inȱ patristicȱ orȱ inȱ rabbinicȱ traditionȱ aboutȱ theȱ definitionȱ orȱ theȱ listȱ ofȱ deuterocanonicalȱ books.6ȱ Soȱ theȱ questionȱ remainsȱ open:ȱ whatȱ belongsȱ toȱ thisȱ category?ȱ Andȱ weȱ haveȱ toȱ addȱanotherȱquestion:ȱ WhatȱkindȱofȱcriteriaȱencloseȱorȱdiscloseȱpotentialȱcandidatesȱforȱaddiȬ tions?ȱ TheȱsecondȱproblemȱofȱclassificationȱisȱtheȱissueȱofȱdesigningȱaddiȬ tions.ȱWhatȱcanȱbeȱplacedȱinȱthisȱgroup?ȱThereȱareȱdifferentȱsolutions,ȱ whichȱmostlyȱdependentȱonȱtheȱfirstȱissue.ȱInȱalmostȱallȱmodernȱtransȬ lationsȱ of,ȱ orȱ commentaryȱ on,ȱ theȱ Deuterocanonicalȱ literatureȱ theseȱ textsȱ areȱ publishedȱ separatelyȱ inȱ aȱ specialȱ rubricȱ underȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ additions,7ȱ supplements,8ȱ Zusätze9ȱ orȱ somethingȱ similar.10ȱ Althoughȱ NickelsburgȱdiscussedȱSusannaȱandȱBelȱandȱtheȱDragonȱunderȱtheȱtitleȱ “storiesȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ andȱ earlyȱ postȬbiblicalȱ times,”ȱ heȱ countedȱ themȱ toȱ theȱgroupȱofȱadditionsȱasȱwell,ȱtogetherȱwithȱtheȱstoryȱofȱDarius’ȱbodyȬ guards,ȱtheȱadditionsȱofȱEsther,ȱ11QPsa,ȱBaruch,ȱEpistleȱofȱJeremiah,ȱtheȱ Prayerȱ ofȱ Azariahȱ andȱ theȱ Songȱ ofȱ theȱ Threeȱ Youngȱ Men.ȱ Thisȱ listȱ isȱ somewhatȱ extendedȱ ifȱ weȱ compareȱ itȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ Mooreȱ whoȱ discussedȱ onlyȱ additionsȱ toȱ Esther,ȱ toȱ Danielȱ andȱ toȱ Jeremiah.11ȱ Evenȱ moreȱ so,ȱ becauseȱ Nickelsburgȱ discussedȱ alsoȱ aȱ Qumranȱ psalmȱ underȱ thisȱ cateȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Thisȱ lastȱ textȱ wasȱ listedȱ inȱ theȱ tableȱ ofȱ contents,ȱ butȱ itȱ hasȱ beenȱ lost.ȱ Cf.ȱ SLAYTON,ȱ Codex,ȱ1069.ȱ 4ȱȱ B.Sanhedrinȱ100b.ȱItȱisȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱRabbiȱAkiba’sȱmeaningȱregardingȱthoseȱwhoȱ doȱ notȱ haveȱ portionȱ inȱ theȱ worldȱ toȱ come.ȱ Akibaȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ peopleȱ whoȱ readsȱ uncanonicalȱ(hitsonim)ȱbooksȱareȱalsoȱexcluded.ȱ(m.Sanhedrinȱ10:1).ȱȱ 5ȱȱ BLAU,ȱBibleȱCanon,ȱ140Ȭ150.ȱ 6ȱȱ DORIVAL,ȱHasȱtheȱCategory,ȱ1Ȭ10.ȱ 7ȱȱ MOORE,ȱDaniel,ȱEstherȱandȱJeremiah.ȱȱ 8ȱȱ NICKELSBURG,ȱ Theȱ Bibleȱ Rewritten,ȱ 89Ȭ156.ȱ Theȱ lastȱ sectionȱ isȱ called:ȱ “Supplementsȱ toȱBiblicalȱBooks,”ȱ130Ȭ152.ȱ 9ȱȱ STECKȱetȱal.,ȱDasȱBuchȱBaruch.ȱȱ 10ȱȱ Seeȱe.g.ȱDANCY,ȱTheȱShorterȱBooks.ȱ 11ȱȱ Theȱ newȱ Hungarianȱ protestantȱ translationȱ ofȱ theȱ Deuterocanonicalȱ booksȱ containsȱ fromȱ theȱ “additions”ȱ onlyȱ Baruch,ȱ Epistleȱ ofȱ Jeremiah,ȱ Susannaȱ andȱ Belȱ andȱ theȱ Dragon.ȱ 3

ȱȱ

ȱ

AdditionȱorȱEdition?ȱ

3ȱ

gory.ȱ Butȱ heȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ onlyȱ oneȱ toȱ extendȱ theȱ list,ȱ sinceȱ deSilvaȱ andȱ KaiserȱalsoȱtreatedȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱManassehȱasȱanȱaddition.12 Consequently,ȱmakingȱaȱdecisionȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱaȱproductionȱofȱanȱarȬ tificialȱcollection.ȱThereforeȱtheȱquestionȱisȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱweȱcanȱfindȱaȱ wayȱtoȱdefineȱtheȱadditionsȱasȱaȱseparateȱgroupȱofȱtexts?ȱInȱthisȱpaperȱIȱ shallȱtryȱtoȱanswerȱthisȱquestion.ȱ

TheȱNatureȱofȱAdditionsȱ JuliusȱAfricanusȱ(ca.ȱ160ȱ–ȱca.ȱ240),ȱtheȱnotȱwellȬknownȱChristianȱwriter,ȱ wroteȱtoȱOrigenȱconcerningȱtheȱstoryȱofȱSusanna,ȱthatȱ“thisȱpartȱofȱtheȱ bookȱisȱspurious.ȱFor,ȱinȱsooth,ȱthisȱsection,ȱalthoughȱapartȱfromȱthisȱitȱ isȱelegantlyȱwritten,ȱisȱplainlyȱaȱmoreȱmodernȱforgery.”13ȱInȱhisȱanswer,ȱ OrigenȱdiscussedȱnotȱonlyȱtheȱproblemȱofȱSusannaȱposedȱbyȱAfricanus,ȱ butȱalludedȱtoȱtheȱproblemȱofȱotherȱadditions:ȱ Inȱanswerȱtoȱthis,ȱIȱhaveȱtoȱtellȱyouȱwhatȱitȱbehovesȱusȱtoȱdoȱinȱtheȱcasesȱnotȱ onlyȱofȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱSusanna,ȱwhichȱisȱfoundȱinȱeveryȱChurchȱofȱChristȱinȱ thatȱGreekȱcopyȱwhichȱtheȱGreeksȱuse,ȱbutȱisȱnotȱinȱtheȱHebrew,ȱorȱofȱtheȱ twoȱotherȱpassagesȱyouȱmentionȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱbookȱcontainingȱtheȱhisȬ toryȱofȱBelȱandȱtheȱDragon,ȱwhichȱlikewiseȱareȱnotȱinȱtheȱHebrewȱcopyȱofȱ Daniel;ȱ butȱ ofȱ thousandsȱ ofȱ otherȱ passagesȱ alsoȱ whichȱ Iȱ foundȱ inȱ manyȱ placesȱwhenȱwithȱmyȱlittleȱstrengthȱIȱwasȱcollatingȱtheȱHebrewȱcopiesȱwithȱ ours.ȱ AndȱinȱmanyȱotherȱofȱtheȱsacredȱbooksȱIȱfoundȱsometimesȱmoreȱinȱourȱcopȬ iesȱ thanȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrew,ȱ sometimesȱ less.ȱȱ Iȱ shallȱ adduceȱ aȱ fewȱ examples,ȱ sinceȱ itȱ isȱ impossibleȱ toȱ giveȱ themȱ all.ȱȱ Ofȱ theȱ Bookȱ ofȱ Estherȱ neitherȱ theȱ prayerȱofȱMardochaiosȱnorȱthatȱofȱEsther,ȱbothȱfittedȱtoȱedifyȱtheȱreader,ȱisȱ foundȱinȱtheȱHebrew.14ȱȱ

Soȱ theȱ basicȱ problemȱ ofȱ thisȱ discussionȱ wasȱ twofold:ȱ theȱ textȱ portionsȱ wereȱnotȱincludedȱinȱtheȱHebrewȱBibleȱnorȱtheyȱwereȱavailableȱinȱHeȬ brewȱatȱthatȱtime.ȱTwoȱmoreȱproblemsȱwereȱalsoȱreferredȱtoȱbutȱonlyȱbyȱ chance:ȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ theȱ portionsȱ mentionedȱ asȱ “atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ book”ȱ orȱ “fitted;”ȱ andȱ theȱ functionȱ mentionedȱ asȱ “edifyȱ theȱ reader.”ȱ Maybeȱ weȱ canȱ classifyȱ additionsȱ moreȱ preciselyȱ ifȱ weȱ followȱ theseȱ problemsȱposedȱbyȱOrigen,ȱnamelyȱposition,ȱlanguageȱandȱfunction.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ DESILVA,ȱIntroducingȱtheȱApocrypha,ȱ296Ȭ300.ȱKAISER,ȱTheȱOldȱTestamentȱApocryȬ pha,ȱ77.ȱ 13ȱȱ Africanus,ȱ Aȱ letterȱ toȱ Origen,ȱ 1.ȱ inȱ AnteȬNiceneȱ Fathers,ȱ Vol.ȱ IVȱ (eds.ȱ P.ȱ Schaffȱ etȱ al.),ȱ GrandȱRapidsȱ1980,ȱ385.ȱ 14ȱȱ Origen,ȱAȱletterȱtoȱAfricanusȱ2Ȭ3,ȱinȱAnteȬNiceneȱFathers,ȱVol.ȱIV.ȱ 12

4ȱ

J.ȱZsengellérȱ

PositionȱasȱaȱCharacteristicȱofȱSeparationȱ InȱtheȱtextȱofȱtheȱSeptuagintȱtheȱadditionsȱareȱinvolvedȱintoȱtheir,ȱletȱusȱ call,ȱ “motherȱ texts.”ȱ Susannaȱ introducesȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Daniel,15ȱ Belȱ andȱ theȱDragonȱclosesȱit,ȱtheȱprayerȱandȱhymnȱofȱtheȱmartyrsȱareȱembodiedȱ inȱchapterȱ3.ȱTheȱadditionsȱtoȱtheȱBookȱofȱEstherȱareȱalsoȱembodiedȱinȱ theȱstorytelling.ȱBaruchȱfollowsȱtheȱBookȱofȱJeremiahȱandȱtheȱEpistleȱofȱ Jeremiahȱ continuesȱ Baruchȱ beforeȱ Lamentationsȱ asȱ independentȱ texts.ȱ Modernȱ translationsȱ followȱ theȱ methodȱ ofȱ Jeromeȱ whoȱ separatedȱ theȱ majorȱadditionsȱofȱEsther,ȱandȱDanielȱandȱpastedȱthemȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ books,ȱ likewiseȱ heȱ changedȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ Baruchȱ andȱ theȱ Letterȱ ofȱ JeremiahȱandȱputȱthemȱtogetherȱasȱoneȱindependentȱbookȱafterȱLamenȬ tations.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ heȱ leftȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ Darius’ȱ Bodyguards,ȱ theȱ prayerȱofȱAzariah,ȱandȱtheȱSongȱofȱtheȱThreeȱYoungȱMenȱinȱtheirȱownȱ placeȱinȱtheȱtext.ȱWeȱcanȱconcludeȱthatȱneitherȱtheȱGreekȱversionsȱnorȱ Jeromeȱwereȱconsequentȱinȱtreatingȱtheȱpositionsȱofȱtheseȱtexts,ȱthoughȱ accordingȱtoȱtheȱGreekȱorderȱweȱcanȱmaintainȱthatȱtheyȱbelongȱtoȱtheirȱ “motherȱtexts”ȱinȱdifferentȱways.ȱConsequentlyȱpositionȱdoesȱnotȱproȬ videȱaȱdistinguishingȱcharacteristicȱforȱtheȱseparationȱofȱtheȱadditions.ȱ

LanguageȱasȱaȱCharacteristicȱofȱSeparationȱ Oneȱofȱtheȱconstantȱelementsȱofȱreasoningȱagainstȱtheȱcanonicalȱuseȱofȱ someȱ deuterocanonicalȱ booksȱ isȱ theirȱ originalȱ Greekȱ language.ȱ ScholȬ arlyȱopinionȱofȱtheȱnineteenthȱcenturyȱandȱalsoȱthatȱofȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱ theȱtwentiethȱcenturyȱ(upȱtoȱtheȱdiscoveryȱofȱtheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrolls)ȱcanȱ beȱ summarizedȱ byȱ theȱ viewȱ ofȱ Emilȱ Schürer,ȱ thatȱ theȱ additionsȱ hadȱ originallyȱ beenȱ composedȱ inȱ Greekȱ andȱ onlyȱ laterȱ wereȱ addedȱ toȱ theȱ Septuagint. 16ȱThisȱopinionȱwasȱbasedȱmainlyȱonȱtheȱcommentȱofȱOrigenȱ andȱ Jerome,ȱ whoȱ maintainedȱ thatȱ noȱ Hebrewȱ orȱ Aramaicȱ textsȱ ofȱ theȱ additionsȱ wereȱ knownȱ inȱ theirȱ ownȱ time.17ȱ Theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ discoveriesȱ broughtȱ toȱ lightȱ Semiticȱ portionsȱ ofȱ Tobit,ȱ Benȱ Sira,ȱ andȱ severalȱ otherȱ nonȬcanonicalȱ books,ȱ butȱ thereȱ wereȱ noȱ findȱ ofȱ anyȱ ofȱ theȱ additions.18ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ TheȱLXXȱplacesȱSusanaȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱBookȱofȱDanielȱbeforeȱBelȱandȱtheȱDragon,ȱ whileȱtheȱTheodotionȱtextȱplacesȱitȱatȱtheȱbeginning.ȱ 16ȱȱ Cf.ȱ SCHÜRER,ȱ Geschichte,ȱ 15.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ summaryȱ ofȱ MOORE,ȱ Daniel,ȱ Estherȱ andȱ Jeremiah,ȱ5Ȭ6.ȱ 17ȱȱ Origen,ȱAȱletterȱtoȱAfricanusȱ2Ȭ3.ȱ 18ȱȱ TheȱpseudoȬDanielȱfragmentsȱ(4Q243Ȭ245)ȱwereȱneverȱdirectlyȱconnectedȱtoȱtheȱtextsȱ ofȱtheȱadditionsȱtoȱDaniel.ȱSeeȱtheȱeditionȱofȱtheseȱtextsȱinȱCOLLINS/FLINT,ȱQumranȱ Caveȱ4,ȱ95Ȭ164.ȱ 15

ȱ

AdditionȱorȱEdition?ȱ

5ȱ

TheȱstudiesȱonȱtheȱtextsȱandȱtendenciesȱrepresentedȱinȱtheȱSemiticȱandȱ GreekȱtextsȱfoundȱnearȱtheȱDeadȱSeaȱhoweverȱindicateȱthatȱmostȱofȱtheȱ apocryphaȱ andȱ pseudepigraphaȱ wereȱ originallyȱ composedȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ orȱAramaic,ȱorȱatȱleastȱhadȱaȱSemiticȱprototype.ȱȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Emanuelȱ Tov’sȱ previousȱ view,ȱ additionsȱ toȱ Estherȱ wereȱwrittenȱinȱGreek,ȱandȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱthirdȱgroupȱofȱtextsȱamongȱtheȱ booksȱ ofȱ theȱ Septuagint.19ȱ Inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ theȱ lastȱ twentyȱ yearsȱ heȱ changedȱ hisȱmindȱandȱsupportsȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ mostȱofȱ theȱadditionsȱ ofȱ Estherȱ wereȱ writtenȱ inȱ Hebrew.20ȱ Careyȱ Mooreȱ concludedȱ hisȱ carefulȱ studyȱofȱtheȱtextȱofȱEstherȱthatȱaccordingȱtoȱinternalȱevidencesȱtheȱaddiȬ tionsȱA,ȱC,ȱDȱandȱFȱreferȱtoȱaȱSemiticȱVorlage,ȱwhileȱBȱandȱEȱwereȱsurelyȱ composedȱ inȱ Greek.21ȱ Aȱ moreȱ detailedȱ viewȱ wasȱ presentedȱ byȱ Ingoȱ KottsieperȱwhoȱclaimsȱAȱ1Ȭ11,ȱCȱandȱFȱ1Ȭ10ȱhavingȱanȱAramaicȱGrundȬ lage.22ȱ Itȱ isȱ worthȱ mentioningȱ thatȱ theȱ Fȱ 11ȱ containsȱ aȱ colophonȱ whichȱ claimsȱthatȱtheȱGreekȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱbookȱwasȱmadeȱinȱJerusalemȱbyȱ aȱcertainȱLysimachus,ȱsonȱofȱPtolemy.23 AsȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱEsther,ȱTovȱpreviouslyȱmaintainedȱthatȱtheȱaddiȬ tionsȱtoȱDanielȱwereȱwrittenȱinȱGreek,24ȱbutȱheȱsimilarlyȱdevelopedȱhisȱ ideaȱ inȱ thisȱ case.ȱ Theȱ twoȱ poeticȱ compositionsȱ andȱ Susannaȱ wereȱ probablyȱ writtenȱ inȱ Hebrewȱ asȱ demonstratedȱ byȱ Pfeifferȱ andȱ Moore.25ȱ InȱtheȱcaseȱofȱBelȱandȱtheȱDragon,ȱMooreȱpointedȱoutȱinternalȱSemiticȱ evidences.26 Thackerayȱdemonstratedȱinȱ1903ȱthatȱtheȱGreekȱtranslatorȱofȱJerȱ29Ȭ 52ȱwasȱtheȱsameȱpersonȱwhoȱdidȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱBarȱ1:1Ȭ3:8.ȱHeȱsupȬ posedȱaȱsecondȱtranslatorȱforȱtheȱportionȱ3:9Ȭ5:9.27ȱThisȱviewȱisȱstillȱheldȱ byȱ Tov.28ȱ Inȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ twentiethȱ centuryȱ theȱ Epistleȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ wasȱ alsoȱ thoughtȱ toȱ beȱ writtenȱ inȱ Hebrew.ȱ Afterȱ aȱ carefulȱ comparativeȱ linguisticȱ analysis,ȱ Benjaminȱ Wrigthȱ pointsȱ outȱ inȱ thisȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ 21ȱȱ 22ȱȱ 19 20

ȱȱ ȱȱ 25ȱȱ 23 24

ȱȱ ȱȱ 28ȱȱ 26 27

TOV,ȱTheȱSeptuagint,ȱ162.ȱ TOV,ȱTheȱLXXȱTranslationȱofȱEsther,ȱ507Ȭ526.ȱȱ MOORE,ȱOnȱtheȱOrigins,ȱ382Ȭ393.ȱ KOTTSIEPER,ȱ Zusätzeȱ zuȱ Ester,ȱ 118Ȭ121.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Collinsȱ theȱ Greekȱ Estherȱ wasȱ sentȱtoȱEgyptȱasȱaȱHasmoneanȱpropaganda.ȱHeȱsupposesȱthatȱtheȱHebrewȱtextȱwasȱ notȱonlyȱtranslatedȱbutȱ”modifiedȱinȱtheȱlightȱofȱitsȱdestination,”ȱCOLLINS,ȱBetweenȱ AthensȱandȱJerusalem,ȱ110Ȭ112.ȱ SeeȱMoore’sȱcommentȱinȱMOORE,ȱDaniel,ȱEstherȱandȱJeremiah,ȱ251Ȭ252.ȱ TOV,ȱTheȱSeptuagint,ȱ162.ȱ PFEIFFER,ȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Times,ȱ 445;ȱ MOORE,ȱ Daniel,ȱ Estherȱ andȱ Jeremiah,ȱ44Ȭ49;ȱ81Ȭ84.ȱ MOORE,ȱDaniel,ȱEstherȱandȱJeremiah,ȱ119Ȭ120.ȱȱ THACKERAY,ȱNotesȱandȱStudies,ȱ245Ȭ266.ȱ TOV,ȱTheȱBookȱofȱBaruchȱandȱTOV,ȱTheȱSeptuagintȱTranslation,ȱ169.ȱMOORE,ȱDaniel,ȱ EstherȱandȱJeremiah,ȱ262,ȱagreesȱwithȱthem.ȱȱ

6ȱ

J.ȱZsengellérȱ

volumeȱthatȱtheȱEpistleȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱaȱtranslationȱbutȱanȱoriginalȱGreekȱ composition.29 AlreadyȱC.C.ȱTorreyȱclaimedȱaȱSemiticȱVorlageȱofȱ1ȱEzra,30ȱbutȱthereȱ isȱ stillȱ noȱ scholarlyȱ concordȱ concerningȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ Darius’ȱBodyguardsȱ(1ȱEzraȱ3Ȭ4).ȱTheȱmajorityȱofȱscholarsȱsupposedȱanȱ originalȱAramaicȱcompositionȱratherȱthanȱaȱsemiticizingȱGreekȱtranslaȬ tion.31ȱRecentlyȱZiporaȱTalshirȱdevotedȱadditionalȱstudiesȱtoȱtheȱcompoȬ sitionȱofȱthisȱworkȱandȱpointedȱoutȱitsȱtranslationalȱcharacters.32 Theȱopinionȱonȱlanguageȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱtheȱadditionsȱ hasȱ dramaticallyȱ changedȱ withinȱ theȱ lastȱ threeȱ decades.ȱ Asȱ weȱ obȬ served,ȱonlyȱsomeȱpartsȱofȱtheȱminorityȱofȱtheȱadditionsȱareȱthoughtȱtoȱ haveȱ beenȱ writtenȱ originallyȱ inȱ Greek.ȱ Thereforeȱ theȱ originalȱ Greekȱ languageȱ asȱ aȱ supposedȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ additionsȱ hasȱ alsoȱ disapȬ peared.ȱ

FunctionȱandȱThemeȱasȱCharacteristicsȱofȱSeparationȱ OfȱtheȱadditionsȱNickelsburgȱmaintainedȱthatȱ“inȱtheirȱpresentȱcontextȱ theyȱinterpretȱtheȱearlierȱformsȱofȱtheȱtexts,”ȱsoȱtheirȱfunctionȱisȱinterȬ pretationȱ ofȱ Scripture.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Nickelsburgȱ theȱ interpretativeȱ characterȱofȱtheȱadditionsȱisȱofȱtwoȱsorts:ȱfirstȱ“theirȱcontentsȱinterpretȱaȱ wideȱvarietyȱofȱbiblicalȱmaterial”ȱ(e.g.ȱThreeȱYoungȱmenȱisȱaȱvariationȱ ofȱ severalȱ biblicalȱ Psalms;ȱ lastȱ partȱ ofȱ Baruchȱ paraphrasesȱ Secondȱ Isaiah);ȱ second,ȱ theyȱ interpretȱ theȱ biblicalȱ booksȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ haveȱ beenȱplaced.33 InȱtheȱcaseȱofȱEstherȱweȱcanȱsayȱthatȱtheȱadditionsȱreshapeȱtheȱtheoȬ logicalȱbackgroundȱofȱtheȱstoryȱandȱalsoȱtheȱmainȱstoryȱline.ȱTheȱaddiȬ tionsȱ ofȱ Danielȱ makeȱ theȱ figureȱ ofȱ Danielȱ moreȱ detailed,ȱ givingȱ epiȬ sodesȱwhichȱhaveȱtheȱsameȱtheologicalȱandȱliteraryȱfeatures.ȱOfȱcourseȱ theyȱintroduceȱnewȱreligiousȱorȱevenȱtheologicalȱthemes.ȱTheȱadditionsȱ ofȱ Estherȱ andȱ ofȱ Danielȱ haveȱ differentȱ literaryȱ genres.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ themȱ representȱ narrativeȱ stories,ȱ othersȱ poeticȱ styleȱ likeȱ psalmȱ orȱ prayer.ȱ Inȱ paraphrasingȱ passagesȱ fromȱ Jeremiahȱ andȱ Isaiahȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Baruchȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ MOORE,ȱ Daniel,ȱ Estherȱ andȱ Jeremiah,ȱ 326Ȭ327ȱ listsȱ threeȱ argumentsȱ supportingȱ theȱ Hebrewȱorigin.ȱAllȱofȱthemȱareȱquestionedȱbyȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱB.G.ȱWright,ȱ“TheȱEpisȬ tleȱofȱJeremiah:ȱTranslationȱorȱComposition?”ȱinȱthisȱvolume.ȱ 30ȱȱ TORREY,ȱTheȱNatureȱandȱOrigin,ȱ22Ȭ35.ȱ 31ȱȱ POHLMANN,ȱStudienȱzumȱdrittenȱEzra,ȱ48Ȭ49.ȱNICKELSBURG,ȱTheȱBibleȱRewrittenȱandȱ Expanded,ȱ134.ȱȱ 32ȱȱ TALSHIR,ȱ1ȱEsdras;ȱandȱSynchronicȱApproches,ȱ200Ȭ201.ȱ 33ȱȱ NICKELSBURG,ȱTheȱBibleȱRewrittenȱandȱExpanded,ȱ130.ȱ 29

ȱ

AdditionȱorȱEdition?ȱ

7ȱ

producesȱ aȱ wisdomȱ literatureȱ andȱ doesȱ notȱ changeȱ anythingȱ inȱ theȱ messageȱorȱnarrativeȱlineȱofȱtheȱbookȱofȱJeremiah.ȱNeitherȱtheȱEpistleȱofȱ JeremiahȱreplacesȱtheȱletterȱmentionedȱinȱJeremiahȱ29ȱbutȱsimplyȱgivesȱ anȱalternativeȱtextȱofȱit.ȱWhatȱconcernsȱDarius’ȱbodyguardsȱIȱwouldȱsayȱ thatȱitȱsupplementsȱtheȱreshapingȱofȱtheȱpostexilicȱnarrativeȱpresentedȱ inȱtheȱbookȱofȱ1ȱEzraȱasȱanȱintegralȱpartȱofȱthatȱtext.ȱ Weȱ canȱ considerȱ thatȱ theseȱ functionsȱ andȱ themesȱ canȱ notȱ beȱ sumȬ marizedȱunderȱtheȱrubricȱofȱinterpretationȱasȱdidȱbyȱNickelsburg,ȱandȱ neitherȱcanȱtheyȱbeȱsummarizedȱbyȱoneȱfunctionȱorȱtheme.ȱ Asȱweȱcouldȱseeȱfromȱourȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱcharacteristicsȱposedȱbyȱ theȱ correspondenceȱ betweenȱ Africanusȱ andȱ Origen,ȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ additionsȱisȱrootedȱneitherȱinȱtheirȱpositionȱnorȱinȱtheirȱlanguage,ȱnorȱinȱ theirȱthemeȱandȱfunctionȱinȱtheȱstoriesȱtheyȱbelongȱto.ȱInȱtheȱlastȱcase,ȱ theȱ functionȱ ofȱ theȱ textsȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ mostȱ fruitfulȱ directionȱ butȱ maybeȱ weȱ haveȱ toȱ poseȱ theȱ questionȱ otherwise.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ theȱ literaryȱ characterȱ ofȱ theseȱ texts?ȱ Areȱ theyȱ separateȱ storiesȱ insertedȱ intoȱ theȱ originalȱ extantȱ Hebrew,ȱ Aramaicȱ orȱ Greekȱ textsȱ asȱ supposedȱ byȱ theirȱ commonȱ designationȱ additions?ȱ Orȱ areȱ theyȱ partȱ ofȱ aȱ largerȱ literaryȱ activityȱnamelyȱeditionȱorȱreȬeditionȱofȱexistingȱtextsȱandȱtraditions?ȱ

AdditionȱorȱEditionȱ IntensiveȱstudyȱofȱSeptuagintȱstartedȱwhenȱscholarsȱdiscoveredȱthatȱtheȱ Greekȱ textȱ differedȱ fromȱ theȱ Hebrew.ȱ Comparisonȱ ofȱ givenȱ passagesȱ andȱbooksȱrevealedȱtheȱspecialȱcharacteristicsȱofȱtheȱGreekȱtextsȱandȱledȱ toȱtheȱconclusionȱthatȱthereȱisȱanȱindependentȱEgyptianȱtextȱtypeȱrepreȬ sentedȱ byȱ theȱ Septuagint.34ȱ Theȱ discoveryȱ ofȱ theȱ Deadȱ Seaȱ Scrolls,ȱ whereȱGreekȱandȱdifferentȱHebrewȱversionsȱwereȱpresent,ȱchangedȱtheȱ viewȱofȱtheȱlocalȱtextȱtypesȱintoȱtheȱmultiplicityȱofȱtextsȱandȱversions.35ȱ Nextȱtoȱthisȱgeneralȱview,ȱresearchȱonȱindividualȱbooksȱofȱtheȱSeptuaȬ gintȱ andȱ comparisonsȱ ofȱ theseȱ booksȱ pointȱ atȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ Greekȱ textsȱ ofȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ disagreeȱ differentlyȱ fromȱ theȱ MasoreticȱHebrewȱtexts.ȱThisȱattributeȱisȱcalledȱbyȱEmanuelȱTovȱinȱ1988ȱ asȱ theȱ heterogeneousȱ characterȱ ofȱ theȱ Septuagint.36ȱ Tovȱ explainedȱ theȱ heterogeneityȱofȱtheȱSeptuagintȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱ“someȱrevisionsȱofȱearlierȱ translations,”ȱandȱofȱ“differencesȱinȱtranslationȱtechniquesȱbetweenȱtheȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ Thereȱwereȱotherȱversionsȱofȱtheȱtextȱtypeȱtheory.ȱTheȱ“localȱtexts”ȱtheoryȱindicatedȱ aȱ threefoldȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ typesȱ favoredȱ byȱ Albrightȱ andȱ Cross.ȱ Theȱ Septuagintȱ wasȱofȱEgyptianȱinȱoriginȱinȱthisȱtheory.ȱSeeȱe.g.ȱCROSS,ȱTheȱEvolution,ȱ306Ȭ20.ȱ 35ȱȱ TOV,ȱTextualȱCriticism,ȱ187.ȱ 36ȱȱ TOV,ȱTheȱSeptuagint,ȱ169.ȱȱ 34

8ȱ

J.ȱZsengellérȱ

variousȱ books.”37ȱ Twoȱ independentȱ setsȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ researchȱ onȱ givenȱ textȱ portionsȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Samuelȱ ledȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ result.ȱ Theȱ DavidȬGoliathȱ storyȱ analyzedȱ byȱ Barthélemy,ȱ Gooding,ȱ Lustȱ andȱ Tov,ȱ andȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ Hannaȱ analyzedȱ byȱ Waltersȱ indicateȱ thatȱ theȱ differȬ encesȱ betweenȱ theȱ Masoreticȱ textȱ andȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ areȱ notȱ simplyȱ textualȱ variantsȱ orȱ productsȱ ofȱ innovationsȱ inȱ translation.ȱ Butȱ theseȱ differencesȱ representȱ differentȱ editionsȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ narrativesȱ inȱ 1Ȭ2ȱ Samuel.38ȱ Theseȱ twoȱ studiesȱ inspiredȱ Eugeneȱ Ulrichȱ toȱ developȱ aȱ newȱ phenomenon.ȱ Byȱ theȱ demonstrationȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ mannerȱ ofȱ differentȱ editionsȱ inȱ Exodusȱ (MTȱ andȱ LXXȱ versusȱ 4QPaleoExodm)ȱ inȱ Jeremiahȱ (4QJerbȱ andȱ LXXȱ versusȱ MT,ȱ 2QJer,ȱ 4QJeraȱ andȱ 4QJerc)ȱ andȱ inȱ Danielȱ (MTȱ versusȱ OG),ȱ Ulrichȱ proposedȱ theȱ theoryȱ ofȱ “doubleȱ literaryȱ ediȬ tions.”39ȱHeȱmaintainedȱthatȱtheȱsecondȱeditionȱofȱtheseȱtextsȱtookȱplaceȱ atȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ stage,ȱ thatȱ isȱ toȱ sayȱ beforeȱ theȱ Greekȱ translationsȱ ofȱ them.ȱThisȱnewȱHebrewȱtextȱvariantȱwasȱtranslatedȱtoȱGreekȱbutȱthenȱitȱ wasȱlost.ȱ AȱparallelȱphenomenonȱcanȱbeȱdiscoveredȱinȱtheȱbookȱofȱKings.ȱInȱ chapterȱ12ȱofȱ3ȱKingdomsȱofȱtheȱSeptuagintȱtheȱGreekȱtextȱhasȱaȱgreatȱ interpolationȱ aboutȱ theȱ lifeȱ andȱ deedsȱ ofȱ Jeroboam.ȱ Theȱ supplementȱ countsȱ 24ȱ longȱ verses,ȱ whichȱ isȱ longerȱ thanȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ additionsȱ weȱ areȱdealingȱwithȱinȱthisȱconference.40ȱButȱthereȱareȱmoreȱofȱtheseȱtypesȱ ofȱ smallerȱ additionsȱ orȱ supplementsȱ inȱ 3ȱ Kingdomsȱ discussedȱ intenȬ sivelyȱ inȱ theȱ lastȱ decades.41ȱ Thereȱ isȱ aȱ scholarlyȱ consensusȱ thatȱ theseȱ additionsȱ areȱ theȱ resultsȱ ofȱ editionsȱ ofȱ theȱ texts,ȱ butȱ differentȱ viewsȱ wereȱdeveloped,ȱwhetherȱtheȱeditionsȱwereȱmadeȱinȱtheȱGreekȱorȱinȱtheȱ Hebrewȱ texts.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ mostȱ recentȱ studies,ȱ Tovȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ theȱ discrepanciesȱoriginatedȱinȱHebrew.42ȱIfȱweȱcompareȱthisȱcaseȱwithȱthatȱ ofȱpresentedȱbyȱUlrichȱweȱcanȱsayȱthatȱthereȱwasȱaȱdoubleȱliteraryȱediȬ tionȱofȱ1ȱKings/3ȱKingdoms,ȱrespectively,ȱatȱtheȱHebrewȱstage.ȱButȱTovȱ wentȱonȱtoȱmaintainȱthatȱtheȱprocessȱwasȱnotȱaȱdoubleȱliteraryȱeditionȱ butȱaȱrewritingȱofȱ1ȱKingsȱbeforeȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱ3ȱKingdoms.ȱHeȱalsoȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ TOV,ȱibid.ȱ ȱȱ BARTHÉLEMYȱetȱal.,ȱTheȱStoryȱofȱDavidȱandȱGoliath.ȱWALTERS,ȱHannaȱandȱAnna,ȱ385Ȭ 412.ȱ 39ȱȱ ULRICH,ȱ Doubleȱ Literaryȱ Editions,ȱ 34Ȭ50.ȱ Theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ aȱ doubleȱ literaryȱ editionȱ wasȱ usedȱ beforeȱ inȱ theȱ redactionȱ criticalȱ methodȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ textȱ itself,ȱ cf.ȱ NELSON,ȱ TheȱDoubleȱRedaction,ȱcitedȱbyȱUlrich,ȱibid.ȱ 40ȱȱ TheȱtextȱwasȱanalyzedȱfirstȱbyȱDEBUS,ȱDieȱSündeȱJerobeams.ȱ 41ȱȱ SeeȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱpreviousȱliteratureȱinȱVANȱKEULEN,ȱTwoȱVersions.ȱ 42ȱȱ TOV,ȱ3ȱKingdoms,ȱ345Ȭ366.ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱnextȱnote.ȱ 37 38

ȱ

AdditionȱorȱEdition?ȱ

9ȱ

supposesȱthatȱtheȱbooksȱofȱEstherȱandȱDanielȱwereȱwentȱonȱinȱaȱsimilarȱ processȱofȱrewriting.43 Soȱ weȱ haveȱ twoȱ possibleȱ editorialȱ processesȱ whichȱ couldȱ explainȱ theȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Greekȱ textsȱ ofȱ Estherȱ andȱ Daniel.ȱ Butȱ beforeȱ weȱ tryȱ toȱ decideȱ whichȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ possibilitiesȱ isȱ moreȱfittingȱtoȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheseȱbooks,ȱweȱcanȱwiderȱtheȱscopeȱofȱ theȱtextsȱtoȱallȱtheȱadditions.ȱ Iȱcanȱtakeȱasȱaȱstartingȱpointȱtheȱ60ȱyearsȱoldȱopinionȱofȱC.C.ȱTorrey,ȱ who,ȱ concerningȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Esther,ȱ observedȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ Greekȱ translationȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱtextȱofȱEsther.44ȱTorreyȱmadeȱthisȱobservationȱ becauseȱtheȱGreekȱtextȱofȱEstherȱdoesȱnotȱdifferȱfromȱtheȱHebrewȱtextȱinȱ theȱ additionsȱ alone.ȱ First,ȱ theȱ additionsȱ wereȱ notȱ simplyȱ insertedȱ intoȱ theȱ textsȱ withoutȱ anyȱ changesȱ inȱ theȱ environmentȱ butȱ theȱ wholeȱ textȱ wasȱ reshaped.ȱ Consequentlyȱ theȱ removalȱ ofȱ theȱ additionsȱ doesȱ notȱ produceȱtheȱformerȱHebrewȱtext.ȱItȱisȱwellȱdemonstratedȱthat,ȱparallelȱ toȱtheȱremovalȱofȱtheȱadditions,ȱJeromeȱtranslatedȱtheȱHebrewȱtextȱintoȱ Latin,ȱandȱnotȱtheȱwreckedȱGreekȱtext.ȱSoȱTorreyȱwasȱrightȱinȱtheȱcaseȱ ofȱ Esther,ȱ whereȱ theȱ additionsȱ areȱ extantȱ throughoutȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ text,ȱ butȱ heȱ isȱ alsoȱ rightȱ concerningȱ otherȱ textsȱ containingȱ additionsȱ inȱ theȱ textȱ itself,ȱ Danielȱ andȱ 1ȱ Ezra.ȱ Theȱ additionsȱ areȱ notȱ simplyȱ “blocksȱ ofȱ textȱinterpolatedȱinto,ȱorȱaddedȱtoȱtheȱformȱofȱtheȱbiblicalȱbooksȱthatȱisȱ knownȱ toȱ usȱ inȱ theȱ canonicalȱ Hebrewȱ Bible,”ȱ asȱ Nickelsburgȱ definedȱ theirȱnature.45ȱButȱtheȱwholeȱHebrewȱbooksȱwereȱrevisedȱinȱsomeȱeditoȬ rialȱphases.ȱ

EditionȱandȱRewritingȱ Ifȱ theȱ originalȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ additionsȱ wasȱ supposedȱ toȱ beȱ mostlyȱ HebrewȱorȱAramaic,ȱthenȱtheȱeditorialȱworkȱhasȱtoȱbeȱdoneȱatȱtheȱHeȬ brewȱorȱAramaicȱlevelȱasȱitȱwasȱdemonstratedȱbyȱUlrichȱandȱTov.ȱThisȱ raisesȱtheȱquestionȱwhetherȱtheȱpreviousȱformȱofȱtheȱMasoreticȱtextȱwasȱ reeditedȱasȱTovȱarguesȱorȱtheȱresultsȱindicateȱaȱdoubleȱliteraryȱeditionȱ whichȱproducedȱaȱMasoreticȱversionȱandȱaȱSeptuagintȱversionȱasȱUlrichȱ argues.ȱ Theȱ choiceȱ ofȱ Tov’sȱ modelȱ callsȱ intoȱ considerationȱ theȱ typeȱ ofȱ editorialȱworkȱdescribedȱpreviouslyȱasȱconflationȱbyȱJeffreyȱTigay.46ȱInȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ TOV,ȱ3ȱKingdoms,ȱ363Ȭ366;ȱManyȱFormsȱofȱHebrewȱScripture,ȱ21Ȭ24..ȱ ȱȱ TORREY,ȱTheȱOlderȱBookȱofȱEsther,ȱ1.ȱ 45ȱȱ NICKELSBURG,ȱ Theȱ Bibleȱ Rewrittenȱ andȱ Expanded,ȱ 130.ȱ Althoughȱ Nickelsburgȱ disȬ cussedȱ theȱ additionsȱ inȱ aȱ chapterȱ calledȱ “Theȱ Bibleȱ Rewrittenȱ andȱ Expanded,”ȱ heȱ tookȱtheȱadditionsȱasȱ“supplements”ȱtoȱBiblicalȱbooks.ȱ 46ȱȱ TIGAY,ȱConflation,ȱ53Ȭ95.ȱ 43 44

10ȱ

J.ȱZsengellérȱ

theȱ processȱ explainedȱ byȱ Tigay,ȱ theȱ alreadyȱ existingȱ basicȱ textȱ (Masoretic)ȱ wasȱ editedȱ byȱ smallerȱ andȱ largerȱ expansions,ȱ butȱ princiȬ pallyȱ fromȱ differentȱ otherȱ Hebrewȱ canonicalȱ texts.ȱ Theȱ innovationȱ ofȱ Tovȱinȱthisȱcaseȱisȱthatȱtheȱtechniqueȱofȱtheȱsoȱcalledȱ“rewrittenȱBible”ȱ wereȱ usedȱ inȱ producingȱ theȱ laterȱ Biblicalȱ text,ȱ likeȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ Chronicles.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ discrepanciesȱ andȱ theologicalȱ differencesȱ beȬ tweenȱtheȱtwoȱtexts,ȱbutȱtheȱmainȱlineȱofȱtheȱstoryȱremainsȱtheȱsame.ȱOnȱ theȱotherȱhandȱtheȱtwoȱtextsȱareȱnotȱonȱtheȱsameȱredactionalȱlevel.ȱIfȱweȱ chooseȱ theȱ modelȱ ofȱ Ulrich,ȱ thenȱ weȱ recallȱ theȱ previousȱ modelȱ ofȱ textȱ types,ȱthoughȱnotȱconnectedȱtoȱlanguageȱbutȱtoȱeditorialȱactivity.ȱInȱthisȱ caseȱ bothȱ editionsȱ haveȱ supposedȱ commonȱ Vorlageȱ butȱ itȱ wasȱ reȬ shaped,ȱrethoughtȱinȱdifferentȱways.ȱTheȱresultsȱofȱthisȱdoubleȱliteraryȱ editionsȱ areȱ onȱ theȱ sameȱ redactionalȱ level.ȱ Weȱ canȱ seeȱ theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱtheȱtwoȱmodelsȱinȱthisȱsketch:ȱ ȱ Tov’sȱmodelȱ

Ulrich’sȱmodelȱ

MasoreticȱHebrewȱversionȱ

unknownȱHebrewȱversionȱ

Ļȱ

Ļ

Ļȱ

(redaction)ȱ

(redaction)ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ(redactionȱ+ȱȱtranslation)ȱ

unknonwȱrewrittenȱHebrewȱversionȱ

Masoreticȱversionȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ LXXȱversionȱȱ

Ļȱ

ȱ

(translation)ȱ

ȱ

LXXȱversionȱ

ȱ

ȱ Asȱweȱsawȱinȱtheȱoverviewȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱthisȱpaper,ȱthereȱareȱnoȱ realȱ commonȱ characteristicsȱ ofȱ theȱ additionsȱ whichȱ allowȱ usȱ notȱ toȱ chooseȱtheȱsameȱsolutionȱtoȱallȱofȱtheseȱtexts.ȱ ThusȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱEstherȱandȱDanielȱIȱwouldȱargueȱforȱdoubleȱlitȬ eraryȱeditionsȱasȱtheȱfinalȱstageȱofȱtheȱlongȱprocessȱofȱeditionȱandȱredacȬ tionȱofȱtheseȱtexts,47ȱevenȱifȱtheyȱbearȱsomeȱofȱtheȱcharacteristicsȱofȱreȬ writing.ȱAtȱthisȱpointȱweȱmustȱconsiderȱtheȱcontroversialȱusageȱofȱtheȱ termȱ“rewrittenȱBible.”ȱInȱhisȱrecentȱarticleȱAndersȱKlostergaardȱPeterȬ senȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ termȱ “rewrittenȱ Bible”ȱ isȱ usedȱ asȱ aȱ genreȱ andȱ asȱ aȱ textualȱstrategyȱ(Iȱwouldȱratherȱsayȱredactionalȱtechnique)ȱinȱtheȱsameȱ time.48ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱEstherȱandȱDaniel,ȱTov’sȱsuppositionȱhasȱmoreȱtoȱ doȱwithȱgenreȱsinceȱheȱisȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱcanonicalȱuseȱofȱtheȱLXXȱtextȱ inȱGreekȱJudaismȱandȱinȱtheȱchurch,ȱbutȱsupposesȱtheȱcanonicalȱstatusȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ Cf.ȱ CLINES,ȱ Theȱ Estherȱ Scroll.ȱ Orȱ aȱ recentȱ andȱ challengingȱ monographȱ DALLEY,ȱ Esther’sȱRevenge.ȱ 48ȱȱ KLOSTERGAARDȱ PETERSEN,ȱ Rewrittenȱ Bible,ȱ 285Ȭ306.ȱ Theȱ wholeȱ terminusȱ technicusȱ isȱ misleading,ȱ sinceȱ inȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ redactionȱ andȱ editionȱ ofȱ theseȱ textsȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ Bibleȱasȱsuch.ȱItȱisȱbetterȱtoȱtermȱtheseȱasȱ”rewrittenȱScriptures”ȱorȱ”rewrittenȱtexts.”ȱ 47

ȱ

AdditionȱorȱEdition?ȱ

11ȱ

ofȱtheirȱHebrewȱorȱAramaicȱVorlageȱasȱwell.49ȱButȱinȱanyȱcaseȱtheȱmainȱ conclusionsȱareȱtheȱsame:ȱLXXȱEstherȱandȱDanielȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱtreatedȱasȱ independentȱandȱunifiedȱtextsȱandȱtheȱdifferencesȱtoȱtheȱMTȱoughtȱnotȱ toȱbeȱseparatedȱfromȱtheȱbooks.ȱ Theȱ otherȱ “additions,”ȱ firstȱ ofȱ allȱ 1ȱ Ezra,ȱ andȱ theȱ Epistleȱ ofȱ Jeremiah,ȱbutȱalsoȱBaruch,ȱseemȱtoȱbearȱtheȱcharacteristicsȱofȱtheȱtechȬ niquesȱofȱ“rewrittenȱBible.”ȱTheyȱdiscussȱthemesȱpreviouslyȱwrittenȱinȱ otherȱcanonicalȱbooks,ȱsupplementsȱwithȱdifferentȱideasȱandȱstories,ȱandȱ byȱdoingȱthisȱtheyȱbecameȱdifferentȱtexts.ȱConsequentlyȱtheseȱtextsȱareȱ alsoȱ independentȱ booksȱ andȱ shouldȱ notȱ beȱ treatedȱ asȱ partsȱ orȱ appenȬ dixesȱofȱotherȱbooks.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ onlyȱ oneȱ realȱ addition:ȱ Psalmȱ 151,ȱ whichȱ isȱ almostȱ neverȱ discussedȱasȱanȱaddition.ȱThoughȱitȱusesȱaȱsituationȱofȱaȱcanonicalȱbook,ȱ asȱaȱpsalmȱitȱisȱanȱindependentȱcomposition.ȱTogetherȱwithȱallȱtheȱotherȱ apocryphalȱSyriacȱPsalmsȱ(Ps.ȱ151Ȭ155),ȱitȱcouldȱbeȱclassifiedȱseparatelyȱ asȱ anȱ independentȱ poemȱ whichȱ wasȱ addedȱ intoȱ theȱ looseȱ collectionȱ ofȱ poems,ȱtheȱBookȱofȱPsalms.50

NoȱAdditionsȱinȱtheȱCanonȱ Weȱ supposedȱ aȱ doubleȱ literaryȱ editionȱ ofȱ Estherȱ andȱ Daniel,ȱ butȱ weȱ alsoȱcanȱmaintainȱaȱdoubleȱcanonicalȱpresenceȱofȱtheseȱtexts.ȱ Althoughȱ Josephusȱ wasȱ awareȱ ofȱ thoseȱ booksȱ havingȱ anȱ eminentȱ functionȱbeingȱtheȱbooksȱofȱScripture,51ȱinȱhisȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱJewsȱwhenȱ heȱ presentedȱ thatȱ portionȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ historyȱ whichȱ isȱ coveredȱ byȱ thoseȱ booksȱ heȱ sometimesȱ addedȱ extraȱ Scripturalȱ traditions.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ handȱinȱmostȱcasesȱheȱparaphrasedȱtheȱbooksȱheȱlistedȱasȱScripture.ȱWeȱ canȱsupposeȱthatȱheȱusedȱtheȱLXXȱversionȱofȱEsther52ȱandȱ1ȱEzra,ȱheȱalsoȱ mentionedȱtheȱstoryȱofȱDarius’ȱBodyguardsȱandȱtreatedȱthemȱasȱScripȬ ture.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Greekȱ speakingȱ Jewishȱ communityȱ theȱ LXXȱ versionsȱ ofȱ Esther,ȱ Danielȱ andȱ Jeremiah,ȱ togetherȱ withȱ Baruchȱ andȱ theȱ Letterȱ ofȱ Jeremiahȱ wereȱ usedȱ asȱ Scripture.ȱ Evenȱ ifȱ weȱ doȱ notȱ completelyȱ agreeȱ withȱ Tovȱ onȱ theȱ genreȱ ofȱ theȱ editorialȱ processȱ ofȱ theȱ LXXȱ Estherȱ andȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ Cf.ȱTOV,ȱThreeȱStrangeȱBooks,ȱ369Ȭ93;ȱTheȱManyȱForms,ȱ24Ȭ28.ȱCf.ȱalsoȱTOV,ȱ3ȱKingȬ doms,ȱ360ȱn.ȱ75.ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱnextȱparagraph.ȱ 50ȱȱ Cf.ȱtheȱtreatmentȱofȱPsalmȱ151ȱinȱDESILVA,ȱIntroducingȱtheȱApocrypha,ȱ301Ȭ303,ȱandȱ thatȱofȱKAISER,ȱTheȱOldȱTestamentȱApocrypha,ȱ75Ȭ77.ȱ 51ȱȱ SeeȱhisȱlistȱofȱtheȱbooksȱofȱScriptureȱinȱContraȱApionemȱI.ȱ37Ȭ43.ȱ 52ȱȱ Antȱ11.184Ȭ296ȱshowsȱJosephusȱuseȱofȱB,ȱC,ȱD,ȱE.ȱKOTTSIEPER,ȱZusätseȱzuȱEster,ȱ132.ȱ 49

12ȱ

J.ȱZsengellérȱ

Daniel,ȱ weȱ agreeȱ withȱ hisȱ similarȱ remarkȱ onȱ theȱ canonicalȱ positionȱ ofȱ theseȱbooks.53 AsȱweȱknowȱfromȱOrigenȱtheȱearlyȱchurchȱwasȱawareȱofȱtheȱtextualȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ theȱ Greekȱ textsȱ ofȱ theȱ booksȱ ofȱ Esther,ȱDanielȱandȱJeremiah.54ȱDespiteȱtheȱlongerȱformsȱofȱtheseȱbooks,ȱ theȱLXXȱversionsȱwereȱusedȱasȱcanonicalȱScriptures.”55ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱ theȱHebrewȱScriptureȱwasȱthoughtȱtoȱcontainȱtheȱMasoreticȱversionȱofȱ theseȱbooks.ȱȱ Thisȱdoubleȱcanonicalȱpresenceȱposesȱmanyȱquestionsȱlikeȱtheȱone:ȱ “Whichȱ versionȱ ofȱ Estherȱwasȱ disputedȱ byȱ theȱ sages?”ȱ butȱ itȱ excludesȱ theȱpossibilityȱofȱhavingȱanyȱadditionȱinȱtheȱcanon.ȱ

Conclusion:ȱDefinitionȱofȱNoȱAdditionsȱ Asȱ aȱ conclusionȱ ofȱ ourȱ analysisȱ weȱ haveȱ toȱ disclaimȱ Nickelsburg’sȱ statementȱ thatȱ ”Someȱ ofȱ theseȱ additions,ȱ supplements,ȱ andȱ interpolaȬ tionsȱsurelyȱexistedȱindependentlyȱofȱtheȱbiblicalȱtextsȱwithȱwhichȱtheyȱ areȱ nowȱ associated.”56ȱ Onȱ theȱ contraryȱ weȱ canȱ stateȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ noȱ additionsȱanyȱmore!ȱActuallyȱthereȱhaveȱneverȱbeenȱany,ȱbutȱtheyȱwereȱ treatedȱasȱifȱthereȱhadȱbeen.ȱTheȱpreviouslyȱcalledȱadditionsȱformȱnotȱaȱ singleȱ groupȱ ofȱ textsȱ likeȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ chameshȱ megillot,ȱ havingȱ aȱ specialȱ commonȱcharacteristicȱorȱgoal.ȱThereȱareȱindividualȱtextsȱrepresentingȱ differentȱeditorialȱprocessesȱofȱtheȱsameȱbooks,ȱandȱthereȱareȱindependȬ entȱpseudonymȱbooksȱwrittenȱinȱtheȱgenreȱofȱtheȱrewrittenȱBible.ȱ Asȱaȱresultȱofȱourȱanalysisȱweȱdoȱnotȱhaveȱadditionsȱanyȱmore,ȱbutȱ someȱindependentȱtextsȱamongȱtheȱdeuterocanonicalȱliterature.* ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ TOV,ȱ 3ȱ Kingdoms,ȱ 363Ȭ366;ȱ TheȱManyȱ Forms,ȱ 24Ȭ28.ȱ discussesȱ thisȱ situationȱ inȱ conȬ nectionȱwithȱtheȱphenomenonȱofȱtheȱrewrittenȱBible.ȱ 54ȱȱ Seeȱe.g.ȱhisȱletterȱtoȱAfricanusȱdiscussedȱabove,ȱcf.ȱnoteȱ14.ȱ 55ȱȱ Seeȱ DESILVA,ȱIntroducingȱtheȱApocrypha,ȱ36Ȭ37,ȱwhoȱalsoȱmaintainsȱthatȱAugustineȱ advocatedȱtheȱbroaderȱcanonȱofȱtheȱSeptuagintȱwhichȱwasȱtoȱincludeȱtheȱeditionsȱtoȱ Esther,ȱ Danielȱ andȱ Jeremiah,ȱ thoughȱ theyȱ wereȱ notȱ distinguishedȱ byȱ Augustineȱ asȱ additionsȱbutȱasȱnaturalȱpartsȱofȱthoseȱbooks.ȱ 56ȱȱ NICKELSBURG,ȱTheȱBibleȱRewrittenȱandȱExpanded,ȱ130.ȱ *ȱȱ Theȱ researchȱ onȱ theȱ topicȱ ofȱ thisȱ articleȱ wasȱ sponsoredȱ byȱ theȱ MTAȱ Bolyaiȱ scholarshipȱ(BO/00025/07).ȱȱ 53

ȱ

AdditionȱorȱEdition?ȱ

13ȱ

Bibliographyȱ BARTHÉLEMY,ȱ D.ȱ etȱ al.,ȱ Theȱ Storyȱ ofȱ Davidȱ andȱ Goliath:ȱ Textualȱ Criticism:ȱ PaȬ persȱofȱaȱJointȱResearchȱVentureȱ(OBOȱ73),ȱFribourgȱ/ȱGöttingenȱ1986.ȱȱ BLAU,ȱL.,ȱBibleȱCanon,ȱin:ȱJewishȱEncyclopediaȱ3:140Ȭ150.ȱ CHARLESWORTH,ȱJames,ȱApocrypha.ȱOldȱTestamentȱApocrypha,ȱin:ȱABDȱ1:ȱ292Ȭ 293.ȱ CLINES,ȱD.J.A.,ȱTheȱEstherȱScroll.ȱTheȱStoryȱofȱtheȱStoryȱ(JSOTSupȱ30),ȱSheffieldȱ 1984.ȱ COLLINS,ȱ Johnȱ J.,ȱBetweenȱAthensȱ andȱ Jerusalem.ȱ Jewishȱ Identityȱ intȱ heȱHelleȬ nisticȱDiaspora,ȱGrandȱRapidsȱ22000.ȱ COLLINS,ȱJohnȱJ./FLINT,ȱPeterȱW.,ȱQumranȱCaveȱ4.ȱXVII,ȱParabiblicalȱTextsȱPartȱ3ȱ (DJDȱ22),ȱOxfordȱ1996,ȱ95Ȭ164.ȱ CROSS,ȱF.M.,ȱTheȱEvolutionȱofȱaȱTheoryȱofȱLocalȱTexts,ȱin:ȱCross,ȱF.M.ȱ/ȱTalmon,ȱ S.,ȱQumranȱȱandȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱBiblicalȱText,ȱCambridgeȱ1976,ȱ306Ȭ 320.ȱ DALLEY,ȱS.,ȱEsther’sȱRevengeȱatȱSusa.ȱFromȱSannacheribȱtoȱAhasuerus,ȱOxfordȱ 2007.ȱ DANCY,ȱJ.C.,ȱTheȱShorterȱBooksȱofȱtheȱApocrypha.ȱTobit,ȱJudit,ȱRestȱofȱEsther,ȱ Baruch,ȱLetterȱofȱJeremiah,ȱAdditionsȱtoȱDanielȱandȱPrayerȱofȱManasseh,ȱ Cambridgeȱ1972.ȱ DEBUS,ȱJ.,ȱDieȱSündeȱJerobeamsȱ(FRLANTȱ93),ȱGöttingenȱ1967.ȱ DESILVA,ȱDavidȱA.,ȱIntroducingȱtheȱApocrypha.ȱMessage,ȱContext,ȱandȱSignifiȬ cance,ȱGrandȱRapidsȱ2002.ȱ DORIVAL,ȱ Gilles,ȱ Hasȱ theȱ Categoryȱ ofȱ “Deuterocanonicalȱ Books”ȱ aȱ Jewishȱ OriȬ gin?,ȱ in:ȱ Xeravits,ȱ Gézaȱ G./Zsengellér,ȱ Józsefȱ (eds.),ȱ Theȱ Booksȱ ofȱ theȱ Maccabees.ȱHistory,ȱTheology,ȱIdeologyȱ(JSJSȱ118),ȱLeidenȱ2007,ȱ1Ȭ10.ȱ KAISER,ȱOtto,ȱTheȱOldȱTestamentȱApocrypha.ȱAnȱIntroduction,ȱPeabodyȱ2004.ȱ MOORE,ȱCareyȱA.,ȱDaniel,ȱEstherȱandȱJeremiah.ȱTheȱAdditionsȱ(ABȱ44),ȱGardenȱ Cityȱ1977).ȱȱ MOORE,ȱCareyȱA.,ȱOnȱtheȱOriginsȱofȱtheȱLXXȱAdditionsȱtoȱtheȱBookȱofȱEsther:ȱ JBLȱ92ȱ(1973)ȱ382Ȭ393.ȱ NELSON,ȱR.D.,ȱTheȱDoubleȱRedactionȱofȱtheȱDeuteronomisticȱHistoryȱ(JSOTSupȱ 18),ȱSheffieldȱ1981.ȱ NICKELSBURG,ȱGeorgeȱW.E.,ȱTheȱBibleȱRewrittenȱandȱExpanded,ȱin:ȱStone,ȱM.E.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Jewishȱ Writingsȱ inȱ theȱ Secondȱ Templeȱ Periodȱ (CRINTȱ 2/II),ȱ AsȬ sen/Philadelphiaȱ1984,ȱ89Ȭ156.ȱ PETERSEN,ȱ A.K.,ȱ Rewrittenȱ Bibleȱ asȱ aȱ Borderlineȱ Phenomenon—Genre,ȱ Textualȱ Strategy,ȱorȱCanonicalȱAnachronism?ȱin:ȱHilhorst,ȱA.ȱetȱal.ȱ(eds.),ȱFloresȱ

14ȱ

J.ȱZsengellérȱ

Florentino.ȱDeadȱSeaȱScrollsȱandȱOtherȱEarlyȱJewishȱStudiesȱinȱHonourȱ ofȱFlorentinoȱGarcíaȱMartínezȱ(JSJSupȱ122),ȱLeidenȱ2007,ȱ285Ȭ306.ȱ PFEIFFER,ȱ R.H.,ȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Times,ȱ withȱ anȱ Introductionȱ toȱ theȱ Apocrypha,ȱNewȱYorkȱ1949.ȱ POHLMANN,ȱ K.ȬF.,ȱ Studienȱ zumȱ drittenȱ Ezra.ȱ Einȱ Beitragȱ zurȱ Frageȱ nachȱ demȱ ursprünglichenȱ Schlussȱ desȱ chronistischenȱ Geschichtswerks,ȱ Göttingenȱ 1970.ȱȱ SCHÜRER,ȱEmil,ȱGeschichteȱdesȱjüdischenȱVolkesȱimȱZeitalterȱJesuȱChristiȱ(Bandȱ 2),ȱLeipzigȱ1907.ȱ SLAYTON,ȱJ.C.,ȱCodex—CodexȱAlexandrinus,ȱin:ȱABDȱ1:ȱ1069.ȱ STECK,ȱ Odilȱ H.ȱ etȱ al.,ȱ Dasȱ Buchȱ Baruch,ȱ Derȱ Briefȱ desȱ Jeremia,ȱ Zuȱ Esterȱ undȱ Danielȱ(ATDApȱ5),ȱGöttingenȱ1998.ȱȱ TALSHIR,ȱZ.,ȱ1ȱEsdras:ȱFromȱOriginȱtoȱTranslationȱ(SBLSCSȱ47),ȱAltantaȱ1999:ȱ TALSHIR,ȱZ.,ȱSynchronicȱApprochesȱwithȱDiachronicȱConsequencesȱinȱtheȱStudyȱ ofȱParallelȱEditions,ȱin:ȱAlbertz,ȱR.ȱ/ȱBecking,ȱB.ȱ(eds.),ȱYahwismȱafterȱtheȱ Exileȱ(STRȱ5),ȱAssenȱ2003,ȱ199Ȭ218.ȱ THACKERAY,ȱH.S.J.,ȱNotesȱandȱStudies:ȱTheȱGreekȱTranslationȱofȱJeremiah:ȱJTSȱ4ȱ (1903)ȱ245Ȭ266.ȱ TIGAY,ȱJ.,ȱConflationȱasȱaȱRedactionalȱTechnique,ȱin:ȱEmpiricalȱmodelsȱforȱBibliȬ calȱCriticism,ȱPhiladelphiaȱ1985,ȱ53Ȭ95.ȱ TORREY,ȱ C.C.,ȱ Theȱ Natureȱ andȱ Originȱ ofȱ “Firstȱ Ezra,”ȱ in:ȱ idem,ȱ Ezraȱ Studies,ȱ Chicagoȱ1910,ȱ22Ȭ35.ȱ TORREY,ȱC.C.,ȱTheȱOlderȱBookȱofȱEsther:ȱHTRȱ37ȱ(1944)ȱ1Ȭ40.ȱ TOV,ȱE.,ȱ3ȱKingdomsȱComparedȱwithȱSimilarȱRewrittenȱCompositions,ȱin:ȱHilȬ horst,ȱA.ȱetȱalȱ(eds.),ȱFloresȱFlorentino.ȱDeadȱSeaȱScrollsȱandȱOtherȱEarlyȱ Jewishȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Honourȱ ofȱ Florentinoȱ Garcíaȱ Martínezȱ (JSJSupȱ 122),ȱ Leidenȱ2007,ȱ345Ȭ366.ȱ TOV,ȱ E.,ȱ Manyȱ Formsȱ ofȱ Hebrewȱ Scripture,ȱ in:ȱ Lange,ȱ A.ȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Fromȱ QumranȱtoȱAleppo.ȱAȱDiscussionȱwithȱEmanuelȱTovȱaboutȱtheȱTextualȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ Scripturesȱ inȱ Honorȱ ofȱ hisȱ 65thȱ Birthdayȱ (FRLANTȱ 230),ȱGöttingenȱ2009),ȱ11Ȭ28.ȱ TOV,ȱE.,ȱTextualȱCriticismȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱBible,ȱAssenȱ/ȱMinneapolis:ȱ1992.ȱ TOV,ȱE.,ȱTheȱBookȱofȱBaruchȱ(SBLTT),ȱMissoulaȱ1975.ȱ TOV,ȱE.,ȱTheȱSeptuagintȱTranslationȱofȱJeremiahȱandȱBaruch:ȱAȱdiscussionȱofȱanȱ EarlyȱRevisionȱofȱtheȱTextȱofȱtheȱLXXȱofȱJeremiahȱ29Ȭ52ȱandȱBaruchȱ1:1Ȭ 3:8,ȱMissoulaȱ1976.ȱȱ TOV,ȱE.,ȱThreeȱStrangeȱBooksȱofȱtheȱLXX:ȱ1Kings,ȱEstherȱandȱDanielȱComparedȱ withȱ Similarȱ Rewrittenȱ Compositionsȱ fromȱ Qumranȱ andȱ Elsewhere,ȱ in:ȱ Karrer,ȱ M.ȱ /ȱ Kraus,ȱ W.ȱ (eds.),ȱ Dieȱ Septuaginta:ȱ Texte,ȱ Kontexte,ȱ LebenȬ swetenȱ(WUNTȱ219),ȱTübingenȱ2008,ȱ369Ȭ393.ȱ TOV,ȱ Emanuel,ȱ Theȱ LXXȱ Translationȱ ofȱ Esther:ȱ Aȱ Paraphrasticȱ Translationȱ ofȱ MTȱorȱaȱFreeȱTranslationȱofȱaȱRewrittenȱVersion?,ȱin:ȱHoutman,ȱA.ȱetȱal.ȱ

ȱ

AdditionȱorȱEdition?ȱ

15ȱ

(eds.),ȱEmpsychoiȱlogoi—ReligiousȱInnovationsȱinȱAntiquity:ȱStudiesȱinȱ Honourȱ ofȱ Pieterȱ Willemȱ vanȱ derȱ Horstȱ (AJECHȱ 73),ȱ Leidenȱ 2008,ȱ 507Ȭ 526.ȱȱ TOV,ȱ Emanuel,ȱ Theȱ Septuagint,ȱ in:ȱ Mulder,ȱ J.ȱ (ed.),ȱ Mikraȱ (CRINTȱ II/1),ȱ AsȬ sen/Philadelphiaȱ1988,ȱ161Ȭ188.ȱ ULRICH,ȱ E.,ȱ Doubleȱ Literaryȱ Editionsȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Narrativesȱ andȱ Reflectionsȱ onȱ DeterminingȱtheȱFormȱtoȱBeȱTranslated,ȱin:ȱidem,ȱTheȱDeadȱSeaȱScrollsȱ andȱtheȱOriginsȱofȱtheȱBibleȱ(SDSRL),ȱGrandȱRapidsȱ/ȱLeidenȱ1999,ȱ34Ȭ50.ȱ VANȱ KEULEN,ȱ P.S.F.,ȱ Twoȱ Versionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Solomonȱ Narrative:ȱ Anȱ Inquiryȱ intoȱ theȱ Relationshipȱ betweenȱ MTȱ 1ȱ Kgs.ȱ 2Ȭ11ȱ andȱ LXXȱ 3ȱ Regs.ȱ 2Ȭ11ȱ (VTSȱ 104),ȱLeidenȱ2005.ȱ WALTERS,ȱS.,ȱHannaȱandȱAnna:ȱTheȱGreekȱandȱHebrewȱTextsȱofȱ1Samuelȱ1:ȱJBLȱ 107ȱ(1988)ȱ385Ȭ412.ȱ ȱ

Mordecai’sȱRefusalȱofȱProskynesisȱBeforeȱHamanȱ AccordingȱtoȱtheȱSeptuagintȱ TraditioȬhistoricalȱandȱLiteralȱAspectsȱ ȱ BEATEȱEGOȱ ȱ Someȱ timeȱ laterȱ onȱ Kingȱ Xerxesȱ promotedȱ Haman,ȱ theȱ sonȱ ofȱ HamȬ medatha,ȱtheȱAgagite,ȱadvancingȱhimȱandȱmakingȱhimȱtheȱprimeȱminister.ȱ 2ȱSoȱallȱtheȱking’sȱservantsȱatȱtheȱKing’sȱGateȱusedȱtoȱbowȱdownȱandȱprosȬ trateȱthemselvesȱbeforeȱHaman;ȱforȱthatȱisȱwhatȱtheȱkingȱhadȱcommandedȱ toȱ beȱ doneȱ beforeȱ him.ȱ Mordecai,ȱ however,ȱ wouldȱ neverȱ bowȱ downȱ andȱ prostrateȱhimself.ȱ3ȱSoȱtheȱking’sȱservantsȱatȱtheȱKing’sȱGateȱsaidȱtoȱMordeȬ cai:ȱ“Whyȱdoȱyouȱdisobeyȱtheȱking’sȱcommand?”ȱ4ȱFinally,ȱwhenȱtheyȱhadȱ spokenȱ toȱ himȱ dayȱ afterȱ dayȱ andȱ heȱ hadȱ notȱ listenedȱ toȱ them,ȱ theyȱ inȬ formedȱHamanȱtoȱseeȱwhetherȱMordecai’sȱconductȱwouldȱbeȱtolerated.ȱ(Forȱ heȱhadȱconfidedȱtoȱthemȱthatȱheȱwasȱaȱJew.)ȱ5ȱWhenȱHamanȱhadȱseenȱforȱ himselfȱthatȱMordecaiȱdidȱnotȱbowȱdownȱorȱprostrateȱhimselfȱbeforeȱhim,ȱ heȱwasȱfurious.ȱ6ȱHowever,ȱheȱhatedȱtoȱkillȱjustȱMordecaiȱ(forȱtheyȱhadȱtoldȱ himȱ whoȱ Mordecai’sȱ peopleȱ were);ȱ andȱ soȱ Hamanȱ soughtȱ toȱ wipeȱ outȱ allȱ theȱJewsȱthroughoutȱtheȱkingdomȱofȱXerxes,ȱalongȱwithȱMordecaiȱ(Estȱ3:1Ȭ 6).1

Theseȱ areȱ theȱ introductoryȱ wordsȱ ofȱ aȱ momentousȱ conflictȱ inȱ theȱ HeȬ brewȱBookȱofȱEsther:ȱbecauseȱMordecaiȱrefusesȱtoȱbowȱdownȱbeforeȱtheȱ ascenderȱ Haman,ȱ heȱ embarksȱ onȱ anȱ extensiveȱ missionȱ toȱ eradicateȱ Mordecai’sȱpeople.ȱHamanȱmanagesȱtoȱconvinceȱKingȱAhasverosȱofȱhisȱ plans;ȱheȱpersuadesȱhimȱbyȱexplainingȱhowȱMordecai’sȱpeopleȱareȱscatȬ teredȱandȱdispersedȱamongȱtheȱotherȱpeoplesȱinȱallȱtheȱprovincesȱofȱhisȱ realm,ȱ howȱ theirȱ lawsȱ areȱ differentȱ fromȱ thoseȱ ofȱ allȱ otherȱ peoples,ȱ whichȱisȱwhyȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱobeyȱtheȱking’sȱlaws.ȱByȱcastingȱlots,ȱaȱdayȱisȱ setȱforȱtheȱextinctionȱofȱMordecai’sȱpeople.ȱTheȱentireȱPersianȱcommuȬ nicationȱsystemȱisȱimplementedȱtoȱacquaintȱtheȱwholeȱempireȱwithȱtheȱ king’sȱandȱhisȱminionȱHaman’sȱplansȱ(Estȱ3:7Ȭ15).ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1

ȱȱ

QuotedȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱMOORE,ȱEsther,ȱ33.ȱForȱtheȱEnglishȱtranslationȱ ofȱ thisȱ article,ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ expressȱ myȱ gratitudeȱ toȱ Judithȱ Spangenberg,ȱ OsȬ nabrueck.ȱ

ȱ

Mordecai’sȱRefusalȱofȱProskynesisȱBeforeȱHamanȱ

17ȱ

Followingȱthis,ȱtheȱHebrewȱEstherȱtraditionȱcanȱsayȱaȱlotȱaboutȱtheȱ menaceȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ people,ȱ theirȱ rescueȱ andȱ theȱ punishmentȱ ofȱ HaȬ manȱandȱotherȱfoes.ȱButȱvirtuallyȱnothingȱisȱsaidȱaboutȱtheȱinnerȱmotiȬ vationȱthatȱledȱMordecaiȱtoȱrefuseȱHamanȱproskynesis.ȱToȱfillȱthisȱnarȬ rativeȱgap,ȱtheȱSeptuagint,ȱtheȱTargumȱandȱtheȱMidrashȱhaveȱinsertedȱ variousȱembellishmentsȱintoȱtheȱbasicȱtext.ȱInȱTargumȱRishon,ȱweȱlearnȱ thatȱ Hamanȱ wasȱ initiallyȱ aȱ slaveȱ ofȱ Mordecai,ȱ whichȱ isȱ whyȱ theȱ latterȱ refusedȱtoȱobeyȱhim.ȱTargumȱSheniȱtellsȱthatȱMordecaiȱrefusedȱtoȱbowȱ downȱbeforeȱHamanȱbecauseȱheȱbelongedȱtoȱtheȱfamilyȱofȱAmalek,ȱtheȱ archȬenemyȱ ofȱ Israel.ȱ Butȱ theȱ mostȱ interestingȱ explanationȱ forȱ MordeȬ cai’sȱlackȱofȱproskynesisȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱSeptuagint.ȱItȱexplainsȱthatȱ Mordecai’sȱrefusalȱwasȱbasedȱonȱreligiousȱgrounds:ȱitȱisȱGodȱaloneȱwhoȱ deservesȱ theȱ honourȱ ofȱ theȱ proskynesis,ȱ notȱ aȱ humanȱ being.ȱ Aȱ proskynesisȱtoȱaȱman,ȱtherefore,ȱisȱvirtuallyȱlikeȱcommittingȱidolatry,ȱasȱ thisȱisȱaȱviolationȱofȱtheȱcommandmentȱofȱGod’sȱuniqueness.ȱ Sinceȱaȱcomprehensiveȱrepresentationȱofȱthisȱmotif,ȱasȱitȱisȱfoundȱinȱ theȱSeptuagint,ȱcanȱbeȱregardedȱasȱaȱdesideratumȱofȱresearch,ȱIȱwouldȱ likeȱtoȱdrawȱattentionȱtoȱthisȱtheme.ȱMyȱpaperȱwillȱthereforeȱfirstȱofȱallȱ highlightȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ theȱSeptuagint;ȱ secondly,ȱ itȱ willȱ explainȱ theȱ waysȱinȱwhichȱthisȱinterpretationȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱotherȱancientȱinterpretaȬ tionsȱ andȱ theȱ purposeȱ forȱ whichȱ itȱ hasȱ beenȱ passedȱ onȱ inȱ theȱ SeptuaȬ gint.ȱIȱwillȱexplainȱthatȱthereȱisȱanȱexpressionȱofȱdifferentȱconceptionsȱofȱ kingshipȱwithinȱtheȱSeptuagintȱadditionsȱtoȱtheȱBookȱofȱEsther.ȱFinally,ȱ Iȱ willȱ mentionȱ brieflyȱ theȱreceptionȱ ofȱ thisȱ motifȱinȱ rabbinicȱliterature.ȱ Duringȱ thisȱ process,ȱ bothȱ theȱ relationshipȱ ofȱtheȱSeptuagintȱtoȱ paganȱ traditionsȱ andȱ itsȱ significanceȱ forȱ theȱ laterȱ Targumicȱ andȱ Midrashicȱ Aggadahȱwillȱbecomeȱapparent.ȱ

1.ȱMordecai’sȱRefusalȱtoȱBowȱDownȱ AccordingȱtoȱtheȱTraditionȱofȱtheȱLXXȱ Firstȱ ofȱ all,ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ focusȱ onȱ theȱ LXX.ȱ Initially,ȱ weȱ canȱ findȱ aȱ literalȱ translationȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ sectionȱ ofȱ Estȱ 3:1Ȭ7.ȱ Addedȱ toȱ thisȱ isȱ merelyȱ aȱ closerȱ characterisationȱ ofȱ Haman,ȱ whoȱ isȱ supposedȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ aȱ bourgeois,ȱ aȱ loudmouthȱ andȱ aȱ boaster.ȱ Itȱ canȱ beȱ assumedȱ thatȱ thisȱ wasȱ theȱ reasonȱ forȱ Mordecai’sȱ refusal,ȱ particularlyȱ asȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ otherȱ evidenceȱ atȱ thisȱ point.ȱ Theȱ additionȱ Cȱ 1Ȭ7ȱ illuminatesȱ thisȱ probȬ lem.ȱAfterȱtheȱedictȱofȱextinctionȱbecameȱknown,ȱandȱthusȱtheȱmenaceȱ ofȱMordecai’sȱpeople,ȱMordecaiȱhimselfȱspeaksȱaȱprayer,ȱwhichȱstates:ȱ

18ȱ

BeateȱEgoȱ

2ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 3ȱ ȱ 4ȱ ȱ 5ȱ

Lord,ȱLord,ȱkingȱwhoȱrulesȱoverȱall,ȱȱ theȱuniverseȱisȱsubjectȱtoȱyou.ȱ Thereȱisȱnoȱoneȱwhoȱcanȱopposeȱyouȱ whenȱyouȱdesireȱtoȱsaveȱIsrael,ȱ forȱyouȱhaveȱmadeȱheavenȱandȱearthȱ andȱeveryȱmarvellousȱthingȱunderȱheaven.ȱ AndȱyouȱareȱLordȱofȱall,ȱ andȱthereȱisȱnoȱoneȱwhoȱcanȱresistȱyouȱwhoȱareȱtheȱLord.ȱȱ Youȱknowȱallȱthings;ȱyouȱknow,ȱLord,ȱthatȱitȱwasȱnotȱbecauseȱofȱinsoȬ lenceȱ orȱ arroganceȱ orȱ vanityȱ thatȱ Iȱ didȱ this:ȱ thatȱ Iȱ didȱ notȱ bowȱ downȱ beforeȱarrogantȱHaman;ȱȱ 6ȱ forȱIȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱquiteȱwillingȱtoȱkissȱtheȱsolesȱofȱhisȱfeetȱforȱIsȬ rael’sȱsake.ȱȱ 7ȱ ButȱIȱdidȱitȱinȱorderȱthatȱIȱmightȱnotȱputȱtheȱgloryȱofȱaȱmanȱaboveȱtheȱ gloryȱofȱGod,ȱ ȱ norȱwillȱIȱbowȱdownȱtoȱanyoneȱexceptȱyouȱwhoȱareȱmyȱLord,ȱnorȱwillȱIȱ doȱthisȱoutȱofȱarrogance.ȱȱ 8ȱ Andȱnow,ȱLordȱGodȱandȱKing,ȱȱ ȱ theȱGodȱofȱAbraham,ȱspareȱyourȱpeople!ȱ ȱ Forȱtheyȱareȱplottingȱourȱruin,ȱȱ ȱ andȱtheyȱdesireȱtoȱdestroyȱyourȱancientȱheritage.ȱ 9ȱ Doȱnotȱneglectȱyourȱportionȱ ȱ whichȱyouȱransomedȱforȱyourselfȱfromȱtheȱlandȱofȱEgypt.ȱȱ 10ȱ Hearȱmyȱprayerȱandȱbeȱmercifulȱtoȱyourȱinheritance,ȱ ȱ andȱturnȱourȱmourningȱintoȱfeasting,ȱ ȱ thatȱweȱmayȱliveȱtoȱsingȱpraisesȱtoȱyourȱname,ȱ ȱ Lord,ȱandȱdoȱnotȱstifleȱtheȱmouthsȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱpraiseȱyou. 2

Mordecai’sȱ prayerȱ canȱ beȱstructuredȱ inȱ threeȱ parts:ȱv.ȱ 2Ȭ3ȱ formȱ theȱ inȬ troduction,ȱ whichȱ describesȱ God’sȱ almightiness.ȱ Inȱ v.ȱ 4Ȭ5ȱ Mordecaiȱ justifiesȱhisȱattitudeȱtowardsȱHaman,ȱwhichȱcausedȱtheȱthreatȱtoȱIsrael.ȱ V.ȱ6Ȭ8ȱrepresentȱtheȱactualȱpleaȱtoȱGodȱtoȱsaveȱhisȱpeopleȱofȱIsrael.ȱTheȱ prayerȱ isȱ framedȱ byȱ theȱ introduction,ȱ whichȱ namesȱ Mordecaiȱ asȱ theȱ speaker,ȱandȱbyȱtheȱconcludingȱsentence,ȱwhichȱdemonstratesȱtheȱdesȬ perateȱsituationȱfacingȱIsrael.ȱȱȱ First,ȱ theȱ paragraphȱ isȱ interestingȱ fromȱ aȱ formalȱ pointȱ ofȱ view:ȱ onȱ theȱoneȱhand,ȱtheȱbeginningȱandȱendȱofȱtheȱprayer,ȱinȱwhichȱMordecaiȱ praisesȱ God’sȱ almightinessȱ andȱ beseechesȱ himȱ toȱ comeȱ toȱ theȱ rescue,ȱ clearlyȱ showȱ theȱ influenceȱ ofȱ Hebrewȱ poetry.ȱ Namely,ȱ weȱ repeatedlyȱ findȱ aȱ parallelismusȱ membrorum,ȱ whichȱ isȱ characteristicȱ forȱ Hebrewȱ poetry.ȱItȱhasȱalsoȱbeenȱassumedȱthatȱthisȱtextȱhadȱaȱHebrewȱ“Vorlage.”ȱ EspeciallyȱtheȱbeginningȱandȱtheȱendȱalsoȱuseȱmotifsȱfromȱtheȱPsalms.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2

ȱȱ

QuotedȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱMOORE,ȱAdditions,ȱ203.ȱ

ȱ

Mordecai’sȱRefusalȱofȱProskynesisȱBeforeȱHamanȱ

19ȱ

TheȱcentreȱofȱtheȱcontentȱisȱGod’sȱformȱofȱaddressȱinȱv.ȱ2ȱandȱtheȱpleaȱ toȱbeȱrescuedȱinȱv.ȱ6Ȭ8.ȱAboveȱallȱelse,ȱthisȱpartȱhasȱnumerousȱequivaȬ lentsȱ toȱ Dtnȱ 9:26Ȭ29;ȱ hereȱ weȱ alsoȱ findȱ theȱ repeatedȱ addressȱ “Lord,ȱ Lord,”ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱreferenceȱtoȱIsraelȱasȱGod’sȱownȱpossession,ȱandȱ thatȱheȱhasȱbroughtȱitȱoutȱofȱtheȱlandȱofȱEgypt.ȱ RelatedȱtoȱthisȱaddressȱofȱGodȱisȱaȱreviewȱofȱGod’sȱactsȱofȱsalvation,ȱ whichȱstressesȱGod’sȱpowerȱandȱisȱsupposedȱtoȱmotivateȱhimȱtoȱrescueȱ hisȱ peopleȱ onceȱ again.ȱ Thisȱ elementȱ canȱ alsoȱ usuallyȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ people’sȱ lamentationsȱ (e.g.ȱ comp.ȱ Psȱ 44:1Ȭ19,ȱ 85:1Ȭ4),ȱ wherebyȱ inȱ parȬ ticular—asȱ inȱ ourȱ case—itȱ alsoȱ refersȱ toȱ God’sȱ mightȱ asȱ aȱ creatorȱ (cf.ȱ 2ȱKingsȱ19:15;ȱJesȱ37:16;ȱJerȱ32:17;ȱNehȱ9:6).ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱthereȱisȱ noȱ parallelismusȱ membrorumȱ inȱ theȱ middleȱ sectionȱ ofȱ theȱ prayer,ȱ inȱ whichȱ Mordecaiȱ arguesȱ hisȱ specificȱ reasonȱ forȱ hisȱ refusal;ȱ weȱ ratherȱ comeȱ acrossȱ mereȱ prose.ȱ Theȱ differentȱ characterȱ ofȱ thisȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ prayerȱisȱalsoȱexpressedȱbyȱMordecaiȱbeingȱtheȱonlyȱspeaker,ȱwhereasȱ normallyȱthereȱisȱtalkȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱorȱ“us.”ȱHence,ȱMordecai’sȱprayerȱ appearsȱtoȱbeȱaȱcompositionȱofȱlamentȱandȱanȱinvocationȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱ withȱaȱ“personal,”ȱadȱhocȱformulatedȱinsertion.ȱThisȱadaptsȱtheȱgeneralȱ prayerȱformȱtoȱtheȱspecificȱproceedings.ȱȱȱ Inȱ particular,ȱ Mordecai’sȱ justificationȱ picksȱupȱ twoȱ reproaches:ȱ forȱ oneȱthing,ȱtheȱrefusalȱtoȱbowȱdownȱcanȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱanȱexpressionȱ ofȱ pride.ȱ Forȱ another,ȱ Mordecaiȱ couldȱ beȱ accusedȱ ofȱ inconsideratelyȱ havingȱendangeredȱhisȱwholeȱpeopleȱbyȱhisȱbehaviour.ȱBothȱreproachesȱ areȱclearlyȱcontradicted:ȱneitherȱmischief,ȱnorȱpride,ȱnorȱambitionȱproȬ vokedȱ Mordecaiȱ intoȱ refusingȱ Haman’sȱ order,ȱ thusȱ riskingȱ aȱ conflict.ȱ Onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱifȱ itȱ hadȱbeenȱ forȱ theȱ benefitȱ ofȱ hisȱ people,ȱ Mordecaiȱ wouldȱevenȱhaveȱbowedȱtoȱHaman.ȱButȱtheȱproskynesisȱisȱnotȱunderȬ stoodȱ asȱ anȱ expressionȱ ofȱ humanȱ deferenceȱ here,ȱ butȱ moreȱ asȱ aȱ culticȱ action,ȱ whichȱ belongsȱ toȱ Godȱ alone.ȱ Mordecaiȱ isȱ preparedȱ toȱ performȱ theȱproskynesisȱtoȱhisȱGodȱalone,ȱandȱnotȱtoȱanybodyȱelseȱinȱtheȱworld.ȱ Byȱ refusingȱ toȱ performȱ theȱ proskynesis,ȱ Mordecaiȱ thusȱ demonstratesȱ hisȱloveȱtoȱtheȱoneȱGod.ȱȱ

2.ȱTraditioȬhistoricalȱAspectsȱofȱtheȱMotifȱȱ Atȱthisȱpoint,ȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheȱtraditioȬhistoricalȱbackgroundȱofȱthisȱ motifȱisȱraised.ȱThusȱatȱfirst,ȱIngoȱKottsieperȱpointsȱoutȱinȱhisȱcommentsȱ thatȱweȱareȱdealingȱwithȱsomeȱkindȱofȱinnerȱbiblicalȱexegesis.ȱSinceȱtheȱ connectionȱofȱtheȱverbsȱ“toȱkneel”ȱandȱ“toȱbowȱdown”ȱalwaysȱrefersȱtoȱ aȱ culticȱ act,ȱ likewise,ȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ theȱ addition—accordingȱ toȱ Ingoȱ

20ȱ

BeateȱEgoȱ

Kottsieper—interpretedȱ theȱ wholeȱ eventȱ inȱ aȱ culticȱ context.3ȱ Thisȱ obȬ servationȱisȱboundȱtoȱbeȱcorrect;ȱhowever,ȱitȱisȱworthȱemphasisingȱanȬ otherȱ aspectȱ atȱ thisȱ point,ȱ whichȱ addsȱ toȱ theȱ previousȱ studiesȱ onȱ thisȱ topicȱandȱfurthersȱthem.ȱScilicet,ȱtheȱquestionȱwhetherȱoneȱmanȱshouldȱ bowȱ downȱ beforeȱ another,ȱ wasȱ alsoȱ partȱ ofȱ anȱ interculturalȱ discourseȱ thatȱ engagedȱ theȱ oldȱ worldȱ inȱ general.ȱ Primarily,ȱ thisȱ canȱ beȱ seenȱ inȱ evidenceȱfromȱtheȱGreekȬPersianȱculturalȱcontact.4ȱȱ Thus,ȱ Herodot,ȱ HistoriesȱI:134ȱ testifiesȱ thatȱ theȱ proskynesisȱisȱ partȱ ofȱtheȱPersianȱwayȱofȱbehaving,ȱwhichȱdistinctlyȱsignifiesȱtheȱhierarchyȱ ofȱtheȱdifferentȱpeopleȱinvolved.ȱȱ Whenȱ oneȱ manȱ meetsȱ anotherȱ inȱ theȱ way,ȱ itȱ isȱ easyȱ toȱ seeȱ ifȱ theȱ twoȱ areȱ equals;ȱforȱthenȱwithoutȱspeakingȱtheyȱkissȱeachȱotherȱonȱtheȱlips;ȱifȱtheȱdifȬ ferenceȱinȱrankȱbeȱbutȱlittle,ȱitȱisȱtheȱcheekȱthatȱisȱkissed;ȱifȱitȱbeȱgreat,ȱtheȱ humblerȱbowsȱdownȱandȱdoesȱobeisanceȱtoȱtheȱother.5

Againstȱ thisȱ background,ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ surprisingȱ thatȱ theȱ proskynesisȱ wasȱ alsoȱ anȱ integralȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ Persianȱ courtȱ ceremonial.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ context,ȱ however,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ causedȱ specificȱ problemsȱ betweenȱ Persiansȱ andȱ Greeks;ȱ forȱ theȱ Greeks,ȱ theȱ ritualȱ ofȱ theȱ proskynesisȱ contradictedȱ theirȱ idealȱ ofȱ man’sȱ freedom.ȱ Again,ȱ weȱ canȱ learnȱ theseȱ perceptionsȱ fromȱHerodot.ȱInȱBookȱVII:136ȱofȱhisȱHistoriesȱheȱtellsȱhisȱreadersȱthatȱ Hydarnes,ȱ theȱ commanderȱ ofȱ allȱ thoseȱ livingȱ onȱ theȱ coastȱ ofȱ Asiaȱ MiȬ nor,ȱ welcomesȱ aȱ delegationȱ ofȱ Lacedaemonians,ȱ whoȱ areȱ onȱ aȱ diploȬ maticȱmissionȱfromȱGreeceȱtoȱtheȱPersianȱking.ȱHeȱencouragesȱthoseȱtoȱ becomeȱ “friendsȱ ofȱ theȱ king,”ȱ toȱ bowȱ toȱ him.ȱ Toȱ this,ȱ theȱ Greekȱ ofȱ courseȱ answerȱ thatȱ onlyȱ heȱ whoȱ doesȱ notȱ knowȱ hisȱ freedomȱ canȱ giveȱ suchȱadvice.ȱHerodotȱthenȱcontinuesȱinȱhisȱnarration:ȱȱ ThenceȱbeingȱcomeȱtoȱSusaȱandȱintoȱtheȱking’sȱpresence,ȱwhenȱtheȱguardsȱ commandedȱ andȱ wouldȱ haveȱ compelledȱ themȱ toȱ fallȱ downȱ andȱ doȱ obeiȬ sanceȱtoȱtheȱking,ȱtheyȱsaidȱtheyȱwouldȱneverȱdoȱthat,ȱnoȱnotȱifȱtheyȱwereȱ thrustȱ downȱ headlong;ȱ forȱ itȱ wasȱ notȱ theirȱ customȱ (saidȱ they)ȱ toȱ doȱ obeiȬ sanceȱtoȱmortalȱmen,ȱnorȱwasȱthatȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱtheirȱcoming.6

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 3 4

5 6

ȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ

Concerningȱthisȱaspect,ȱseeȱKOTTSIEPER,ȱZuȱEstherȱundȱDaniel,ȱ164.ȱ Concerningȱ theȱ motifȱ ofȱ proskynesisȱ inȱ Greekȱ cultureȱ inȱ general,ȱ cf.ȱ GABELMANN,ȱ AntikeȱAudienzȬȱundȱTribunalszenen,ȱ86Ȭ104.ȱ QuotedȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱGODLEY,ȱHerodotus,ȱ1:ȱ175ff.ȱȱȱ QuotedȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱGODLEY,ȱHerodotus,ȱ3:ȱ439.ȱ

ȱ

Mordecai’sȱRefusalȱofȱProskynesisȱBeforeȱHamanȱ

21ȱ

Anȱ analogicalȱ argumentȱ canȱ alsoȱ beȱ takenȱ fromȱ referencesȱ fromȱ PluȬ tarch.ȱTheȱcontextȱofȱthisȱpassageȱisȱThemistocles’sȱrequestȱforȱanȱaudiȬ enceȱ withȱ theȱ Persianȱ king.ȱ This,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ grantedȱ ifȱ heȱ obeysȱcertainȱ“rules.”ȱInȱthisȱcontext,ȱtheȱchiliarchȱArtabanosȱaddressesȱ Themistoclesȱwithȱtheȱfollowingȱwords:ȱȱȱ Oȱ Stranger,ȱ men’sȱ customsȱ differ;ȱ differentȱ peopleȱ honourȱ differentȱ pracȬ tices;ȱbutȱallȱhonourȱtheȱexaltationȱandȱmaintenanceȱofȱtheirȱownȱpeculiarȱ ways.ȱNowȱyouȱHellenesȱareȱsaidȱtoȱadmireȱlibertyȱandȱequalityȱaboveȱallȱ things;ȱbutȱinȱourȱeyes,ȱamongȱmanyȱfairȱcustoms,ȱthisȱisȱtheȱfairestȱofȱall,ȱ toȱhonourȱtheȱKing,ȱandȱtoȱpayȱobeisanceȱtoȱhimȱasȱtheȱimageȱofȱthatȱgodȱ whoȱisȱtheȱpreserverȱofȱallȱthings.ȱIf,ȱthen,ȱthouȱapprovestȱourȱpracticeȱandȱ wiltȱpayȱobeisance,ȱitȱisȱinȱthyȱpowerȱtoȱbeholdȱandȱaddressȱtheȱKing;ȱbutȱifȱ thouȱ artȱ otherwiseȱ minded,ȱ itȱ willȱ beȱ needfulȱ forȱ theeȱ toȱ employȱ messenȬ gersȱtoȱhimȱinȱthyȱstead,ȱforȱitȱisȱnotȱaȱcustomȱofȱthisȱcountryȱthatȱtheȱKingȱ giveȱearȱtoȱaȱmanȱwhoȱhasȱnotȱpaidȱhimȱobeisanceȱ(Themistoclesȱ§ȱ27).7

Notableȱinȱthisȱparagraphȱisȱtheȱcharacterisationȱofȱtheȱkingȱasȱtheȱ“imȬ ageȱofȱgod.”ȱItȱthusȱbecomesȱevidentȱthatȱtheȱproskynesis,ȱaccordingȱtoȱ theȱGreekȱunderstanding,ȱalsoȱimpliedȱaȱtheologicalȱdimension.ȱAtȱleastȱ itȱraisedȱtheȱsuspicionȱthat,ȱbyȱexpectingȱit,ȱtheȱPersianȱkingȱwasȱclaimȬ ingȱ divinityȱ forȱ himself.ȱ Asȱ Gregorȱ Ahnȱ hasȱ shownȱ inȱ hisȱ workȱ “ReȬ ligiöseȱ Herrscherlegitimationȱ imȱ ächaemenidischenȱ Iran.ȱ Dieȱ VorausȬ setzungenȱ undȱ dieȱ Strukturȱ ihrerȱ Argumentation,”8ȱ suchȱ aȱ conceptionȱ ofȱanȱideologyȱofȱaȱkingȱlikeȱthisȱcannotȱbeȱdrawnȱfromȱPersianȱsources.ȱ Theseȱreferencesȱratherȱshowȱaȱclearȱdistanceȱbetweenȱdeityȱandȱking,ȱ whoseȱprominentȱrankȱisȱemphasisedȱjustȱasȱexplicitly.ȱTheȱideaȱthatȱtheȱ Persianȱkingȱclaimedȱaȱdivineȱstatusȱthroughȱtheȱproskynesisȱthusȱaroseȱ fromȱanȱinterculturalȱmisunderstanding.ȱȱȱ ThatȱfactȱthatȱforȱtheȱGreek,ȱtheȱproskynesisȱmeantȱnotȱonlyȱanȱexȬ pressionȱofȱhumanȱbondageȱinȱgeneralȱbutȱwasȱinterpretedȱspecificallyȱ asȱ aȱ religiousȱ act,ȱ isȱ finallyȱ alsoȱ pointedȱ outȱ byȱ Xenophonȱ inȱ hisȱ AnaȬ basisȱ III:2.ȱ Here,ȱ aȱ historicalȱ reviewȱ ofȱ theȱ triumphȱ overȱ Xerxesȱ takesȱ placeȱinȱtheȱsituationȱofȱaȱmilitaryȱthreat,ȱwhenȱitȱisȱsaid:ȱȱ Again,ȱ whenȱ Xerxesȱ atȱ aȱ laterȱ timeȱ gatheredȱ togetherȱ thatȱ countlessȱ hostȱ andȱcameȱagainstȱGreece,ȱthenȱtooȱourȱforefathersȱwereȱvictorious,ȱbothȱbyȱ landȱandȱbyȱsea,ȱoverȱtheȱforefathersȱofȱourȱenemies.ȱAsȱtokensȱofȱtheseȱvicȬ toriesȱweȱmay,ȱindeed,ȱstillȱbeholdȱtheȱtrophies,ȱbutȱtheȱstrongestȱwitnessȱtoȱ themȱisȱtheȱfreedomȱofȱtheȱstatesȱinȱwhichȱyouȱwereȱbornȱandȱbred;ȱforȱtoȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 7 8

ȱȱ ȱȱ

QuotedȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱPERRIN,ȱPlutarch’sȱLives,ȱ2:ȱ73.ȱ AHN,ȱHerrscherlegitimation,ȱ183ff.ȱ

22ȱ

BeateȱEgoȱ

noȱhumanȱcreatureȱdoȱyouȱpayȱhomageȱasȱmaster,ȱbutȱtoȱtheȱgodsȱalone.ȱItȱ isȱfromȱsuchȱancestors,ȱthen,ȱthatȱyouȱareȱsprung.9

Theȱ conflictȱ potentialȱ containedȱ inȱ thisȱ gestureȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ PersianȬGreekȱculturalȱcontactȱillustratesȱtheȱCallisthenesȱepisodeȱofȱtheȱ Alexanderȱ tradition.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ Alexandervitaȱ §ȱ 54,ȱ Plutarchȱ passesȱ onȱ aȱ relativelyȱshortȱreference,ȱwherebyȱheȱcrossȬreferencesȱaȱreportȱbyȱChaȬ resȱ ofȱ Mytilene.ȱ Hereȱ itȱ isȱ reportedȱ thatȱ Alexanderȱ handedȱ overȱ theȱ bowlȱtoȱhisȱfriend,ȱafterȱheȱhadȱdrunkȱfromȱitȱatȱaȱbanquetȱinȱBaktraȱinȱ theȱ springȱ ofȱ 327,ȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ latterȱ tookȱ it,ȱ roseȱ andȱ steppedȱ toȱ theȱ altar,ȱdrankȱandȱwasȱtheȱfirstȱtoȱperformȱtheȱprostratio,ȱthenȱheȱkissedȱ Alexanderȱ andȱ layȱ downȱ again.ȱ Whilstȱ oneȱ byȱ oneȱ everyoneȱ elseȱ folȬ lowedȱsuit,ȱCallisthenesȱtookȱtheȱbowlȱand—whilstȱtheȱkingȱwasȱdeepȱ inȱ conversation—drankȱ andȱ directlyȱ steppedȱ forwardȱ toȱ Alexanderȱ toȱ kissȱ him.ȱ Butȱ whenȱ aȱ certainȱ Demetriusȱ calledȱ out:ȱ “Doȱ notȱ kissȱ him,ȱ king!ȱForȱthisȱoneȱisȱtheȱonlyȱoneȱtoȱhaveȱfailedȱinȱdoingȱtheȱprostrationȱ beforeȱ you,”ȱ Alexanderȱ avoidedȱ theȱ kiss.ȱ Afterȱ that,ȱ Callisthenesȱ merelyȱexclaimedȱloudly:ȱ“Thus,ȱIȱgoȱandȱwasȱoneȱkissȱshort.”ȱ Theȱ reasonȱ forȱ thisȱ refusalȱ byȱ Callisthenesȱ toȱ bowȱ downȱ beforeȱ Alexanderȱ inȱ anȱ obedientȱ fashionȱ isȱ notȱ explainedȱ atȱ thisȱ pointȱ and,ȱ hence,ȱtheȱproskynesis—accordingȱtoȱUlrichȱWiemer—doesȱnotȱseemȱtoȱ haveȱ signifiedȱ moreȱ thanȱ actȱ ofȱ obeisance,ȱ whichȱ Callistenesȱ refusesȱ becauseȱitȱappearedȱhumiliatingȱtoȱhim.ȱ TheȱaccountȱofȱtheȱcoherencesȱbyȱArrianȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱreligiousȱimȬ plicationsȱ ofȱ thisȱ incident:ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Arrianȱ (4:10Ȭ12),ȱ theȱ Greekȱ sophistȱ Anaxarchosȱ hadȱ arguedȱ inȱ favourȱ ofȱ Alexanderȱ beingȱ worȬ shippedȱ likeȱ aȱ god.ȱ Thisȱ speechȱ wasȱ atȱ firstȱ wellȱ received,ȱ andȱ theȱ proskynesisȱwasȱtoȱbeȱaccepted.ȱButȱtheȱMacedoniansȱwereȱdispleasedȱ andȱCallisthenesȱbeganȱtoȱspeakȱagainstȱthisȱcustom.ȱAccordingȱtoȱArȬ rian,ȱ Callisthenesȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ proskynesisȱ wasȱ worthyȱ ofȱ theȱ godsȱ alone;ȱ onlyȱ barbarians,ȱ notȱ Greeks,ȱ renderedȱ aȱ reverenceȱ likeȱ thisȱ toȱ people.ȱ Anaxarchus,ȱIȱdeclareȱAlexanderȱunworthyȱofȱnoȱhonourȱappropriateȱforȱaȱ man;ȱbutȱmenȱhaveȱusedȱnumerousȱwaysȱofȱdistinguishingȱallȱtheȱhonoursȱ whichȱ areȱ appropriateȱ forȱ menȱ andȱ forȱ gods;ȱ thusȱ weȱ buildȱ templesȱ andȱ erectȱimagesȱandȱsetȱasideȱprecinctsȱforȱgods,ȱandȱweȱofferȱthemȱsacrificesȱ andȱlibationsȱandȱcomposeȱhymnsȱtoȱthem,ȱwhileȱeulogiesȱareȱforȱmen;ȱbutȱ theȱmostȱimportantȱdistinctionȱconcernsȱtheȱmatterȱofȱobeisance.ȱAtȱgreetȬ ingȱ menȱ receiveȱ aȱ kiss,ȱ butȱ whatȱ isȱ divine,ȱ Iȱ supposeȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ seatedȱ aboveȱ usȱ andȱ weȱ areȱ forbiddenȱ evenȱ toȱ touchȱ it,ȱ isȱ forȱ thatȱ veryȱ reasonȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 9

ȱȱ

QuotedȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱBROWNSON,ȱXenophon,ȱ3:ȱ203.ȱ

ȱ

Mordecai’sȱRefusalȱofȱProskynesisȱBeforeȱHamanȱ

23ȱ

honouredȱbyȱobeisance;ȱdances,ȱtoo,ȱareȱheldȱforȱtheȱgods,ȱandȱpaeansȱsungȱ inȱtheirȱpraise.ȱInȱthisȱdistinctionȱthereȱisȱnothingȱsurprising,ȱsinceȱamongȱ theȱ godsȱ themselvesȱ allȱ areȱ notȱ honouredȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ way;ȱ andȱ whatȱ isȱ more,ȱthereȱareȱdifferentȱhonoursȱforȱtheȱheroes,ȱdistinctȱagainȱfromȱthoseȱ paidȱtoȱgods.ȱItȱisȱnot,ȱtherefore,ȱproperȱtoȱconfuseȱallȱthis,ȱbyȱraisingȱmorȬ talsȱtoȱextravagantȱproportionsȱbyȱexcessesȱofȱhonour,ȱwhileȱbringingȱgods,ȱ asȱfarȱasȱmenȱcan,ȱdownȱtoȱaȱdemeaningȱandȱunfittingȱlevelȱbyȱhonouringȱ themȱinȱtheȱsameȱwayȱasȱmen.10ȱȱ

Callisthenesȱ insistentlyȱ advisesȱ againstȱ confoundingȱ thoseȱ customs,ȱ dueȱtoȱtheȱgods,ȱwithȱthoseȱdueȱtoȱheroes,ȱasȱtheȱgodsȱwouldȱbeȱangryȱ withȱthoseȱwhoȱclaimȱdivineȱhonoursȱforȱthemselves.ȱAlexanderȱmightȱ rememberȱ thatȱ evenȱ whenȱ heȱ isȱ awayȱ heȱ mayȱ keepȱ Greeceȱ andȱ theȱ Greekȱcustomsȱinȱmind.ȱOnȱhisȱreturnȱtoȱGreece,ȱheȱthusȱrecommendsȱ himȱ toȱ doȱ so,ȱ butȱ heȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ forceȱ theȱ Greek,ȱ “theȱ mostȱ libertarianȱ ofȱ allȱ people,”ȱtoȱ performȱ aȱproskynesis.ȱAfterȱ thisȱflamingȱ speech—accordingȱ toȱ ourȱ historian—Alexanderȱ refrainedȱ fromȱ atȬ temptingȱ toȱ makeȱ theȱ Macedoniansȱ renderȱ theȱ proskynesis,ȱ too.ȱ Onlyȱ someȱofȱtheȱPersiansȱstillȱcarriedȱoutȱtheȱproskynesis.ȱCallisthenes,ȱwhoȱ soȱvehementlyȱresistedȱAlexander’sȱdesireȱforȱaȱproskynesis,ȱsoonȱdiedȱ forȱ hisȱ audacity:ȱ shortlyȱ afterȱ theȱ banquetȱ inȱ Baktra,ȱ aȱ conspiracyȱ againstȱ theȱ kingȱ wasȱ revealed.ȱ Sinceȱ Callisthenesȱ wasȱ inȱ closeȱ contactȱ withȱtheȱheadȱofȱtheȱconspiracy,ȱheȱwasȱaccusedȱofȱhavingȱbeenȱpartȱofȱ theȱcomplot,ȱwhichȱmeantȱthatȱAlexanderȱhadȱaȱplausibleȱexcuseȱtoȱgetȱ himȱoutȱofȱtheȱway.ȱAȱveryȱsimilarȱnarration,ȱalbeitȱmoreȱembellished,ȱ isȱ toldȱ byȱ Curtiusȱ Rufus,ȱ 8:5;ȱ hereȱ weȱ alsoȱ findȱ theȱ themeȱ ofȱ theȱ proskynesisȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱdebateȱonȱAlexander’sȱdivinity.ȱInȱthisȱ narration,ȱCallisthenesȱadvocatesȱAlexanderȱtoȱbeȱadoredȱlikeȱaȱgodȱnotȱ untilȱafterȱhisȱdeath.ȱ Inȱanyȱcase,ȱthatȱwayȱitȱbecomesȱevidentȱthatȱnumerousȱGreekȱtextsȱ provideȱclearȱevidenceȱthatȱtheȱproskynesisȱasȱaȱprostrationȱbeforeȱtheȱ kingȱplaysȱanȱimportantȱroleȱinȱPersianȱcourtȱceremonies. 11ȱThisȱcustomȱ wasȱ strangeȱ toȱ theȱ Greekȱ inasmuchȱ asȱ itȱ seemedȱ likeȱ anȱ expressionȱ ofȱ deepestȱdespotismȱtoȱthem,ȱwhichȱwasȱdeeplyȱhatedȱbyȱtheirȱownȱnoȬ tionȱofȱliberty.ȱFurthermore,ȱasȱtheȱsourcesȱshow,ȱtheȱproskynesisȱalsoȱ hadȱ aȱ religiousȱ connotation,ȱ asȱ itȱ wasȱ actuallyȱ reservedȱ forȱ aȱ deity.ȱ Inȱ thisȱcontext,ȱonȱtheȱGreekȱside,ȱtheȱideaȱcouldȱemergeȱthatȱtheȱPersianȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 10 11

ȱȱ QuotedȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱBRUNT/ROBSON,ȱArrian,ȱ1:ȱ375.ȱ ȱȱ Cf.ȱseveralȱworksȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱIranianȱStudies,ȱbasedȱonȱaudienceȱdepictionsȱfromȱ Persepolis,ȱwantedȱtoȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱproskynesisȱonlyȱincludedȱaȱslightȱdiffractionȱofȱ theȱupperȱbodyȱandȱanȱimpliedȱkissȱonȱtheȱhand.ȱBut,ȱasȱG.ȱAhnȱhasȱpointedȱout,ȱthisȱ seemsȱ highlyȱ improbable,ȱ dueȱ toȱ differentȱ Greekȱ attestations.ȱ Onȱ this,ȱ cf.ȱ AHN,ȱ Herrscherlegitimation,ȱ183.ȱ

24ȱ

BeateȱEgoȱ

kingȱwasȱhonouredȱlikeȱaȱgod—aȱthoughtȱthatȱcannotȱbeȱfoundȱonȱtheȱ Persianȱsideȱinȱourȱsources.ȱȱ Dueȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ explanationȱ ofȱ Mordecai’sȱ refusalȱ toȱ bowȱ downȱ wasȱ laterȱ insertedȱ inȱ Mordecai’sȱ invocationȱ andȱ isȱ probablyȱ notȱ ofȱ Hebrewȱ origin,ȱ itȱ generallyȱ seemsȱ plausibleȱ thatȱ thisȱ elementȱ wasȱ includedȱinȱtheȱprayerȱofȱpetitionȱunderȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱGreekȱthinkingȱ andȱ Greekȱ texts.ȱ Withȱ this,ȱ consideredȱ formally,ȱ anȱ integrationȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ thoughtȱ patternȱ intoȱ theȱ IsraeliticȬJewishȱ Estherȱ traditionȱ takesȱ place.ȱȱ Atȱthisȱpoint,ȱtheȱquestionȱarisesȱonȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱthisȱinsertionȱinȱ theȱ entireȱ reȬtellingȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Estherȱ traditionȱ inȱ theȱ LXX.ȱ Isȱ thisȱ aboutȱaȱkindȱofȱsynthesisȱofȱJewishȱandȱGreekȱmotifs?ȱDoesȱtheȱauthorȱ ofȱ theȱ additionsȱ wantȱ toȱ adaptȱ hisȱ storyȱ toȱ theȱ Greekȱ mindscapeȱ andȱ thinking?ȱBeforeȱoneȱcanȱspeakȱofȱaȱHellenisationȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱEstherȱ tradition,ȱ oneȱ firstȱ hasȱ toȱ considerȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ kingȱ ideologiesȱ asȱ theyȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱtheȱGreekȱadditions.ȱ Asȱ itȱ isȱ commonlyȱ known,ȱ theȱ Ptolemaicȱ andȱ Seleucidȱ rulersȱ claimedȱ divineȱ kingshipȱ andȱ wereȱ worshippedȱ likeȱ gods.ȱ Sinceȱ Ptolemaeusȱ IIȱ andȱ Arsinoe,ȱ everyȱ Ptolemaicȱ rulerȱ adoptedȱ aȱ divineȱ surnameȱ whenȱ takingȱ office.ȱ Seleucidȱ rulersȱ whoȱ claimedȱ divineȱ honoursȱ forȱ themȬ selvesȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ theirȱ livesȱ includeȱ Antiochȱ III,ȱ Antiochȱ IVȱ andȱ DemetriusȱIII.ȱTheȱfoundationsȱforȱthisȱdevelopmentȱwereȱlaidȱbyȱAlexȬ anderȱ theȱ Great,ȱ whoȱ hadȱ beenȱ worshippedȱ likeȱ aȱ deityȱ inȱ theȱ attenȬ danceȱofȱtheȱPharaohȱeverȱsinceȱhisȱstayȱatȱtheȱoasisȱofȱSiwa.ȱItȱisȱperȬ fectlyȱobviousȱthatȱtheȱauthorȱofȱtheȱEstherȱadditionsȱwasȱfamiliarȱwithȱ theseȱconceptions.ȱȱ Againstȱthisȱbackground,ȱMordecai’sȱexplanationȱforȱhisȱrefusalȱofȱ theȱproskynesisȱinȱCȱ1Ȭ7ȱcanȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱaȱsubtleȱexaminationȱofȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ rulerȱ cult,ȱ whoseȱ messageȱ isȱ clear:ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ definiteȱ separationȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ man,ȱ whichȱ shouldȱ alwaysȱ beȱ regardedȱ whenȱ dealingȱ withȱ rulers.ȱ Thus,ȱ Greekȱ conceptionsȱ areȱ included,ȱ butȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱatȱhand,ȱtheyȱaimȱtoȱformulateȱaȱclearȱdissociationȱofȱtheȱHelleȬ nisticȱworldȱandȱitsȱkingȱideologies.ȱ

3.ȱMordecai’sȱRefusalȱofȱtheȱProskynesisȱ inȱtheȱContextȱofȱtheȱGreekȱBookȱofȱEstherȱ ItȱhasȱyetȱtoȱbeȱclarifiedȱhowȱthisȱshortȱparagraphȱofȱMordecai’sȱinvocaȬ tionȱfitsȱintoȱtheȱcompleteȱstructureȱofȱtheȱGreekȱBookȱofȱEsther.ȱAreȱweȱ dealingȱwithȱanȱindependentȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱinvocationȱthatȱsubtlyȱ turnsȱagainstȱtheȱHellenisticȱrulerȱcult?ȱOrȱcanȱthisȱelementȱalsoȱbeȱconȬ

ȱ

Mordecai’sȱRefusalȱofȱProskynesisȱBeforeȱHamanȱ

25ȱ

sideredȱ asȱ aȱ reactionȱ withinȱ theȱ bookȱ itself,ȱ whichȱ reactsȱ toȱ theȱ repreȬ sentationȱofȱtheȱPersianȱking,ȱasȱitȱcanȱprimarilyȱbeȱfoundȱinȱsectionȱD,ȱ theȱaudienceȱscene?ȱHere,ȱEsther’sȱencounterȱwithȱtheȱkingȱisȱdescribedȱ asȱfollows:ȱȱ 1ȱOnȱtheȱthirdȱday,ȱwhenȱsheȱhadȱfinishedȱpraying,ȱsheȱtookȱoffȱtheȱclothȬ ingȱ ofȱ aȱ suppliantȱ andȱ dressedȱ herselfȱ inȱ splendidȱ attire.ȱ 2ȱ Afterȱ sheȱ hadȱ calledȱuponȱtheȱallȬseeingȱGodȱandȱsavior,ȱshe,ȱlookingȱabsolutelyȱradiant,ȱ tookȱtwoȱmaids,ȱ3ȱleaningȱdaintilyȱonȱtheȱone,ȱ4ȱwhileȱtheȱotherȱfollowedȱ carryingȱ herȱ train.ȱ 5ȱ Sheȱ wasȱ radiant,ȱinȱ theȱ primeȱ ofȱ herȱbeauty,ȱ andȱ herȱ faceȱwasȱassuredȱasȱoneȱwhoȱknowsȱsheȱisȱloved,ȱbutȱherȱheartȱwasȱpoundȬ ingȱwithȱfear.ȱȱ 6ȱWhenȱsheȱhadȱpassedȱthroughȱallȱtheȱdoors,ȱsheȱstoodȱbeforeȱtheȱking.ȱHeȱ wasȱseatedȱonȱthisȱroyalȱthrone,ȱarrayedȱinȱallȱhisȱsplendidȱattire,ȱallȱcovȬ eredȱwithȱgoldȱandȱpreciousȱstones—aȱmostȱformidableȱsight!ȱ7ȱRaisingȱhisȱ face,ȱ flushedȱ withȱ color,ȱ heȱ lookedȱ atȱ herȱ inȱ fiercestȱ anger.ȱ Theȱ queenȱ stumbled,ȱturnedȱpaleȱandȱfainted,ȱkeelingȱoverȱonȱtheȱmaidȱwhoȱwentȱbeȬ foreȱher.ȱȱ 8ȱ Butȱ Godȱ changedȱ theȱ king’sȱ spiritȱ toȱ gentleness.ȱ Theȱ kingȱ leapedȱ downȱ fromȱhisȱthroneȱinȱalarmȱandȱtookȱherȱupȱinȱhisȱarmsȱuntilȱsheȱrevived…12

W.H.ȱ Brownlee,ȱ inȱ hisȱ 1966ȱ essayȱ entitledȱ “Leȱ livreȱgrecȱ d’Estherȱ etȱ laȱ Royautéȱ divine.ȱ Correctionsȱ orthodoxesȱ auȱ livreȱ d’Esther”ȱ heldȱ theȱ viewȱthatȱthisȱsectionȱfeaturesȱinfluencesȱfromȱtheȱHellenisticȱrulerȱideȬ ology,ȱ sinceȱ Brownleeȱ wantedȱ toȱ indicateȱ thatȱ thisȱ sceneȱ originallyȱ meantȱ Antiochȱ IVȱ wasȱ beingȱ depictedȱ asȱ aȱ divineȱ being.ȱ Evenȱ ifȱ thisȱ interpretationȱisȱnotȱfollowedȱcompletely,13ȱitȱmustȱatȱleastȱbeȱnotedȱthatȱ theȱ kingȱ isȱ describedȱ asȱ havingȱ aȱ divineȱ appearance.ȱ Theȱ termȱ epiphȬ any,ȱasȱitȱoccursȱinȱtheȱGreekȱtext,ȱremindsȱusȱofȱtheȱmanifestationȱofȱaȱ divineȱpower.ȱEvenȱthoughȱtheȱsumptuousȱgownsȱofȱtheȱPersiansȱwereȱ commonlyȱknownȱinȱtheȱancientȱworld,ȱtheȱmotifȱofȱtheȱkingȱwhoȱ“wasȱ allȱgoldȱandȱpreciousȱstones”ȱisȱnotȱattestedȱatȱanyȱpoint.ȱAlsoȱtheȱasȬ pectȱofȱfearȱrefersȱratherȱtoȱaȱdivineȱepiphanyȱthanȱtoȱaȱmeetingȱwithȱaȱ physicalȱruler.ȱAfterȱall,ȱtheȱexpressionȱofȱdoxaȱalsoȱbelongsȱtoȱtheȱrealmȱ ofȱdivineȱvisitations.14 SinceȱEsther’sȱencounterȱwithȱtheȱearthlyȱkingȱisȱconstructedȱlikeȱaȱ kindȱ ofȱ theophany,ȱ thisȱ paragraphȱ raisesȱ theȱ questionȱ regardingȱ theȱ extentȱtoȱwhichȱthisȱdepictionȱofȱtheȱkingȱcanȱbeȱharmonisedȱwithȱJewȬ ishȱ monotheism.ȱ Againstȱ thisȱ background,ȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ surpriseȱ thatȱ theȱ king’sȱ transcendentȱ appearanceȱ isȱ alreadyȱ correctedȱ inȱ v.ȱ 13Ȭ16ȱ ofȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ QuotedȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱMOORE,ȱAdditions,ȱ216.ȱȱ ȱȱ ReferȱalsoȱtoȱtheȱcriticismȱofȱthisȱthesisȱbyȱGARDNER,ȱTheȱRelationship,ȱ1Ȭ8,ȱ5.ȱȱȱ 14ȱȱ BROWNLEE,ȱLeȱlivreȱgrec,ȱ165;ȱcf.ȱKOTTSIEPER,ȱZuȱEstherȱundȱDaniel,ȱ183.ȱ 12 13

26ȱ

BeateȱEgoȱ

sameȱ paragraph.ȱ Estherȱ nowȱ emphasisesȱ thatȱ theȱ kingȱ lookedȱ likeȱ anȱ angelȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Withȱ this,ȱ itȱ isȱ pointedȱ outȱ thatȱ theȱ kingȱ himselfȱ isȱ notȱ divine.ȱLineȱCȱ21,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱperpetualȱglorificationȱofȱaȱfleshlyȱkingȱ isȱpolemicised,ȱalsoȱcorrespondsȱwithȱthis.15 EvenȱthoughȱweȱmightȱnotȱbeȱableȱtoȱspecifyȱtheȱchronologicalȱrelaȬ tionȱ ofȱ theȱ individualȱ statementsȱ onȱ theȱ rulerȱ ideology,ȱ itȱ canȱ stillȱ beȱ recorded:ȱ theȱ shortȱ paragraphȱ inȱ Moredechai’sȱ invocation—asȱ alsoȱ mentionedȱinȱDȱ13Ȭ16ȱandȱCȱ21—canȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱaȱclearȱcorrectiveȱ ofȱanȱ overlyȱpositiveȱ depictionȱ ofȱaȱ humanȱ ruler,ȱ whichȱ placesȱ himȱ inȱ theȱ sphereȱ ofȱ theȱ divine.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ itȱ createsȱ aȱ decidedȱ counterbalȬ anceȱtoȱtheȱaudienceȱsceneȱonȱaȱliteraryȱlevel.ȱȱ

3.ȱOutlook:ȱTheȱMotifȱofȱtheȱRefusalȱofȱtheȱProskynesisȱ AccordingȱtoȱOtherȱAncientȱJewishȱSourcesȱ TheȱculticȱreasonȱforȱMordecai’sȱrefusalȱtoȱbowȱdown,ȱasȱitȱisȱfoundȱinȱ theȱSeptuagint,ȱisȱrevivedȱinȱtheȱbiblicalȱantiquitiesȱofȱJosephusȱXI:209Ȭ 213:ȱȱ Butȱ Mordecaiȱ becauseȱ ofȱ hisȱ wisdomȱ andȱ hisȱ nativeȱ lawȱ wouldȱ notȱ prosȬ trateȱhimselfȱbeforeȱanyȱman,ȱandȱHaman,ȱhavingȱobservedȱthis,ȱinquiredȱ fromȱwhatȱpeopleȱheȱcame.ȱAndȱwhenȱheȱlearnedȱthatȱheȱwasȱaȱJew,ȱheȱbeȬ cameȱ indignantȱ andȱ remarkedȱ toȱ himselfȱ thatȱ whereasȱ theȱ freeȬbornȱ PerȬ siansȱprostratedȱthemselvesȱbeforeȱhim,ȱthisȱman,ȱwhoȱwasȱaȱslave,ȱdidȱnotȱ seemȱfitȱtoȱdoȱso.16

Here,ȱitȱbecomesȱevidentȱthatȱMordecai’sȱdisobedienceȱtoȱHamanȱisȱanȱ expressionȱofȱhisȱobedienceȱtoȱGodȱandȱhisȱcommandment.ȱThus,ȱMorȬ decai’sȱobedienceȱtoȱtheȱTorah,ȱasȱalreadyȱmentionedȱinȱtheȱadditionsȱofȱ theȱSeptuagintȱinȱotherȱcontexts,ȱisȱfinallyȱconnectedȱwithȱtheȱmotifȱofȱ theȱproskynesis.ȱȱ Aȱ lateȱ echoȱ ofȱ thisȱ motifȱ isȱ thenȱ foundȱ inȱ aȱ Piyyutȱ inȱ theȱ Targumȱ Scheni.ȱ Asȱ aȱ responseȱ toȱ theȱ attendants’ȱ questionȱ asȱ toȱ whyȱ Mordecaiȱ transgressesȱ againstȱ theȱ commandȱ ofȱ theȱ Kingȱ (Estȱ 3:3),ȱ theȱ MeturgeȬ manȱinsertsȱaȱpoemȱfullȱofȱbiblicalȱallusions:ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ Concerningȱtheȱenemies,ȱitȱisȱstatedȱhere:ȱ“Theyȱhaveȱmadeȱanȱagreementȱwithȱtheirȱ gods…ȱtoȱopenȱmouthsȱofȱtheȱpagansȱforȱtheȱpraiseȱofȱidols,ȱandȱtoȱidolizeȱforȱeverȱaȱ mereȱ mortalȱ king”ȱ (quotedȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ translationȱ ofȱ MOORE,ȱ Additions,ȱ 208f;ȱ seeȱalsoȱKOTTSIEPER,ȱZuȱEstherȱundȱDaniel,ȱ185).ȱ 16ȱȱ QuotedȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱMARCUS,ȱJosephus,ȱ4:ȱ417.ȱȱ 15

ȱ

Mordecai’sȱRefusalȱofȱProskynesisȱBeforeȱHamanȱ

27ȱ

Fools!ȱ(Youȱwho)ȱlackȱunderstanding!ȱ Hearȱmeȱoutȱonȱaȱmatter,ȱthenȱgiveȱmeȱanȱappropriateȱanswer.ȱ Isȱthereȱaȱmanȱwhoȱisȱproudȱandȱhaughty,ȱ bornȱofȱaȱwoman,ȱwhoseȱdaysȱareȱbutȱfew;17 heȱatȱwhoseȱbirthȱthereȱareȱaches,ȱcries,ȱanguishesȱandȱsighs;18 andȱallȱhisȱdaysȱareȱfullȱofȱanger;ȱȱ andȱwhoseȱultimateȱendȱisȱaȱreturnȱtoȱdust,19 andȱIȱshallȱkneelȱbeforeȱhim?ȱ No!ȱIȱonlyȱbowȱdownȱtoȱtheȱeverȬexistingȱGodȱȱ whoȱisȱOneȱinȱheaven,ȱ andȱwhoȱisȱanȱallȬconsumingȱfire20ȱȱ andȱwhoseȱangelsȱareȱfire;21ȱȱ whoȱliftsȱupȱtheȱearthȱwithȱHisȱarm,22 stretchesȱoutȱtheȱheavenlyȱexpanseȱwithȱHisȱpower,ȱ whoȱbyȱHisȱwillȱeclipsesȱtheȱsun23 andȱwhoȱthroughȱHisȱdesireȱilluminatesȱdarkness;24ȱȱ whoȱinȱHisȱwisdomȱmadeȱtheȱsea25ȱabundantȱwithȱsandȱ andȱinȱHisȱwrathȱHeȱprovidesȱtheȱwatersȱwithȱaȱtasteȱofȱsaltȱ asȱwellȱasȱtheȱwavesȱwithȱaȱtasteȱofȱwine;ȱ Heȱchainsȱitȱlikeȱ(with)ȱfetters;ȱ Heȱstopsȱitȱatȱtheȱstoresȱofȱtheȱdepth26 soȱthatȱitȱshouldȱnotȱcomeȱupȱonȱtheȱearth;27 anȱearthquakeȱisȱplacedȱbutȱdoesȱnotȱpassȱitsȱlimit.28 ByȱHisȱMemraȱHeȱcreatedȱtheȱheavenlyȱexpanseȱfromȱbelowȱ likeȱaȱcloudȱspreadȱinȱtheȱair;ȱ likeȱaȱmistȱuponȱaȱcloudȱ(it)ȱshieldsȱtheȱworld;29 likeȱaȱtentȱuponȱtheȱsurfaceȱofȱtheȱearth;ȱ andȱbyȱHisȱstrength,ȱHeȱcarriesȱthatȱwhatȱisȱaboveȱandȱwhatȱisȱbelow.30 BeforeȱHimȱtheȱsunȱandȱtheȱmoonȱrunȱ(theirȱcourses),ȱȱ theȱconstellationȱKimah,ȱandȱtheȱstars,ȱasȱwellȱtheȱplanets,ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ 19ȱȱ 20ȱȱ 17 18

ȱȱ ȱȱ 23ȱȱ 24ȱȱ 25ȱȱ 26ȱȱ 27ȱȱ 28ȱȱ 29ȱȱ 30ȱȱ 21 22

Psȱ109:8;ȱ144:3f;ȱJobȱ14:1.ȱ Psȱ31:11.ȱ Genȱ3:19;ȱJobȱ10:9;ȱcf.ȱPsȱ104:29;ȱJobȱ34:15;ȱEcclȱ12:7.ȱ Exodȱ19:18;ȱ24:17;ȱDeutȱ4:24;ȱ9:3;ȱPsȱ50:3;ȱ973;ȱcp.ȱb.Yom.ȱ21b:ȱ“Fireȱwhichȱconsumesȱ fire…ȱthatȱofȱtheȱShekhinah.”ȱȱ Concerningȱthisȱthematicȱmotifȱcf.ȱtheȱnumerousȱexamplesȱinȱHekhalotȬLiterature.ȱȱ Jobȱ26:7.ȱ Isȱ13:10.ȱ 2ȱSamȱ22:29;ȱPsȱ18:29.ȱ Jobȱ38:8Ȭ11;ȱPsȱ33:7;ȱ104:6Ȭ9.ȱȱ Psȱ33:7.ȱ Psȱ104:9.ȱ Jerȱ5:22;ȱJobȱ38:8Ȭ11;ȱPsȱ104:6Ȭ9.ȱ Psȱ104:2;ȱIsaȱ40:22;ȱ42:5;ȱ44:24;ȱ45:12ȱet.ȱal.ȱ Cf.ȱPsȱ104:5;ȱJobȱ26:7;ȱProvȱ30:4.ȱȱ

28ȱ

BeateȱEgoȱ

theyȱdoȱnotȱremainȱidleȱ(even)ȱanȱhour;ȱȱ theyȱdoȱnotȱrest,ȱbutȱratherȱallȱofȱthemȱrunȱ(theirȱcourses)ȱȱ beforeȱHimȱlikeȱmessengersȱtoȱtheȱrightȱandȱtoȱtheȱleftȱtoȱdoȱHisȱwill.ȱ ToȱtheȱOneȱwhoȱcreatedȱthem,ȱtoȱHimȱitȱisȱfittingȱtoȱgiveȱpraiseȱ andȱtoȱbowȱdownȱbeforeȱHim.31

Otherȱ rabbinicalȱ textsȱ finallyȱ takeȱ upȱ theȱ culticȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ refusal,ȱ albeitȱ withȱ aȱ differentȱ emphasis.ȱ Targumȱ Rishonȱ andȱ Midrashȱ Estherȱ RabbaȱEstRȱ8:7ȱ[14a]ȱ“makesȱtheȱbowingȱtoȱHamanȱobjectionableȱonȱtheȱ groundsȱofȱreligionȱbyȱclaimingȱthatȱHamanȱhadȱanȱimageȱofȱaȱgodȱonȱ hisȱ chestȱ andȱ thatȱ Mordecaiȱ wouldȱ notȱ bowȱ downȱ toȱ theȱ imageȱ orȱ toȱ Haman.”32ȱThus,ȱnotȱtheȱbowȱbeforeȱaȱmanȱitselfȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱproblemȬ atic,ȱbutȱtheȱfactȱthatȱHamanȱworeȱanȱidolȱonȱhisȱgown.ȱAȱbowȱtoȱhimȱ equallyȱimpliesȱaȱbowȱtoȱtheȱidolȱand,ȱonȱthisȱaccount,ȱexpressesȱsomeȱ kindȱ ofȱ idolatry.ȱ Theȱ integrationȱ ofȱ Greekȱ conceptionsȱ undergoesȱ aȱ “rollȬback”ȱ toȱ someȱ extentȱ becauseȱ thisȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ aboutȱ theȱ deificaȬ tionȱ ofȱ aȱ human,ȱ butȱ aboutȱ theȱ classicalȱ motifȱ ofȱ idolatry,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ alreadyȱplayedȱaȱprominentȱroleȱinȱbiblicalȱthinking.ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 31 32

ȱȱ QuotedȱaccordingȱtoȱGROSSFELD,ȱTheȱTwoȱTargumsȱofȱEsther,ȱ142f.ȱȱ ȱȱ Cf.ȱBerlin,ȱEsther,ȱ36.ȱ

ȱ

Mordecai’sȱRefusalȱofȱProskynesisȱBeforeȱHamanȱ

29ȱ

Bibliographyȱ AHN,ȱ G.,ȱ Religiöseȱ Herrscherlegitimationȱ imȱ ächemenidischenȱ Iran.ȱ Dieȱ VorȬ aussetzungenȱ undȱ dieȱ Strukturȱ ihrerȱ Argumentationȱ (Actaȱ Iranicaȱ 31),ȱ Leiden/Louvainȱ1992.ȱ BERLIN,ȱA.,ȱEstherȱ(TheȱJPSȱBibleȱCommentary),ȱPhiladelphiaȱ2001.ȱ BROWNLEE,ȱ W.H.,ȱ Leȱ livreȱ grecȱ d’Estherȱ etȱ laȱ Royautéȱ divine.ȱ Correctionsȱ orȬ thodoxesȱauȱlivreȱd’Esther:ȱRBȱ73ȱ(1966)ȱ161Ȭ185.ȱ BROWNSON,ȱ C.L.,ȱ Xenophon:ȱ Inȱ Threeȱ Volumes,ȱ withȱ anȱ Englishȱ Translationȱ (LCLȱ90),ȱLondonȱ1968.ȱ BRUNT,ȱ P.A.ȱ /ȱROBSON,ȱ E.I.,ȱArrian:ȱ Inȱ Twoȱ Volumes,ȱ withȱ anȱ Englishȱ TranslaȬ tionȱ(LCLȱ236),ȱCambrigde/Londonȱ1976.ȱ GABELMANN,ȱH.,ȱAntikeȱAudienzȬȱundȱTribunalszenen,ȱDarmstadtȱ1984.ȱ GARDNER,ȱA.E.,ȱTheȱRelationshipȱofȱtheȱAdditionsȱtoȱtheȱBookȱofȱEstherȱtoȱtheȱ MaccabeanȱCrisis:ȱJSJȱ15ȱ(1984)ȱ1Ȭ8.ȱ GODLEY,ȱ A.D.,ȱ Herodotus:ȱ Inȱ Fourȱ Volumes,ȱ withȱ anȱ Englishȱ translationȱ (LCLȱ 117),ȱCambrigde/Londonȱ1975.ȱ GROSSFELD,ȱ B.,ȱ Theȱ Twoȱ Targumsȱ ofȱ Esther,ȱ Translated,ȱ withȱ Apparatusȱ andȱ Notesȱ(TheȱAramaicȱBibleȱ18),ȱEdinburghȱ1991.ȱ KOTTSIEPER,ȱI.,ȱZuȱEstherȱundȱDanielȱ(ATD.Apokryphenȱ5),ȱGöttingenȱ1998.ȱ MARCUS,ȱ R.,ȱ Josephusȱ Withȱ anȱ Englishȱ Translationȱ inȱ Nineȱ Volumes,ȱ CamȬ brigde/Londonȱ1951.ȱ MOORE,ȱC.A.,ȱDaniel,ȱEstherȱandȱJeremiah:ȱTheȱAdditionsȱ(ABȱ44),ȱGardenȱCityȱ 1971.ȱ MOORE,ȱC.A.,ȱEstherȱ(ABȱ7B),ȱGardenȱCityȱ1971.ȱ PERRIN,ȱ B.,ȱ Plutarch’sȱ lives:ȱ Inȱ Elevenȱ Volumes,ȱ withȱ anȱ Englishȱ translationȱ (LCLȱ47),ȱLondonȱ1968.ȱ

ȱ ȱ

GenderizingȱPiety:ȱ TheȱPrayersȱofȱMordecaiȱandȱEstherȱinȱComparisonȱ ȱ STEFANȱSCHORCHȱ

1.Introductionȱ Throughoutȱ theȱ lastȱ decades,ȱ genderȬrelatedȱ researchȱ becameȱ anȱ inȬ creasinglyȱimportantȱ partȱofȱ Biblicalȱ exegesis.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱsearchȱ forȱ femaleȱvoicesȱwithinȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱandȱtheȱquestȱforȱreconstructȬ ingȱancientȱmaleȱandȱfemaleȱgenderȱconceptsȱhaveȱreachedȱmanyȱBibliȬ calȱ booksȱandȱ texts,ȱ theȱ femaleȱ protagonistsȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ booksȱ andȱ stoȬ riesȱ areȱ aȱ favoriteȱ subjectȱ ofȱ genderȱ studies,ȱ andȱ amongȱ themȱ isȱ naturallyȱEsther,ȱtoo.ȱHowever,ȱalthoughȱthereȱareȱaȱnumberȱofȱstudiesȱ whichȱprovideȱanalysesȱofȱtextsȱfromȱtheȱBookȱofȱEstherȱfromȱtheȱperȬ spectiveȱofȱgenderȱstudies,1ȱitȱseemsȱthatȱEsther’sȱprayerȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱ mostȱimportantȱ“femaleȱtexts”ȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱEstherȱhasȱneverȱbeenȱtheȱ subjectȱofȱaȱdetailedȱstudyȱfollowingȱthisȱapproach.2ȱȱ Thisȱisȱallȱtheȱmoreȱastonishing,ȱsinceȱthisȱtextȱisȱnotȱonlyȱutteredȱbyȱ aȱ woman—Esther—butȱ itȱ additionallyȱ containsȱ someȱ veryȱ strikingȱ casesȱ ofȱ femaleȱ imageryȱ andȱ repeatedlyȱ refersȱ toȱ specificallyȱ femaleȱ issues,ȱasȱforȱinstanceȱandȱmostȱprominently,ȱtheȱmenstrualȱclothȱ(Cȱ27:ȱ r`a,koj katamhni,wn).ȱMaybe,ȱthisȱneglectanceȱhasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱfactȱthatȱ theȱprayerȱappearsȱonlyȱinȱtheȱdeuteroȬcanonicalȱGreekȱversionsȱofȱtheȱ BookȱofȱEsther,3ȱbutȱnotȱinȱtheȱMasoreticȱtextȱwhichȱisȱstillȱinȱtheȱmainȱ focusȱofȱBiblicalȱscholars.4 ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ 2ȱȱ

3ȱȱ 4ȱȱ

See,ȱ mostȱ prominently,ȱ BRENNER,ȱ Aȱ Feministȱ Companion,ȱ partȱ I:ȱ “Esther:ȱ Whenȱ GenderȱPoliticsȱRepresentȱPowerȱPolitics.”ȱ Note,ȱhowever,ȱ thatȱaȱnumberȱofȱ genderȱrelatedȱstudiesȱ hasȱbeenȱpublishedȱonȱ theȱ moreȱgeneralȱissueȱwomenȱandȱprayerȱinȱtheȱHebrewȱBible,ȱamongȱthem,ȱmostȱimȬ portantlyȱinȱmyȱeyes,ȱBRETTLER,ȱWomenȱandȱPsalms.ȱ Recently,ȱaȱgenderȱrelatedȱstudyȱonȱLXXȱEstherȱwasȱpublishedȱbyȱSTEYN,ȱBeautifulȱ butȱTough.ȱȱ Thisȱ isȱ anȱ opportunityȱ toȱ expressȱ gratitudeȱ toȱ Gézaȱ Xeravitsȱ andȱ Józsefȱ Zsengellér,ȱ whoȱ initiatedȱ andȱ continueȱ toȱ organizeȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ conferencesȱ devotedȱ toȱ theȱ soȬ

ȱ

TheȱPrayersȱofȱMordecaiȱandȱEstherȱ

31ȱ

Apartȱfromȱbeingȱanȱimportantȱfemaleȱtext,ȱEsther’sȱprayerȱisȱaȱveryȱ promisingȱ subjectȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ genderȱ studiesȱ yetȱ dueȱ toȱ anotherȱprominentȱfeature:ȱAsȱisȱwellȱknown,ȱtheȱtwoȱGreekȱversionsȱofȱ theȱBookȱofȱEstherȱcontainȱnotȱonlyȱaȱprayerȱofȱEsther,ȱbutȱadditionallyȱ aȱprayerȱofȱMordecaiȱwhichȱprecedesȱitȱandȱwhichȱisȱcloselyȱrelatedȱtoȱ it.ȱ Immediatelyȱ followingȱ oneȱ afterȱ theȱ other,ȱ theȱ twoȱ prayersȱ wereȱ insertedȱ atȱ aȱ dramaticȱ peakȱ ofȱ theȱ story,ȱ afterȱ theȱ readerȱ isȱ toldȱ thatȱ EstherȱagreedȱtoȱfollowȱMordecai’sȱrequestȱtoȱinterveneȱtoȱtheȱPersianȱ kingȱAhasveros/ArtaxerxesȱinȱorderȱtoȱrescueȱtheȱJews,ȱandȱjustȱbeforeȱ theȱnarrativeȱcontinuesȱwithȱwhatȱisȱhappeningȱwhenȱsheȱactuallyȱdoesȱ so.ȱMostȱobviously,ȱtheȱtwoȱprayersȱareȱparallelȱinȱseveralȱways.5ȱTheyȱ appearȱinȱtheȱsameȱnarrativeȱcontext,ȱtheyȱfocusȱonȱtheȱsameȱsituation,ȱ andȱ theyȱ areȱ utteredȱ eachȱ byȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ mainȱ protagonistsȱ ofȱ theȱ book.ȱ Itȱ isȱ especiallyȱ thisȱ jointȱ basisȱ whichȱ favorsȱ theȱ comparisonȱ beȬ tweenȱtheȱtwoȱprayersȱandȱenablesȱusȱtoȱfocusȱonȱtheȱquestionȱwhetherȱ theȱ twoȱ texts,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ whichȱ isȱ attributedȱ toȱ aȱ man,ȱ whileȱ theȱ otherȱ isȱ attributedȱ toȱ aȱ woman,ȱ indeedȱ reflectȱ specificallyȱ femaleȱ versusȱ maleȱ voices.ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱsocialȱconstructionȱofȱgenderȱisȱpartȱofȱaȱcommuȬ nicatingȱsystem,ȱi.e.ȱinȱaȱgivenȱcultureȱtheȱconceptȱofȱ“female”ȱisȱalwaysȱ closelyȱ interrelatedȱ withȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ “male.”ȱ Inȱ manyȱ respects,ȱ theȱ paradigmaticȱ“man”ȱisȱevenȱdefinedȱinȱoppositionȱtoȱtheȱparadigmaticȱ “woman,”ȱtheȱsameȱasȱtheȱparadigmaticȱ“woman”ȱisȱdefinedȱinȱopposiȬ tionȱ toȱ theȱ paradigmaticȱ “man.”ȱ Therefore,ȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Esther’sȱ andȱ Mordecai’sȱ prayerȱ areȱ parallelȱ textsȱ andȱ asȱ suchȱ areȱ comparableȱ oneȱ withȱtheȱotherȱtoȱaȱlargeȱextend,ȱenablesȱusȱtoȱexploreȱbothȱsidesȱofȱtheȱ underlyingȱgenderȱconstructionȱinȱorderȱtoȱgainȱinsidesȱintoȱtheȱsystemȱ asȱaȱwhole.ȱ MyȱanalysisȱdealsȱwithȱtheȱGreekȱversionȱwhichȱisȱcalledȱtheȱLXXȬȱ orȱ Oldȱ Greekȱ text. 6ȱ Theȱ AlphaȬtextȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ dealtȱ withȱ inȱ anȱ ownȱ analysis,ȱ althoughȱ itȱ seemsȱ meȱ thatȱ theȱ resultsȱ ofȱ thisȱ researchȱ wouldȱ notȱbeȱsoȱdifferentȱfromȱtheȱresultsȱpresentedȱinȱthisȱpaper.7

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 5ȱȱ

6ȱȱ

7ȱȱ

calledȱ deuterocanonicalȱ booksȱ ofȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ inȱ Pápa,ȱ whichȱ willȱ certainlyȱ helpȱtoȱfillȱsomeȱofȱtheȱgapsȱinȱourȱknowledgeȱofȱthisȱliterature.ȱ TheȱcorrespondenceȱofȱEsther’sȱprayerȱwithȱthatȱofȱMordecaiȱsetsȱtheȱformerȱclearlyȱ apartȱfromȱJudith’sȱprayers,ȱalthoughȱotherwiseȱEsther’sȱandȱJudith’sȱprayerȱdisplayȱ manyȱsimilarities,ȱseeȱVANȱDERȱWALT,ȱTheȱPrayersȱofȱEstherȱ(LXX)ȱandȱJudith.ȱ ForȱanȱoverviewȱofȱtheȱdifferentȱversionsȱofȱtheȱBookȱofȱEstherȱandȱaȱreconstructionȱ ofȱtheȱmutualȱrelationȱofȱtheseȱversionsȱseeȱCLINES,ȱTheȱEstherȱScroll,ȱandȱDOROTHY,ȱ TheȱBooksȱofȱEsther.ȱ Aȱ comparisonȱ ofȱ theȱ differentȱ imagesȱ ofȱ Estherȱ inȱ theȱ threeȱ extantȱ versionsȱ wasȱ carriedȱoutȱbyȱDAY,ȱThreeȱFacesȱofȱaȱQueen.ȱ

32ȱ

S.ȱSchorchȱ

2.ȱTheȱLiteraryȱStructureȱofȱtheȱTwoȱPrayersȱ Beforeȱ properlyȱ enteringȱ theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ texts,ȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ theirȱ literaryȱ structureȱ mustȱ beȱ clarified.ȱ Doȱ theȱ twoȱ textsȱ exhibitȱ aȱ transparentȱdiachronicȱdimension,ȱbeingȱformedȱbyȱsubsequentȱliteraryȱ strata,ȱorȱshouldȱtheȱtwoȱprayersȱratherȱbeȱregardedȱasȱsynchronicallyȱ coherentȱliteraryȱcompositions?ȱTheȱpointȱofȱdepartureȱforȱapproachingȱ thisȱproblemȱisȱtheȱobservationȱthatȱtheȱtwoȱprayersȱofȱMordecaiȱandȱofȱ Estherȱ bothȱ consistȱ ofȱ passagesȱ inȱ theȱ 1stȱ personȱ pluralȱ interchangingȱ withȱpassagesȱinȱtheȱ1stȱpersonȱsingular.ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱpluralȱsectionsȱ ofȱbothȱprayersȱareȱcomposedȱinȱpoeticȱparallelismusȱmembrorum,ȱwhileȱ theȱsingularȱsectionsȱareȱwrittenȱinȱprose.ȱȱ Onȱaccountȱofȱtheseȱdifferentȱgrammaticalȱandȱstylisticȱvoices,ȱIngoȱ Kottsieperȱhasȱtriedȱtoȱdemonstrateȱthatȱtheȱinterchangeȱisȱtheȱresultȱofȱ twoȱdiachronicallyȱsubsequentȱliteraryȱstrataȱhavingȱbeenȱmerged:ȱAcȬ cordingȱtoȱKottsieper,ȱanȱolderȱcommunalȱlamentȱ(KlageliedȱdesȱVolkes)ȱ wasȱ augmentedȱ andȱ expandedȱ withȱ elementsȱ ofȱ aȱ personalȱ prayerȱ (persönlichesȱBittgebet)ȱinȱbothȱcases.8 However,ȱotherȱscholars,ȱlikeȱJohannesȱMarböck,ȱhaveȱraisedȱsomeȱ scepticismȱwithȱregardȱtoȱKottsieper’sȱliteraryȱhistoricalȱsolutionȱtoȱtheȱ problemȱofȱproseȱpassagesȱinȱtheȱ1stȱpersonȱsingularȱinterchangingȱwithȱ poeticȱsectionsȱinȱtheȱ1stȱpersonȱplural.ȱMarböckȱdemonstratedȱthatȱtheȱ interchangeȱbetweenȱtheȱ“We”Ȭȱandȱtheȱ“I”Ȭpassagesȱmayȱbeȱexplainedȱ inȱtheȱframeworkȱofȱtheȱsynchronicȱliteraryȱstructureȱofȱtheȱtwoȱprayersȱ asȱwellȱofȱtheȱbookȱasȱaȱwhole.9ȱȱ Itȱseemsȱtoȱme,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheȱcaseȱforȱaȱsynchronicȱapproachȱtoȱ theȱ twoȱ prayersȱ mayȱ beȱ putȱ onȱ aȱ muchȱ moreȱ solidȱ textualȱ basisȱ thanȱ seenȱsoȱfar,ȱifȱweȱtakeȱtheȱplaceȱandȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱ“I”Ȭsectionsȱintoȱ consideration:ȱȱ 1.ȱOurȱstartingȱpointȱisȱtheȱobservationȱthatȱtheȱ“I”Ȭsectionsȱofȱbothȱ prayersȱ mostȱ obviouslyȱ haveȱ veryȱ strongȱ tiesȱ withȱ theȱ surroundingȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ book.ȱ Mordecaiȱ explainsȱ andȱ justifiesȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ God,ȱ whyȱheȱdidn’tȱbowȱdownȱtoȱHaman,ȱaȱfactȱthatȱwasȱtoldȱbeforeȱinȱEstȱ 3:2ȱ (Cȱ 5Ȭ6)ȱ andȱ whichȱ leadȱ toȱ theȱ presentȱ situationȱ ofȱ Mordecai’sȱ andȱ theȱ Jewishȱ people’sȱ actualȱ affliction,ȱ beingȱ theȱ motivationȱ forȱ MordeȬ cai’sȱprayer.ȱEsther,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱpraysȱforȱherȱbeingȱableȱtoȱfindȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 8ȱȱ 9ȱȱ

KOTTSIEPER,ȱZusätzeȱzuȱEsther,ȱ118.ȱ160.ȱ MARBÖCK,ȱDasȱGebetȱderȱEsther,ȱ245Ȭ252,ȱesp.ȱ246ȱnoteȱ38:ȱ“VonȱderȱBedeutungȱdesȱ persönlichenȱEinsatzesȱEsthersȱfürȱihrȱVolkȱbereitsȱinȱderȱErzählungȱ4,8Ȭ16ȱ(sowohlȱ imȱMTȱalsȱauchȱinȱdenȱgriechischenȱFassungen)ȱistȱdieȱimȱGebetȱbegegnendeȱmehrȬ maligeȱ Verschränkungȱ vonȱ Ichȱ undȱ Wirȱ eigentlichȱ selbstverständlichȱ undȱ eineȱ liteȬ rarkritischeȱScheidungȱallesȱandereȱalsȱzwingend.”ȱ

ȱ

TheȱPrayersȱofȱMordecaiȱandȱEstherȱ

33ȱ

theȱrightȱandȱeffectiveȱwordsȱinȱfrontȱofȱtheȱPersianȱkingȱ(Cȱ24),ȱaȱwishȱ whichȱisȱwellȱconnectedȱwithȱbothȱtheȱprecedingȱnarrative,ȱwhereȱMorȬ decaiȱasksȱEstherȱtoȱinterveneȱtoȱtheȱkingȱ(Estȱ4:8)ȱandȱitsȱcontinuationȱ inȱ chapterȱ 5,ȱ whenȱ Estherȱ approachesȱ him.ȱ Therefore,ȱ asȱ isȱ generallyȱ acknowledged,ȱ theȱ “I”Ȭsectionsȱ areȱ writtenȱ andȱ composedȱ withȱ closeȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ theȱ book.ȱ Theȱ “We”Ȭsections,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱareȱlackingȱsuchȱspecificȱlinks.ȱ 2.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ “I”Ȭpassagesȱ areȱ notȱ onlyȱ closelyȱ connectedȱ withȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ theȱ book,ȱ butȱ equallyȱ wellȱ withȱ theirȱ immediatelyȱ neighboringȱ“We”Ȭpassages:ȱȱ Inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ Mordecai’sȱ prayer,ȱ itsȱ firstȱ section,ȱ aȱ “We”Ȭvoice,ȱ praisesȱ Godȱ asȱ lordȱ ofȱ theȱ universe,ȱ againstȱ whomȱ noȱ oneȱ canȱ standȱ (ku,rioj ei= pa,ntwn kai. ouvk e;stin o]j avntita,xetai, soi,ȱCȱ4),ȱcontinuingȱwithȱ theȱjustificationȱwhyȱMordecaiȱcouldȱnotȱbowȱdownȱtoȱHaman,ȱwrittenȱ inȱtheȱ“I”Ȭvoice:10ȱȱ [Y]ouȱknow,ȱOȱLord,ȱthatȱitȱwasȱnotȱinȱinsolenceȱnorȱprideȱnorȱforȱanyȱloveȱ ofȱ gloryȱ thatȱ Iȱ didȱ this,ȱ namelyȱ toȱ refuseȱ toȱ doȱ obeisanceȱ toȱ thisȱ pridefulȱ Haman.ȱ[…]ȱIȱwillȱnotȱdoȱobeisanceȱtoȱanyoneȱbutȱyouȱ(Cȱ5Ȭ7).ȱȱ

Mostȱ obviously,ȱ theȱ “I”Ȭvoiceȱ appearsȱ hereȱ asȱ theȱ actualizationȱ andȱ applicationȱ ofȱ theȱ generalȱ theologicalȱ statementȱ asȱ expressedȱ byȱ theȱ “We”Ȭvoice. Inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ Esther’sȱ prayer,ȱ theȱ sameȱ schemeȱ ofȱ aȱ generalȱ stateȬ mentȱ (“We”Ȭvoice)ȱ andȱ itsȱ followingȱ situationalȱ andȱ personalȱ applicaȬ tionȱ (“I”Ȭvoice)ȱ appearsȱ severalȱ times,ȱ e.g.ȱ inȱ theȱ parallelizationȱ ofȱ Esther’sȱactualȱafflictionȱandȱtheȱafflictionȱofȱherȱpeopleȱ(Cȱ23).11ȱMoreȬ over,ȱ andȱ evenȱ moreȱ specifically,ȱ Esther’sȱ “I”Ȭvoiceȱ prays:ȱ “Putȱ eloȬ quentȱ speechȱ intoȱ myȱ mouth”ȱ (do.j lo,gon eu;ruqmon eivj to. sto,ma mou,ȱ Cȱ 24),ȱtakingȱupȱaȱkeyȱwordȱofȱtheȱimmediatelyȱprecedingȱ“We”Ȭsection,ȱ whereȱtheȱwordȱsto,maȱ(“mouth”)ȱisȱusedȱnotȱlessȱthanȱthreeȱtimes:ȱȱ […]ȱ theyȱ haveȱ putȱ theirȱ handsȱ intoȱ theȱ handsȱ ofȱ theirȱ idols,ȱ toȱ annulȱ theȱ stipulationȱofȱyourȱmouthȱandȱtoȱstopȱupȱtheȱmouthsȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱpraiseȱ youȱ […],ȱ toȱ openȱ theȱ mouthȱ ofȱ theȱ nationsȱ forȱ theȱ mightyȱ deedsȱ ofȱ vainȱ thingsȱ(Cȱ19Ȭ21).ȱ

3.ȱ Theȱ observationȱ thatȱ theȱ “I”Ȭsectionsȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ prayersȱ haveȱ closeȱ tiesȱ withȱ bothȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱ andȱ theȱ “We”Ȭsections,ȱ whileȱ theȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 10ȱȱ

TheȱEnglishȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱSeptuagintȱtextȱfollowsȱKarenȱH.ȱJobes’ȱtranslationȱinȱ NETS.ȱ 11ȱȱ Furtherȱcases:ȱCȱ24Ȭ25.30.ȱSeeȱKOTTSIEPER,ȱZusätzeȱzuȱEsther,ȱ169.ȱ

34ȱ

S.ȱSchorchȱ

linksȱ ofȱ theȱ latterȱ withȱ theȱ storyȱ areȱ muchȱ lessȱ specificȱ andȱ ofȱ aȱ moreȱ generalȱ nature,ȱ allows,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ toȱ me,ȱ forȱ onlyȱ oneȱ conclusion:ȱ AlȬ thoughȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ prayersȱ mayȱ haveȱ usedȱ olderȱ textualȱ sourcesȱ orȱ traditions,ȱ theȱ wordingȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ arrangementȱ ofȱ theȱ “We”Ȭpassagesȱ areȱ clearlyȱ dependentȱ uponȱ theȱ “I”Ȭpassagesȱ toȱ aȱ veryȱ highȱ degree,ȱ makingȱ itȱ ratherȱ improbableȱ thatȱ anȱ olderȱ sourceȱ textȱ isȱ stillȱ preservedȱ inȱ theȱ presentȱ text.12ȱ Thus,ȱ bothȱ prayersȱ asȱ aȱ wholeȱ shouldȱ beȱ regardedȱ asȱ originalȱ andȱ synchronicallyȱ coherentȱ literaryȱ compositions.ȱȱ Thus,ȱ althoughȱ Kottsieper’sȱ observationȱ ofȱ aȱ communalȱ lamentȱ asȱ theȱ literaryȱ basisȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ textsȱ seemsȱ wellȱ justified,ȱ thisȱ shouldȱ notȱ beȱ explainedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ literaryȱ history,ȱ butȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ literaryȱ genre:ȱ Bothȱ prayersȱ areȱ shapedȱ inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ theȱ basisȱ structureȱ ofȱ aȱ communalȱ lament,ȱ butȱ thisȱ basisȱ structureȱ isȱ contamiȬ natedȱ withȱ elementsȱ ofȱ aȱ personalȱ prayer,ȱ theȱ latterȱ appearingȱ veryȱ prominently.ȱTheȱ specificȱ combinationȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ literaryȱ componentsȱ isȱtheȱresultȱofȱaȱdeliberateȱandȱauctorialȱact,ȱcarriedȱoutȱwithȱtheȱintenȬ tionȱ toȱ createȱ twoȱ textsȱ whichȱ exhibitȱ theȱ schemeȱ “generalȱ lamentȱ vs.ȱ personalȱandȱsituationalȱapplication.”ȱȱ ȱ TheȱrealizationȱthatȱtheȱtwoȱprayersȱeachȱfollowȱtheȱsameȱliteraryȱstrucȬ tureȱofȱaȱcommunalȱlamentȱleadsȱtoȱaȱfurtherȱobservation:ȱAlthoughȱinȱ bothȱ casesȱ theȱ structureȱ ofȱ aȱ communalȱ lamentȱ isȱ contaminatedȱ withȱ elementsȱ ofȱ aȱ personalȱ prayer,ȱ theȱ locationȱ ofȱ theȱ personalȱ elementsȱ withinȱtheȱbasicȱstructureȱisȱsignificantlyȱdifferent.ȱInȱbothȱprayers,ȱtheȱ respectiveȱmainȱ“I”Ȭsectionsȱareȱintroducedȱbyȱtheȱformulaȱ“Youȱknowȱ allȱthingsȱ[…]ȱyouȱknowȱthatȱ[…]”ȱ(Cȱ5/Cȱ25Ȭ26).ȱHowever,ȱwhileȱinȱtheȱ caseȱofȱMordecai’sȱprayerȱthisȱpersonalȱexpansionȱisȱaddedȱtoȱtheȱopenȬ ingȱsectionȱofȱtheȱliteraryȱstructure,ȱaȱhymnicȱcommemorationȱofȱGod’sȱ attributesȱandȱdeeds,ȱitȱisȱconnectedȱwithȱtheȱclosingȱsectionȱinȱEsther’sȱ prayer,ȱbeingȱpartȱofȱtheȱrequestȱforȱrescue.ȱInȱthisȱway,ȱtheȱtwoȱprayersȱ mirrorȱeachȱotherȱfromȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱliteraryȱstructure.13ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 12ȱȱ

“LöstȱmanȱdieȱVolksklagelementeȱinȱbeidenȱGebetenȱherausȱ[…],ȱsoȱerhältȱmanȱzweiȱ jeweilsȱinȱsichȱgeschlosseneȱVolksklagenȱ[…],”ȱKOTTSIEPER,ȱZusätzeȱzuȱEsther,ȱ161.ȱ 13ȱȱ ThisȱisȱwellȱinȱlineȱwithȱtheȱconclusionȱreachedȱbyȱMITTMANNȬRICHERTȱ(Einführung,ȱ 98)ȱundȱMARBÖCKȱregardingȱtheȱ“concentricȱstructure”ȱofȱtheȱGreekȱBookȱofȱEsther,ȱ formingȱaȱframeȱtoȱtheȱtwoȱprayers:ȱ“DasȱgriechischeȱEstherbuchȱhatȱdurchȱdieȱAnȬ ordnungȱ derȱ großenȱ Zusätzeȱ derȱ ganzenȱ Erzählungȱ eindeutigȱ eineȱ konzentrischeȱ Strukturȱgegebenȱ[…]ȱDieseȱbeidenȱGebeteȱstellenȱsowohlȱdieȱäußereȱalsȱauchȱdieȱinȬ nereȱMitteȱderȱgriechischenȱVersionȱdar”ȱ(MARBÖCK,ȱDasȱGebetȱderȱEsther,ȱ240).ȱOneȱ shouldȱadd,ȱhowever,ȱasȱwasȱshownȱabove,ȱthatȱtheȱtwoȱprayersȱinȱthemselvesȱformȱ aȱconcentricȱstructure,ȱtoo.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱPrayersȱofȱMordecaiȱandȱEstherȱ

35ȱ

Itȱseems,ȱtherefore,ȱthatȱtheȱtwoȱprayersȱnotȱonlyȱformȱcoherentȱandȱ originalȱ literaryȱ compositions,ȱ butȱ thatȱ additionallyȱ theyȱ wereȱ comȬ posedȱ asȱ twoȱ correspondingȱ andȱ complementaryȱ texts.ȱ Theyȱ may,ȱ therefore,ȱwellȱbeȱregardedȱasȱformingȱoneȱliteraryȱunit:ȱEachȱofȱtheȱtwoȱ prayersȱ andȱ eachȱ ofȱ theirȱ literaryȱ componentsȱ wasȱ fromȱ itsȱ originȱ inȬ tendedȱtoȱbeȱreadȱinȱcloseȱcorrespondenceȱwithȱitsȱrespectiveȱcounterȬ partȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ text.ȱ Ofȱ course,ȱ thisȱ observationȱ attributesȱ specialȱ importanceȱtoȱthoseȱelementsȱofȱtheȱtwoȱprayersȱwhichȱappearȱinȱonlyȱ oneȱofȱthem,ȱwithoutȱhavingȱaȱcorrespondingȱelementȱinȱtheȱsecond.ȱȱ

3.ȱ“Male”ȱandȱ“Female”ȱ inȱtheȱPrayersȱofȱMordecaiȱandȱEstherȱ Itȱwasȱalreadyȱdemonstratedȱthatȱtheȱ“We”Ȭsectionsȱofȱtheȱtwoȱprayersȱ areȱ largelyȱ dependantȱ onȱ theȱ “I”Ȭsections.ȱ Mostȱ obviously,ȱ theseȱ literȬ aryȱlinksȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱtakenȱintoȱconsiderationȱwhenȱcarryingȱoutȱaȱliterȬ aryȱanalysis.ȱHowever,ȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱcomparingȱtheȱtwoȱprayers,ȱtheȱ twoȱ kindsȱ ofȱ passages,ȱ theȱ “We”Ȭȱ versusȱ theȱ “I”Ȭsections,ȱ shouldȱ beȱ separatelyȱcomparedȱdueȱtoȱtheirȱdifferentȱstylisticȱcharacter.ȱȱ Ifȱweȱlookȱatȱtheȱ“We”Ȭsections,ȱGodȱisȱaddressedȱasȱkingȱ(basileu,j)ȱ andȱlordȱ(ku,rioj)ȱinȱbothȱprayers.ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱ“We”Ȭsectionsȱofȱbothȱ prayersȱaddressȱGodȱasȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱhasȱchosenȱIsraelȱasȱhisȱinheritanceȱ (klhronomi,a)ȱandȱredeemedȱitȱfromȱEgypt.ȱȱ Onȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱbothȱ“We”Ȭsectionsȱcontainȱfeaturesȱwhichȱhaveȱ noȱ counterpart:ȱ Mordecai’sȱ prayerȱ addressesȱ Godȱ asȱ theȱ creator:ȱ “youȱ haveȱ madeȱ heavenȱ andȱ earthȱ andȱ everyȱ wonderfulȱ thingȱ inȱ itȱ underȱ heaven”ȱ(su. evpoi,hsaj to.n ouvrano.n kai. th.n gh/n kai. pa/n qaumazo,menon evn th/| u`pV ouvrano.n,ȱCȱ3),ȱandȱthisȱelementȱisȱlackingȱinȱEsther’sȱprayer.ȱWhile,ȱ therefore,ȱ Mordecai’sȱ prayerȱ proceedsȱ fromȱ aȱ commonȱ andȱ universalȱ theologicalȱ andȱ philosophicalȱ basis,ȱ Esther’sȱ prayerȱ exhibitsȱ aȱ moreȱ restrictedȱ andȱ particularȱ perspective,ȱ insofarȱ sheȱ focusesȱ onȱ theȱ salvaȬ tionȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱJewishȱpeople.ȱȱ Theȱ mostȱ strikingȱ featureȱ withoutȱ correspondentȱ inȱ theȱ otherȱ prayer,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ theȱ confessionȱ ofȱ sinsȱ whichȱ isȱ containedȱ inȱ theȱ “We”ȬsectionȱofȱEsther’sȱprayer:ȱȱ Andȱ nowȱ weȱ haveȱ sinnedȱ beforeȱ you,ȱ andȱ youȱ haveȱ deliveredȱ usȱ inȱ theȱ handȱofȱourȱenemies,ȱbecauseȱweȱhonoredȱtheirȱgods.ȱYouȱareȱrighteous,ȱOȱ Lord!ȱ(Cȱ17Ȭ18).ȱ

36ȱ

S.ȱSchorchȱ

Inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ prayerȱ asȱ aȱ whole,ȱ thisȱ communalȱ confessionȱ ofȱ sinsȱisȱconfrontedȱwithȱtheȱpersonalȱnegativeȱconfessionȱofȱEstherȱherȬ selfȱwhichȱfollowsȱinȱtheȱsubsequentȱ“I”Ȭsections:ȱȱ [Y]ouȱknowȱthatȱIȱhateȱtheȱgloryȱofȱtheȱlawlessȱandȱabhorȱtheȱbedȱofȱtheȱunȬ circumcisedȱandȱofȱanyȱforeigner.ȱYouȱknowȱmyȱpredicament—thatȱIȱabhorȱ theȱsignȱofȱmyȱproudȱpositionȱthatȱisȱuponȱmyȱheadȱonȱdaysȱwhenȱIȱappearȱ inȱpublic.ȱIȱabhorȱitȱlikeȱaȱmenstrualȱcloth,ȱandȱIȱdoȱnotȱwearȱitȱonȱtheȱdaysȱ whenȱIȱamȱinȱprivate.ȱAndȱyourȱslaveȱhasȱnotȱeatenȱatȱHaman’sȱtable,ȱandȱIȱ haveȱnotȱhonoredȱtheȱking’sȱbanquetȱnorȱdrunkȱtheȱwineȱofȱlibations.ȱYourȱ slaveȱhasȱnotȱrejoicedȱsinceȱtheȱdayȱofȱmyȱchangeȱuntilȱnow,ȱexceptȱinȱyou,ȱ OȱLord,ȱGodȱofȱAbraamȱ(Cȱ26Ȭ29).ȱ

Theȱcombinationȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱconfessionalȱpassagesȱguidesȱtheȱreaderȱ towardsȱ theȱ conclusionȱ thatȱ Esther’sȱ somewhatȱ delicateȱ privateȱ situaȬ tionȱasȱtheȱJewishȱwifeȱofȱaȱforeignȱking,ȱalludedȱtoȱinȱtheȱconfessionalȱ “I”Ȭpassages,ȱ isȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ Israel’sȱ communalȱ sin,ȱ expressedȱ inȱ theȱ confessionalȱ “We”Ȭpassages.ȱ Therefore,ȱ Estherȱ appearsȱ asȱ aȱ personȱ whoseȱ actualȱ situationȱ isȱ shapedȱ byȱ circumstancesȱ beyondȱ herȱ ownȱ powerȱtoȱaȱlargeȱextent,ȱandȱevenȱbeyondȱherȱinfluence.ȱ Thisȱ sameȱ tendencyȱ isȱ expressedȱ throughoutȱ Esther’sȱ “I”Ȭpassagesȱ asȱ well,ȱ andȱ becomesȱ hereȱ evenȱ moreȱ detailed:ȱ Undoubtedly,ȱ Esther’sȱ Jewishȱidentityȱisȱseverelyȱchallengedȱbyȱtheȱcircumstancesȱofȱherȱdailyȱ life.ȱ Althoughȱ sheȱ lives,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ herȱ confession,ȱ asȱ obedientȱ asȱ possibleȱtoȱtheȱbasicȱprinciplesȱofȱJewishȱhalakhah,ȱobservingȱespeciallyȱ theȱbasicȱcommandmentsȱofȱkashrutȱ(Cȱ28:ȱE.ȱtookȱnotȱpartȱinȱbanquetsȱ andȱ didȱ notȱ drinkȱ theȱ wineȱ ofȱ libation),ȱ sheȱ hasȱ toȱ fulfillȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ aȱ nonȬJewishȱofficialȱinȱpublicȱcontextsȱ(Cȱ27),ȱandȱsheȱhasȱtoȱbeȱtheȱloverȱ ofȱ herȱ nonȬJewishȱ husband,ȱ aȱ factȱ whichȱ theȱ prayerȱ isȱ alludingȱ toȱ byȱ sayingȱ thatȱ sheȱ abhorsȱ “theȱ bedȱ ofȱ theȱ uncircumcisedȱ andȱ ofȱ anyȱ forȬ eigner”ȱ(Cȱ26).ȱThus,ȱEsther’sȱbehaviorȱasȱaȱpiousȱJewessȱisȱrestrictedȱtoȱ theȱ privateȱ momentsȱ ofȱ herȱ live,14ȱ itȱ isȱ confinedȱ toȱ theȱ daysȱ ofȱ herȱ h`suci,a,ȱherȱ“quietness,”ȱasȱopposedȱtoȱtheȱdaysȱofȱherȱovptasi,aȱ“appearȬ ance”ȱ (Cȱ 27),ȱ whenȱ sheȱ hasȱ toȱ liveȱ inȱ conformityȱ withȱ foreign,ȱ nonȬ Jewishȱ lawsȱ andȱ mannersȱ whichȱ oftenȱ seemȱ toȱ contradictȱ theȱ Jewishȱ law.ȱ Sinceȱ Estherȱ canȱ putȱ intoȱ practiceȱ herȱ Jewishȱ identityȱ onlyȱ inȱ aȱ privateȱsetting,ȱsheȱfeelsȱaloneȱandȱwithoutȱsupport.ȱThisȱisȱemphasizedȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 14ȱȱ

Thisȱ observationsȱ modifiesȱ McDowell’sȱ conclusionȱ thatȱ theȱ “statementȱ ofȱ Esther’sȱ strongȱabhorrenceȱofȱsharingȱtheȱbedȱofȱaȱGentileȱ[…]ȱalsoȱservesȱasȱaȱcorrectiveȱbyȱ theȱauthor/editorȱtoȱtheȱoriginalȱtextȱ[…]ȱHereȱtheȱauthorȱclearlyȱportraysȱEstherȱasȱaȱ piousȱ Jewȱ byȱ showingȱ herȱ atȱ prayer,ȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ Israel,ȱ andȱ underscoresȱ herȱ uniquenessȱ andȱ holinessȱ byȱ declaringȱ herȱ distasteȱ ofȱ herȱ relationsȱ withȱ aȱ Gentile”ȱ (MCDOWELL,ȱPrayersȱofȱJewishȱWomen,ȱ39).ȱ

ȱ

TheȱPrayersȱofȱMordecaiȱandȱEstherȱ

37ȱ

twoȱ timesȱ inȱ theȱ “I”Ȭsectionsȱ ofȱ herȱ prayer.ȱ Inȱ herȱ presentȱ situation,ȱ GodȱisȱEsther’sȱonlyȱrelief,ȱe.g.:ȱ“Iȱamȱaloneȱandȱhaveȱnoȱhelperȱexceptȱ you”ȱ (Cȱ 14;ȱ compareȱ Cȱ 25).ȱ However,ȱ inȱ itsȱ openingȱ section,ȱ Esther’sȱ prayerȱcreatesȱaȱconnectionȱbetweenȱherȱbeingȱaloneȱandȱtheȱmonotheȬ isticȱcredoȱofȱJudaism,ȱbasedȱonȱaȱwordplayȱonȱmo,noj:ȱ OhȱmyȱLord,ȱyouȱaloneȱareȱourȱkingȱ(o` basileu.j h`mw/n su. ei= mo,noj),ȱhelpȱme,ȱ Iȱwhoȱamȱaloneȱ(moi th/| mo,nh|)ȱandȱhaveȱnoȱhelperȱexceptȱyouȱ(Cȱ14).15

Accordingȱtoȱtheȱrhetoricȱstrategyȱofȱtheȱprayer,ȱtherefore,ȱitȱisȱEsther’sȱ lonelinessȱ whichȱ providesȱ herȱ aȱ personalȱ andȱ exclusiveȱ relationshipȱ withȱGod!ȱHerȱlonelyȱattemptȱtoȱupholdȱtheȱbasicȱprinciplesȱofȱJudaismȱ inȱherȱprivateȱdailyȱlifeȱmirrorsȱtoȱsomeȱextendȱGod’sȱbeingȱtheȱoneȱandȱ onlyȱ Godȱ ofȱ Israel.ȱ Thus,ȱ Esther’sȱ monotheismȱ isȱ noȱ dogmaȱ sheȱ canȱ relateȱtoȱoneȱorȱtheȱotherȱway,ȱbutȱitȱisȱsomethingȱsheȱexperiencesȱinȱherȱ everydayȱlive.ȱ Mordecai,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ unlikeȱ Esther,ȱ appearsȱ notȱ asȱ beingȱ dependentȱonȱorȱsubduedȱunderȱtheȱcircumstances.ȱHeȱactsȱindependȬ entlyȱandȱinȱpublic,ȱandȱheȱisȱpresentedȱasȱbeingȱactive,ȱevenȱwhenȱheȱ isȱnotȱacting:ȱ Youȱknow,ȱOȱLord,ȱthatȱitȱwasȱnotȱinȱinsolenceȱnorȱprideȱnorȱforȱanyȱloveȱ ofȱgloryȱthatȱIȱdidȱthis,ȱnamelyȱtoȱrefuseȱtoȱdoȱobeisanceȱ(evpoi,hsa tou/to to. mh. proskunei/n)ȱtoȱthisȱpridefulȱHamanȱ(Cȱ5).

Mostȱ obviously,ȱ Mordecai’sȱ observationȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ lawȱ isȱ entirelyȱ dependentȱ onȱ hisȱ ownȱ initiative,ȱ andȱ heȱ carriesȱ itȱ outȱ inȱ theȱ publicȱ sphere,ȱandȱnotȱinȱtheȱprivate,ȱasȱEstherȱfeelsȱcompelledȱto.ȱThus,ȱMorȬ decaiȱmayȱbeȱcalledȱaȱpublicȱJew,ȱwhileȱEstherȱisȱaȱprivateȱJewess.ȱȱ Thisȱ issueȱ ofȱ theȱ differentȱ spheresȱ inȱ whichȱ Mordecaiȱ andȱ Estherȱ liveȱasȱJewsȱisȱtoȱsomeȱextentȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱdifferentȱfieldsȱinȱwhichȱtheȱ Jewishȱidentityȱofȱtheȱtwoȱprotagonistsȱmanifestsȱitself:ȱEsther’sȱobserȬ vanceȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ lawȱ isȱ focusedȱ onȱ basicȱ issuesȱ ofȱ dailyȱ life—sheȱ observesȱtheȱlawsȱofȱkashrutȱwheneverȱpossible,ȱandȱsheȱisȱawareȱofȱtheȱ lawsȱofȱtohorah,ȱofȱritualȱpurity,ȱevenȱthough,ȱasȱtheȱwifeȱofȱaȱnonȬJew,ȱ sheȱ isȱ notȱ alwaysȱ ableȱ toȱ observeȱ them.ȱ Mordecai,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ upholdsȱ hisȱ Jewishnessȱ byȱ relatingȱ toȱ nothingȱ lessȱ thanȱ theȱ firstȱ comȬ mandment:ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 15ȱȱ

BARDTKEȱ(Zusätze,ȱ42),ȱDOMMERSHAUSENȱ(Esther,ȱ28),ȱMarböckȱ(DasȱGebet,ȱ245ȱnoteȱ 36)ȱandȱfurtherȱscholarsȱsuggestedȱthatȱtheȱsentenceȱshouldȱratherȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱ “Ohȱmyȱ Lord,ȱourȱking,ȱ youȱareȱtheȱonlyȱone.”ȱ However,ȱthisȱopinionȱwasȱrefutedȱ byȱKOTTSIEPER,ȱZusätzeȱzuȱEsther,ȱ172.ȱ

38ȱ

S.ȱSchorchȱ

Iȱwillȱnotȱdoȱobeisanceȱtoȱanyoneȱbutȱyou,ȱmyȱLordȱ(kai. ouv proskunh,sw ouvde,na plh.n sou/ tou/ kuri,ou mou)ȱ[…]ȱ(Cȱ7).ȱ

Weȱ mayȱ thusȱ conclude,ȱ preliminarilyȱ andȱ inȱ aȱ somewhatȱ provocativeȱ way,ȱthatȱwhileȱMordecai’sȱdomainȱofȱJewishnessȱisȱtheȱfieldȱofȱtheolȬ ogy,ȱEsther’sȱJewishȱidentityȱbecomesȱmanifestȱprimarilyȱinȱkitchenȱandȱ bed.ȱȱ However,ȱweȱshouldȱnoteȱthatȱthereȱareȱsomeȱelementsȱinȱEsther’sȱ prayerȱ whichȱ seemȱ toȱ disturbȱ thisȱ pattern,ȱ possiblyȱ pointingȱ toȱ aȱ reliȬ giousȱactivityȱbeyondȱtheȱeveryȱdayȱpracticeȱofȱkashrutȱandȱtohorah:ȱ 1.ȱInȱ herȱ prayer,ȱ Estherȱ actuallyȱ doesȱ referȱ toȱ theologicalȱ concepts,ȱ amongȱthemȱtheȱconceptȱofȱmonotheism.ȱȱ Estherȱisȱopeningȱherȱprayerȱwithȱtheȱfollowingȱwords,ȱasȱalreadyȱ quotedȱabove:ȱ OhȱmyȱLord,ȱyouȱaloneȱareȱourȱkingȱ(o` basileu.j h`mw/n su. ei= mo,noj)ȱ(Cȱ14).

Apparently,ȱthisȱcomesȱveryȱcloseȱtoȱMordecai’sȱmonotheisticȱprincipleȱ (“Iȱwillȱnotȱdoȱobeisanceȱtoȱanyoneȱbutȱyou”).ȱNevertheless,ȱthereȱisȱaȱ clearȱcutȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱtheȱtwo:ȱEsther’sȱmonotheismȱisȱaȱverbalȱ statement,ȱwhichȱisȱofȱalmostȱnoȱpracticalȱrelevance.ȱMordecai’sȱmonoȬ theism,ȱ toȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ manifestsȱ itselfȱ inȱ hisȱ acts.ȱ Thus,ȱ althoughȱ EstherȱisȱcertainlyȱawareȱofȱatȱleastȱtheȱbasicȱtheologicalȱissuesȱofȱJudaȬ ism,ȱsheȱcannotȱputȱthemȱintoȱpracticeȱinȱherȱdailyȱlifeȱoutsideȱherȱpriȬ vateȱcontext,ȱwhichȱisȱwellȱillustratedȱbyȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱmonotheisticȱ statementȱ inȱ Esther’sȱ prayerȱ isȱ notȱ appliedȱ toȱ herȱ difficultȱ situationȱ asȱ anȱofficialȱperson,ȱwhichȱsheȱcallsȱaȱpredicamentȱ(Cȱ27:ȱavna,gkh),ȱbutȱtoȱ herȱbeingȱalone,ȱi.e.,ȱitȱisȱclearlyȱappliedȱtoȱherȱinner,ȱprivateȱworld,ȱandȱ notȱtoȱherȱpublicȱroleȱasȱqueenȱofȱPersia.ȱThisȱlatterȱobservationȱcorreȬ spondsȱ veryȱ wellȱ withȱ anȱ observationȱ madeȱ inȱ ourȱ comparisonȱ ofȱ theȱ “We”Ȭsections:ȱEstherȱaddressesȱGodȱmainlyȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱhisȱroleȱinȱ theȱsalvationȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱJewishȱpeople,ȱi.e.ȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱprayerȱofȱ Esther,ȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱtheologicalȱ thinkingȱ isȱ confinedȱ toȱ theȱ innerȱ worldȱofȱJudaism.ȱMordecai’sȱtheology,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱaddressingȱ Godȱ asȱ theȱ creatorȱ ofȱ theȱ world,ȱ opensȱ towardsȱ aȱ universalȱ perspecȬ tive. 16 InȱCȱ16,ȱEstherȱseemsȱtoȱreferȱtoȱsomeȱkindȱofȱJewishȱeducationȱsheȱ receivedȱinȱherȱchildhood.ȱEstherȱsaysȱasȱfollows:ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 16ȱȱ

Aȱ differentȱ viewȱ wasȱ expressedȱ byȱ McDowell:ȱ “[…]ȱ Estherȱ doesȱ notȱ addressȱ Godȱ differentlyȱ becauseȱ ofȱ herȱ gender”ȱ (MCDOWELL,ȱ Prayersȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ Women,ȱ 40).ȱ Inȱ lightȱofȱmyȱaboveȱanalysis,ȱjustȱtheȱoppositeȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱtheȱcase.ȱ

ȱ

TheȱPrayersȱofȱMordecaiȱandȱEstherȱ

39ȱ

Iȱhaveȱheardȱfromȱmyȱbirthȱinȱtheȱtribeȱofȱmyȱfamilyȱthatȱyou,ȱOȱLord,ȱtookȱ Israelȱoutȱofȱallȱtheȱnationsȱandȱourȱfathersȱfromȱamongȱallȱtheirȱforbears,ȱ toȱbeȱanȱeverlastingȱinheritance,ȱandȱyouȱdidȱforȱthemȱallȱthatȱyouȱsaid.ȱ

Withȱregardȱtoȱthisȱpassage,ȱtheȱmostȱastonishingȱthingȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱthatȱ itȱ isȱ containedȱ inȱ theȱ prayer!ȱ Whyȱ doesȱ Estherȱ expressisȱ verbisȱ tellȱ theȱ sourceȱofȱherȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱsalvationȱhistory,ȱwhileȱnoȱotherȱBibliȬ calȱprayerȱIȱamȱawareȱof,ȱincludingȱMordecai’s,ȱdoesȱso?ȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱ suggestȱthatȱtheȱanswerȱtoȱthisȱquestionȱhasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱ quotingȱ sources:ȱ Generallyȱ speaking,ȱ sourcesȱ areȱ mentionedȱ inȱ thoseȱ casesȱ whereȱ someȱ degreeȱ ofȱ uncertaintyȱ isȱ involved.ȱ Whileȱ Mordecaiȱ confidentlyȱ refersȱ toȱ differentȱ theologumenaȱ andȱ appliesȱ themȱ inȱ hisȱ dailyȱ life,ȱ Estherȱ appearsȱ asȱ feelingȱ notȱ entirelyȱ atȱ homeȱ onȱ thisȱ field.ȱ MordecaiȱisȱhimselfȱpartȱofȱtheȱJewishȱtradition,ȱwhileȱEstherȱhasȱsomeȱ distance.ȱSheȱis,ȱorȱrather:ȱsheȱwasȱinȱcontactȱwithȱtheȱJewishȱtradition,ȱ butȱsheȱherselfȱisȱnoȱpartȱofȱit.ȱMoreover,ȱherȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱJewishȱtraȬ ditionȱ isȱ notȱ anȱ activeȱ one,ȱ asȱforȱ instanceȱ Benȱ Sira’s,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ pictureȱ drawnȱ byȱ hisȱ grandsonȱ inȱ hisȱ prologue.17ȱ Estherȱ heardȱ whatȱ othersȱ toldȱ her,ȱ notȱ whatȱ sheȱ herselfȱ explored.ȱ Estherȱ isȱ certainlyȱ theȱ antitypeȱofȱaȱJewishȱscholar.ȱȱ Oneȱ furtherȱobservationȱ shouldȱ beȱ mentionedȱ dueȱtoȱ itsȱ relevanceȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ genderȱ studies,ȱ althoughȱ itȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ lessȱ concernedȱ withȱ Jewishȱ identity.ȱ Althoughȱ Mordecai’sȱ imageȱ isȱ obviȬ ouslyȱ “male”ȱ insofarȱ itȱ isȱ shapedȱ inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ aȱ certainȱ socialȱ standardȱ ofȱ whatȱ “male”ȱ means,ȱ itȱ hasȱ noȱ sexualȱ overtones.ȱ Fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ hisȱ prayer,ȱ Mordecaiȱ canȱ evenȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ asexual.ȱ Esther’sȱimage,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱisȱhighlyȱsexualized.ȱTheȱtextȱopenlyȱ refersȱtoȱherȱsexualȱintercourseȱwithȱtheȱuncircumcisedȱPersianȱkingȱ(Cȱ 26)ȱ andȱ toȱ herȱ menstruationȱ (Cȱ 27).ȱ Thisȱ asymmetricȱ distributionȱ ofȱ sexualȱ attributesȱ withinȱ theȱ systemȱ ofȱ twoȱ genderȬconceptsȱ reflectsȱ aȱ wellȱ knownȱ feature:ȱ “Maleness”ȱ isȱ associatedȱ withȱ culture,ȱ “FemaleȬ ness”ȱwithȱnature.18ȱSinceȱsexualityȱisȱaȱpartȱofȱnature,ȱitȱisȱattributedȱtoȱ women.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 17ȱȱ

BenȱSiraȱisȱdescribedȱbyȱhisȱgrandsonȱasȱtheȱprototypeȱofȱaȱJewishȱscholar:ȱ“Iesous,ȱ myȱ grandfather,ȱ sinceȱ heȱ hadȱ givenȱ himselfȱ increasinglyȱ bothȱ toȱ theȱ readingȱ ofȱ theȱ LawȱandȱtheȱProphetsȱandȱtheȱotherȱancestralȱbooksȱandȱsinceȱheȱhadȱacquiredȱconȬ siderableȱ proficiencyȱ inȱ them,ȱ heȱ tooȱ wasȱ ledȱ toȱ composeȱ somethingȱ pertainingȱ toȱ educationȱ andȱ wisdom”ȱ (Prologueȱ Benȱ Siraȱ 7Ȭ12,ȱ translation:ȱ Benjaminȱ G.ȱ Wright,ȱ NETS).ȱ 18ȱȱ ForȱaȱgeneralȱevaluationȱseeȱORTNER,ȱIsȱFemaleȱtoȱMale,ȱ71Ȭ83,ȱandȱforȱthisȱconceptȱ inȱAncientȱIsraelȱseeȱSCHORCH,ȱDuȱbistȱeinȱverschlossenerȱGarten,ȱ18Ȭ22.ȱ

40ȱ

S.ȱSchorchȱ

Conclusionȱ Theȱ twoȱ parallelȱ prayersȱ ofȱ Estherȱ andȱ Mordecaiȱ areȱ stronglyȱ influȬ encedȱ byȱ theȱ genderȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ “female”ȱ versusȱ “male,”19ȱ whichȱ areȱ opposedȱ oneȱ toȱ theȱ otherȱ inȱ manyȱ respects.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theseȱ conȬ cepts,ȱ “female”ȱ meansȱ beingȱ dependentȱ andȱ beingȱ restrictedȱ toȱ theȱ privateȱ sphere,ȱ andȱ thisȱ relatesȱ toȱ whatȱ womenȱ areȱ expectedȱ toȱ do,ȱ toȱ think,ȱandȱtoȱhopeȱfor.ȱBeingȱ“male,”ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱmeansȱactingȱ inȱtheȱpublicȱsphereȱbyȱownȱinitiative.ȱOneȱofȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱreaȬ sonsȱ forȱ theȱ attractionȱ ofȱ storiesȱ likeȱ Esther’s,ȱ Judith’s,ȱ orȱ Susanna’sȱ isȱ thatȱtheseȱwomenȱatȱaȱcertainȱpointȱofȱtheȱnarrativeȱtransgressȱtheȱborȬ dersȱofȱtheȱcommonȱconceptȱofȱfemaleness.ȱȱ TheȱtwoȱprayersȱofȱMordecaiȱandȱEstherȱareȱofȱspecialȱimportanceȱ forȱBiblicalȱgenderȱstudies,ȱsinceȱtheyȱallowȱusȱtoȱexploreȱhowȱtheȱgenȬ derȱ specificȱ differenceȱ ofȱ privateȱ versusȱ publicȱ isȱ reflectedȱ inȱ theȱ conȬ ceptionȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ identityȱ andȱ ofȱ anȱ observantȱ wayȱ ofȱ lifeȱ duringȱ theȱ LateȱSecondȱTempleȱperiod.ȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 19ȱȱ

Thus,ȱmyȱviewȱobviouslyȱcontradictsȱthatȱofȱMcDowell:ȱ“[…]ȱmostȱofȱthisȱprayerȱbyȱ EstherȱcouldȱbeȱputȱinȱtheȱmouthȱofȱanyȱIsraelite/Jew,ȱmaleȱorȱfemale,ȱinȱanyȱsimilarȱ situationȱ […]”ȱ (MCDOWELL,ȱ Prayersȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ Women,ȱ 39).ȱ Proceedingȱ fromȱ theȱ aboveȱ analysisȱ ofȱ Esther’sȱ andȱ Mordecai’sȱ prayers,ȱ Iȱ evenȱ doubtȱ McDowell’sȱ moreȱ generalȱ conclusionȱ regardingȱ prayersȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ womenȱ inȱ theȱ literatureȱ ofȱ theȱ SecȬ ondȱtempleȱperiod:ȱ“[…]ȱauthorsȱtendȱtoȱportrayȱwomenȱatȱprayerȱinȱmuchȱtheȱsameȱ wayȱasȱtheyȱportrayȱmenȱatȱprayer.”ȱ(MCDOWELL,ȱPrayersȱofȱJewishȱWomen,ȱ208).ȱȱ

ȱ

TheȱPrayersȱofȱMordecaiȱandȱEstherȱ

41ȱ

Bibliographyȱ BARDTKE,ȱ Hans,ȱ Zusätzeȱ zuȱ Esther,ȱ in:ȱ Kümmel,ȱ Wernerȱ Georgȱ (ed.),ȱ HistoriȬ scheȱ undȱ legendarischeȱ Erzählungen.ȱ Güterslohȱ 21977ȱ (JSHRZȱ 1),ȱ 1Ȭ15Ȭ 62.ȱ BRENNER,ȱAthalyaȱ(ed.),ȱAȱFeministȱCompanionȱtoȱEsther,ȱJudithȱandȱSusannaȱ (AȱFeministȱCompanionȱtoȱtheȱBible;ȱ7),ȱSheffieldȱ1995.ȱ CLINES,ȱDavidȱA.,ȱTheȱEstherȱScroll:ȱTheȱStoryȱofȱtheȱStoryȱ(JSOTSupȱ30),ȱShefȬ fieldȱ1984.ȱ BRETTLER,ȱ Marcȱ Zvi,ȱ Womenȱ andȱ Psalms:ȱ Towardsȱ anȱ Understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ RoleȱofȱWomen’sȱPrayerȱinȱtheȱIsraeliteȱCult,ȱin:ȱMatthews,ȱVictorȱH.ȱetȱ al.ȱ(eds.),ȱGenderȱandȱLawȱinȱtheȱHebrewȱBibleȱandȱinȱtheȱAncientȱNearȱ Eastȱ(JSOTSupȱ262),ȱSheffieldȱ1998,ȱ25Ȭ56.ȱ DAY,ȱ Linda,ȱ Threeȱ Facesȱ ofȱ aȱ Queen:ȱ Characterizationȱ inȱ theȱ Booksȱ ofȱ Estherȱ (JSOTSupȱ186),ȱSheffieldȱ1995.ȱ DOMMERSHAUSEN,ȱWerner,ȱEstherȱ(NEB),ȱWürzburgȱ1980.ȱ DOROTHY,ȱCharlesȱV.,ȱTheȱBooksȱofȱEsther:ȱStructure,ȱGenreȱandȱTextualȱIntegȬ rityȱ(JSOTSupȱ187),ȱSheffieldȱ1997.ȱ JOBES,ȱKarenȱH.,ȱEstherȱ[Englishȱtranslation],ȱin:ȱNewȱEnglishȱTranslationȱofȱtheȱ Septuagint,ȱOxfordȱ2007,ȱ424Ȭ440.ȱ KOTTSIEPER,ȱ Ingo,ȱ Zusätzeȱ zuȱ Esther,ȱ in:ȱ Steck,ȱ Odilȱ Hannesȱ etȱ al.,ȱ Dasȱ Buchȱ Baruch;ȱDerȱBriefȱdesȱJeremia;ȱZusätzeȱzuȱEstherȱundȱDanielȱ(ATDApȱ5),ȱ Göttingenȱ1998,ȱ109Ȭ207.ȱ MCDOWELL,ȱMarkus,ȱPrayersȱofȱJewishȱWomen:ȱStudiesȱofȱPatternsȱofȱPrayerȱinȱ theȱSecondȱTempleȱPeriodȱ(WUNTȱ2/211),ȱTübingenȱ2006.ȱ MARBÖCK,ȱ Johannes,ȱ Dasȱ Gebetȱ derȱ Esther:ȱ Zurȱ Bedeutungȱ desȱ Gebetesȱ imȱ griechischenȱ Estherbuch,ȱ in:ȱ Idem,ȱ Weisheitȱ undȱ Frömmigkeit:ȱ Studienȱ zurȱalttestamentlichenȱLiteraturȱderȱSpätzeit,ȱFrankfurtȱ2006,ȱ237Ȭ255.ȱ MITTMANNȬRICHERT,ȱ Ulrike,ȱ Einführungȱ zuȱ denȱ historischenȱ undȱ legendariȬ schenȱ Erzählungen,ȱ in:ȱ Lichtenberger,ȱ Hermann/Oegema,ȱ Gerbernȱ (eds.),ȱSupplementaȱ(JSHRZȱ6/1),ȱGüterslohȱ2000,ȱ1Ȭ238.ȱ ORTNER,ȱ Sherryȱ B.,ȱ Isȱ Femaleȱ toȱ Maleȱ asȱ Natureȱ isȱ toȱ Culture?,ȱ in:ȱ Zimbalistȱ Rosaldo,ȱ Michelle/Lamphere,ȱ Louiseȱ (eds.),ȱ Women,ȱ Culture,ȱ andȱ SociȬ ety,ȱStanfordȱ1974,ȱ68Ȭ87.ȱ SCHORCH,ȱStefan,ȱ„DuȱbistȱeinȱverschlossenerȱGarten:“ȱTheologie,ȱAnthropoloȬ gieȱundȱGeschlechterverhältnisȱimȱAltenȱTestament:ȱWortȱundȱDienstȱ28ȱ (2005)ȱ11Ȭ25.ȱ STEYN,ȱGertȱJ.?ȱ“BeautifulȱbutȱTough:”ȱAȱComparisonȱofȱLXXȱEsther,ȱJudithȱandȱ Susanna:ȱJournalȱforȱSemiticsȱ17ȱ(2008)ȱ156Ȭ181.ȱ

42ȱ

S.ȱSchorchȱ

VANȱ DERȱ WALT,ȱ Larry,ȱ Theȱ Prayersȱ ofȱ Estherȱ (LXX)ȱ andȱ Judithȱ againstȱ theirȱ

SocialȱBackgrounds—EvidenceȱofȱaȱPossibleȱCommonȱGrundlage?:ȱJourȬ nalȱforȱSemiticsȱ17ȱ(2008)ȱ194Ȭ206.ȱ WRIGHT,ȱBenjaminȱG.,ȱSirachȱ[Englishȱtranslation],ȱin:ȱNewȱEnglishȱTranslationȱ ofȱtheȱSeptuagint,ȱOxfordȱ2007,ȱ715Ȭ762.ȱ ȱ ȱ

AtonementȱinȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱAzariahȱ(Danȱ3:40)ȱ ȱ THOMASȱHIEKEȱ

1.ȱSomeȱIntroductoryȱRemarksȱonȱAzariah’sȱPrayerȱ TheȱadditionsȱtoȱtheȱHebrewȱtextȱofȱDanielȱ3ȱinȱtheȱancientȱversionsȱareȱ notȱmereȱdecorationȱandȱentertainment.ȱTheyȱformulateȱtheirȱownȱtheoȬ logicalȱmessages.ȱTheȱhymnȱofȱtheȱthreeȱyoungȱmenȱinȱtheȱfurnaceȱpraiȬ sesȱGod’sȱcreationȱinȱaȱveryȱwideȱperspective,ȱcoveringȱtheȱwholeȱcosȬ mos.ȱ Theȱ prayerȱ ofȱ Azariahȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ fewȱ preȬChristianȱ textsȱ thatȱ speaksȱ aboutȱ theȱ deathȱ ofȱ righteousȱ humanȱ beingsȱ forȱ theȱ benefitȱ ofȱ atonementȱ forȱ theȱ sinsȱ ofȱ theȱ people—aȱ motifȱ whichȱ becameȱ decisiveȱ forȱNewȱTestamentȱChristology.1ȱThisȱpaperȱfocusesȱonȱtheȱkeyȱverseȱofȱ thisȱmotif,ȱDanȱ3:40.ȱAfterȱaȱcomparisonȱofȱtheȱversions,ȱIȱsuggestȱsomeȱ newȱsolutionsȱforȱtheȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱGreekȱtexts.ȱ

TransmissionȱofȱtheȱTextȱ(Ar,ȱG,ȱTh)ȱ Theȱ twoȱ Greekȱ textsȱ ofȱ theȱ Prayerȱ ofȱ Azariahȱ (PrA;ȱ Danȱ 3:26Ȭ45),ȱ theȱ Septuagintȱ(G)ȱandȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱTheodotionȱ(Th),ȱareȱveryȱcloseȱtoȱeachȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

SeeȱKOCH,ȱDaniel,ȱ314;ȱKOCH,ȱMärtyrertod,ȱ66.ȱKochȱunderscoresȱthatȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱ Azariahȱwasȱnotȱformulatedȱforȱitsȱpresentȱcontext,ȱbutȱratherȱitȱwasȱanȱindependentȱ poemȱ withoutȱ relationshipȱ toȱ theȱ Danielȱ traditions;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ MOORE,ȱ Additions,ȱ 41;ȱ KOTTSIEPER,ȱZusätzeȱzuȱEsterȱundȱDaniel,ȱ231;ȱCOLLINS,ȱDaniel,ȱ198:ȱ“itȱisȱalsoȱconȬ ceivableȱ thatȱ theȱ Prayerȱ wasȱ traditionallyȱ associatedȱ withȱ someoneȱ namedȱ Azariahȱ andȱwasȱinsertedȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱDanielȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱcoincidenceȱinȱname.”ȱAgainstȱ thisȱposition,ȱHAAG,ȱSühnopfer,ȱ217,ȱassumesȱthatȱtheȱPrayerȱwasȱwrittenȱintentionȬ allyȱasȱanȱexpansionȱofȱtheȱprotoȬcanonicalȱchapterȱ3ȱofȱtheȱbookȱofȱDaniel.ȱHeȱfolȬ lowsȱ MITTMANNȬRICHERT,ȱ Einführung,ȱ 132Ȭ133.ȱ Sheȱ demonstratesȱ thatȱ theȱ cautiousȱ developmentȱ ofȱ atonementȱ throughȱ humanȱ selfȬsacrificeȱ isȱ aȱ plausibleȱ resultȱ ofȱ theȱ searchȱforȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱmartyrdomȱwhichȱisȱsoȱdominantȱinȱtheȱcanonicalȱbookȱofȱ Daniel.ȱ

44ȱ

T.ȱHiekeȱ

other.ȱOneȱcanȱassumeȱthatȱtheyȱgoȱbackȱtoȱtheȱsameȱGreekȱtranslation.2ȱ Thereȱ isȱ oneȱ exception,ȱ however.ȱ Inȱ Danȱ 3:40,ȱ theȱ Greekȱ textsȱ differȱ considerablyȱ(seeȱbelow).ȱ Theȱ “Theodotion”ȱ versionȱ doesȱ notȱ stemȱ fromȱ theȱ secondȱ centuryȱ C.E.ȱlikeȱtheȱrecensionȱofȱtheȱSeptuagintȱbyȱ“Theodotion”ȱ(oftenȱnamedȱ q’ȱorȱQ):ȱTheȱGreekȱtextȱofȱDanielȱrepresentedȱinȱmostȱofȱtheȱGreekȱmaȬ nuscriptsȱhasȱnoȱrelationshipȱwithȱtheȱotherȱTheodotionȱmaterialȱofȱtheȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ butȱ isȱ ratherȱ anȱ anonymousȱ translationȱ datingȱ toȱ preȬ Christianȱtimes,ȱsinceȱitȱisȱquotedȱseveralȱtimesȱinȱtheȱNewȱTestament.ȱ Neverthelessȱ theȱ usualȱ siglumȱ Thȱ orȱ q’ȱ isȱ retainedȱ here,ȱ althoughȱ oneȱ mustȱkeepȱinȱmindȱthatȱitȱisȱaȱprotoȬTheodotionȱtextȱ(prTh).3 TheȱGreekȱcontainsȱseveralȱSemitisms,ȱwhichȱhaveȱpromptedȱschoȬ larsȱ toȱ hypothesizeȱ aȱ Hebrewȱ orȱ Aramaicȱ original.4ȱ Curtȱ Kuhlȱ (1930)ȱ providedȱ aȱ retranslationȱ fromȱ theȱ Greekȱ intoȱ Hebrew.5ȱ Butȱ dueȱ toȱ hisȱ attemptȱtoȱconstructȱaȱperfectȱHebrewȱmeter,ȱheȱhadȱtoȱgoȱfarȱbeyondȱaȱ wordȬforȬwordȱequivalentȱtranslationȱandȱuseȱmanyȱtextȬcriticalȱemenȬ dations.ȱ Klausȱ Kochȱ (1987;ȱ 2005)ȱ pointsȱ toȱ anȱ Aramaicȱ versionȱ (Ar),ȱ whichȱMosesȱGasterȱfoundȱinȱaȱmedievalȱmanuscriptȱandȱpublishedȱinȱ 1894/1895.6ȱTheȱ“BookȱofȱMemoirs”ȱofȱtheȱRabbiȱEleazarȱbenȱAsherȱ(ca.ȱ 1325)ȱcontainsȱaȱWorldȱChronicleȱascribedȱtoȱJerahmeelȱ(11th/12thȱcentuȬ ry),ȱwhichȱwasȱwrittenȱinȱHebrewȱbutȱalsoȱcontainsȱanȱAramaicȱversionȱ ofȱ theȱ additionsȱ toȱ Danielȱ 3.ȱ ThisȱAramaicȱ versionȱwasȱ notȱ writtenȱ byȱ Jerahmeel,ȱbutȱitȱisȱaȱfragmentȱfromȱanȱearlierȱsource.ȱGasterȱwasȱconȬ vincedȱ thatȱ heȱ hadȱ foundȱtheȱ Aramaicȱoriginalȱ ofȱ Danȱ 3:26Ȭ90.ȱ HoweȬ ver,ȱtheȱAramaicȱrepresentsȱaȱformȱofȱmiddleȬAramaicȱ(correspondingȱ toȱ theȱ Targumimȱ ofȱ Onkelosȱ andȱ Jonathan).ȱ Kochȱ triesȱ toȱ showȱ inȱ aȱ detailedȱ verseȬbyȬverseȱ analysisȱ thatȱ theȱ JerahmeelȬFragmentȱ (Ar)ȱ reȬ presentsȱ anȱ overgrownȱ stageȱ ofȱ theȱ Aramaicȱ originalȱ thatȱ wasȱ laterȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 2ȱȱ

3ȱȱ

4ȱȱ

5ȱȱ 6ȱȱ

Seeȱ KOCH,ȱ Deuterokanonischeȱ Zusätze,ȱ 2:ȱ 37;ȱ SWART,ȱ Divergences,ȱ 118.ȱ Forȱ detailsȱ aboutȱ theȱ manuscriptȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ versionsȱ ofȱ Danielȱ 3,ȱ seeȱ especiallyȱ BOGAERT,ȱDanielȱ3,ȱ27Ȭ37.ȱ Seeȱ KOCH,ȱ Deuterokanonischeȱ Zusätze,ȱ 1:ȱ 13;ȱ SCHMITT,ȱ Stammt,ȱ 112/390;ȱ SCHMITT,ȱ Theodotionproblem,ȱ 9Ȭ10.ȱ Onȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ Greekȱ versionsȱ seeȱ alsoȱSCHÜPPHAUS,ȱVerhältnis,ȱ69.ȱHeȱoptsȱforȱaȱpriorityȱofȱtheȱSeptuagintȱagainstȱtheȱ TheodotionȱversionȱwhichȱheȱseesȱasȱanȱextensiveȱreȬeditingȱofȱstyleȱandȱcontentȱofȱ theȱLXXȱtextȱ(p.ȱ71).ȱSCHMITT,ȱTheodotionproblem,ȱ28Ȭ29,ȱcorroboratesȱthisȱassumpȬ tion.ȱSeeȱnowȱalsoȱTILLY,ȱRezeption,ȱ32Ȭ40.ȱ Oneȱhasȱtoȱbeȱcarefulȱwithȱtheȱtermȱ“Semitisms,”ȱsinceȱmanyȱlinguisticȱphenomenaȱ whichȱseemȱtoȱbeȱdueȱtoȱaȱSemiticȱinfluenceȱoccurȱinȱregularȱKoineȱGreekȱasȱwell,ȱseeȱ REISER,ȱSpracheȱundȱliterarischeȱFormen,ȱ33Ȭ48.ȱ KUHL,ȱDieȱdreiȱMänner.ȱ GASTER,ȱTheȱUnknownȱAramaicȱOriginal.ȱ

ȱ

AtonementȱinȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱAzariahȱ

45ȱ

adaptedȱ toȱ theȱ Aramaicȱ ofȱ theȱ Targumim.7ȱ Forȱ Koch,ȱ theȱ (corrected)ȱ Aramaicȱtextȱisȱtheȱoriginalȱandȱtheȱstartingȱpointȱforȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱ textualȱtransmissionȱofȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱAzariah.ȱKoch’sȱGermanȱtranslatiȬ onȱ inȱ hisȱ commentaryȱ ofȱ 2005ȱ (“Biblischerȱ Kommentar”)ȱ isȱ obviouslyȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ Aramaicȱ text.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ whetherȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ Hebrewȱ originalȱ behindȱ bothȱ theȱ Aramaicȱandȱ theȱ Greek,ȱas,ȱ e.g.,ȱ JohnȱCollinsȱ assumes,8ȱmustȱbeȱleftȱopenȱhere.ȱForȱtheȱpointȱpursuedȱinȱthisȱpaper,ȱitȱ isȱnotȱevenȱnecessaryȱtoȱpresupposeȱanȱAramaicȱoriginal.ȱ

Structureȱ TheȱPrayerȱofȱAzariahȱisȱclearlyȱstructuredȱandȱshowsȱaȱconciseȱcompoȬ sition.ȱThereȱareȱfiveȱsectionsȱconsistingȱofȱsixȱlinesȱwithȱbiȬȱandȱtricola.ȱ Theȱ sixthȱ stropheȱ isȱ shorter.ȱ Oneȱ canȱ summarizeȱ theȱ structureȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱoutline9:ȱ 26Ȭ28ȱ HymnicȱpraiseȱofȱtheȱeternalȱGodȱofȱtheȱFathers:ȱGodȱjudgesȱinȱ justiceȱandȱtruth.ȱ 29Ȭ32ȱ Confessionȱ ofȱ sinȱ(collectively):ȱ Godȱ hasȱ everyȱ rightȱ toȱ punishȱ hisȱpeople.ȱ 33Ȭ36ȱ Generalȱappealȱforȱhelpȱandȱmercy:ȱGodȱmayȱkeepȱhisȱpromisesȱ ofȱoldȱandȱupholdȱtheȱcovenant.10 37Ȭ38ȱ Communalȱ lamentȱ aboutȱ theȱ lackȱ ofȱ leadershipȱ andȱ ofȱ aȱ sancȬ tuary:ȱ Thereȱisȱ noȱ wayȱ toȱcommunicateȱ withȱ Godȱ throughȱ theȱ cult.ȱ 39Ȭ41ȱ Individualȱpleaȱforȱacceptance:ȱGodȱmayȱacceptȱtheȱdeathȱofȱtheȱ righteousȱmenȱasȱaȱvalidȱsacrificeȱinȱorderȱtoȱmakeȱatonementȱ forȱtheȱsinsȱofȱtheȱpeople.ȱ 42Ȭ45ȱ Finalȱ pleaȱ forȱ deliveranceȱ ofȱ theȱ righteousȱ andȱ punishmentȱ ofȱ theȱenemies:ȱGodȱmayȱsaveȱtheȱrighteousȱonesȱandȱstripȱtheȱeȬ nemiesȱofȱtheirȱpower.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 7ȱȱ

KOCH,ȱ Deuterokanonischeȱ Zusätze;ȱ KOCH,ȱ Daniel,ȱ 317;ȱ KOCH/RÖSEL,ȱ PolyglottenȬ synopse,ȱ314Ȭ315.ȱSeeȱalsoȱHAAG,ȱSühnopfer,ȱ197.ȱ 8ȱȱ COLLINS,ȱDaniel,ȱ199,ȱ202;ȱseeȱalsoȱMOORE,ȱAdditions,ȱ45Ȭ46.ȱ 9ȱȱ Seeȱ KOCH,ȱ Daniel,ȱ 332Ȭ333;ȱ KOCH,ȱ Deuterokanonischeȱ Zusätze,ȱ 2:ȱ 36.ȱ COLLINS,ȱ DaȬ niel,ȱ 198,ȱ presentsȱ aȱ similarȱ outline.ȱ Forȱ aȱ differentȱ outlineȱ includingȱ theȱ narrativeȱ framework,ȱseeȱHAAG,ȱSühnopfer,ȱ199.ȱ 10ȱȱ Theȱ significantȱ termȱ forȱ “covenant”ȱ occursȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ Greekȱ textsȱ (diaqh,kh);ȱ seeȱ HAAG,ȱSühnopfer,ȱ205.ȱ

46ȱ

T.ȱHiekeȱ

Genreȱ Althoughȱ theȱ structureȱ outlinedȱ aboveȱ showsȱ severalȱ characteristicȱ featuresȱofȱtheȱcommunalȱlament,ȱtheȱdominanceȱofȱtheȱcollectiveȱconȬ fessionȱofȱsinȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱpostȬexilicȱvariationȱofȱthisȱgenre,ȱtheȱpeniȬ tentialȱprayer.11ȱKochȱnotesȱaȱpostȬexilicȱchangeȱregardingȱtheȱmoodȱofȱ theȱ communalȱ lament.ȱ Theȱ postȬexilicȱ prayersȱ doȱ notȱ onlyȱ complainȱ aboutȱ politicalȱ distressȱandȱ Yahweh’sȱabandonmentȱ ofȱ hisȱ people,ȱ butȱ theseȱtextsȱalsoȱdescribeȱtheȱreasonȱinȱaȱconfessionȱofȱsin.ȱTheȱpenitentiȬ alȱprayersȱconfessȱaȱcollectiveȱcontextȱofȱguiltȱaccumulatedȱfromȱgeneȬ rationȱtoȱgeneration.ȱTheyȱareȱaȱreflectionȱofȱtheȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱprophetsȱ whoȱ announcedȱ anȱ inexorableȱ deteriorationȱ ofȱ cultȱ andȱ nationȱ dueȱ toȱ socialȱinjusticeȱandȱculticȱcarelessness.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱpenitentialȱprayersȱ doȱnotȱformulateȱpropheticȱsocialȱcriticism,ȱbutȱtheyȱpointȱtoȱtheȱlackȱofȱ obedienceȱ toȱ theȱ Torah:ȱ “Weȱ haveȱ notȱ obeyedȱ yourȱ commandments”ȱ (Danȱ3:30).ȱTheȱprayersȱareȱcharacterizedȱbyȱanȱundifferentiatedȱsenseȱ ofȱ guiltȱ coveringȱ allȱ epochsȱ ofȱ timeȱ andȱ theȱ wholeȱ communityȱ ofȱ theȱ people.ȱ Thisȱ canȱ beȱ illustratedȱ byȱ theȱ narrativeȱ frameȱ ofȱ theȱ Prayerȱ ofȱ Azariah.ȱ Theȱ threeȱ menȱ areȱ thrownȱ intoȱ theȱ furnaceȱ becauseȱ theyȱ areȱ righteous,ȱobeyȱtheȱcommandmentsȱofȱtheȱLordȱandȱrefuseȱtoȱtrespassȱ againstȱtheȱcovenant,ȱandȱyetȱtheyȱconfessȱthatȱtheyȱcameȱintoȱthisȱmiȬ serableȱsituationȱdueȱtoȱ“ourȱ(i.e.,ȱtheȱpeople’s)ȱsins”ȱ(Danȱ3:28).12ȱOtherȱ examplesȱ ofȱ theȱ genreȱ “postȬexilicȱ penitentialȱ prayer”ȱ thatȱ goȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ directionȱ areȱ Ezraȱ 9:1Ȭ10:6;ȱ Nehȱ 1:1Ȭ11;ȱ Nehȱ 9:1Ȭ10:40,ȱ andȱ laterȱ Danȱ9:1Ȭ27ȱ(seeȱalsoȱPsalmȱ106).13

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 11ȱȱ

SeeȱBAUTCH,ȱDevelopments;ȱHAAG,ȱSühnopfer,ȱ200Ȭ201:ȱ“nachexilischesȱUmkehrbeȬ kenntnis”;ȱKOCH,ȱDaniel,ȱ330Ȭ331.ȱ 12ȱȱ SeeȱTILLY,ȱRezeption,ȱ45.ȱ 13ȱȱ Concerningȱtheȱgenreȱofȱtheȱnarrativeȱframe,ȱoneȱprobablyȱwillȱfindȱaȱcloseȱanalogyȱ inȱ2ȱMaccabeesȱ7;ȱhowever,ȱasȱCOLLINS,ȱDaniel,ȱ192,ȱcorrectlyȱpointsȱout,ȱDanielȱ3ȱisȱ notȱyetȱaȱmartyrȱlegend:ȱ“Theȱheroesȱdoȱnotȱdie.ȱDanielȱ3ȱ(andȱ6)ȱisȱratherȱaȱforerunȬ nerȱ ofȱ theȱ martyrȱ legend.”ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ LEBRAM,ȱ Jüdischeȱ Martyrologie,ȱ 91,ȱ 115.ȱ St.ȱ Augustineȱcomparedȱinȱhisȱsermonsȱtheȱtresȱpueriȱ(theȱthreeȱyoungȱmenȱofȱDanielȱ3)ȱ withȱtheȱMachabaeiȱ(theȱsevenȱMaccabeesȱofȱ2ȱMaccȱ7);ȱseeȱBROWNȱ TKACZ,ȱTheȱSevenȱ Maccabees,ȱ59Ȭ78.ȱAsȱtheȱessenceȱofȱhisȱcomparison,ȱAugustineȱformulatesȱinȱaȱserȬ monȱwhichȱwasȱdiscoveredȱatȱMayenceȱseveralȱyearsȱagoȱ(Mainz,ȱStadtbibliothekȱIȱ9;ȱ namedȱ“Mayenceȱ50”ȱandȱdatedȱtoȱAugustȱ397):ȱillosȱergoȱaperteȱliberavit,ȱillosȱocculteȱ coronavit—Godȱdeliberatelyȱsavedȱtheȱthreeȱyoungȱmenȱpublicly,ȱwhileȱGodȱgaveȱtheȱ crownȱofȱmartyrdomȱtoȱtheȱsevenȱsonsȱofȱ2ȱMaccȱ7.ȱButȱGodȱhandedȱneitherȱofȱthemȱ overȱtoȱdeath,ȱi.e.,ȱtheȱsecondȱandȱeternalȱdeath,ȱsaysȱAugustine,ȱexplainingȱthusȱPsȱ 117:18LXX.ȱInȱseveralȱotherȱsermons,ȱAugustineȱexpressesȱtheȱsameȱthoughtȱinȱvariȬ ousȱformulations.ȱ

ȱ

AtonementȱinȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱAzariahȱ

47ȱ

TimeȱofȱOriginȱ Regardingȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ origin,ȱ theȱ Prayerȱ ofȱ Azariahȱ givesȱ aȱ clearȱ hint.ȱ Theȱlackȱofȱleadershipȱ(“noȱprince,ȱnoȱprophet,ȱnoȱleader”)ȱandȱmoreoȬ verȱtheȱlackȱofȱaȱplaceȱforȱtheȱcorrectȱcelebrationȱofȱtheȱcultȱ(“noȱburntȱ offering,ȱ noȱ sacrifice,ȱ noȱ oblation,ȱ noȱ incense”;ȱ Danȱ 3:38)ȱ pointȱ toȱ theȱ timeȱofȱtheȱpersecutionȱofȱtheȱJewishȱreligionȱbyȱtheȱSeleucidȱkingȱAnȬ tiochusȱ IVȱ Epiphanes.ȱ Duringȱ theseȱ years,ȱ i.e.,ȱ 167ȱ toȱ 164ȱ B.C.E.,ȱ theȱ templeȱ inȱ Jerusalemȱ wasȱ profanedȱ byȱ theȱ “desolatingȱ abomination”ȱ (seeȱDanȱ9:27;ȱ1Maccȱ1:54).ȱHence,ȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱAzariahȱoriginatedȱatȱ aboutȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ whenȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ andȱ Aramaicȱ bookȱ ofȱ Danielȱ attainedȱ itsȱ finalȱ redaction.14ȱ However,ȱ whereasȱ inȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ Danielȱ theȱdesecrationȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱandȱtheȱsanctuaryȱgoesȱbackȱtoȱtheȱillȱwillȱ ofȱtheȱalienȱruler,ȱinȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱAzariahȱtheȱapostasyȱandȱtheȱsinsȱofȱ theȱpeopleȱareȱresponsibleȱforȱtheȱdevastatingȱsituation.ȱ

2.ȱTheȱKeyȱVerseȱDanȱ3:40ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ Prayerȱ ofȱ Azariahȱ hasȱ muchȱ inȱ commonȱ withȱ theȱ postȬ exilicȱpenitentialȱprayersȱofȱEzraȬNehemiah,ȱoneȱthingȱisȱuniqueȱtoȱthisȱ text15:ȱtheȱideaȱthatȱtheȱbrutalȱexecutionȱofȱtheȱmartyrs16ȱmayȱstandȱforȱ burntȱofferingsȱofȱramsȱandȱbullsȱandȱthousandsȱofȱfattenedȱlambsȱandȱ thatȱ Godȱ mayȱ acceptȱ thisȱ asȱ aȱ validȱ sacrifice,ȱ asȱ anȱ atonementȱ forȱ theȱ sinsȱofȱtheȱpeople.ȱTheȱcontextȱstatesȱthatȱdueȱtoȱtheȱprofanationȱofȱtheȱ templeȱthereȱisȱnoȱproperȱplace,ȱandȱhenceȱnoȱpossibility,ȱtoȱmakeȱsacriȬ ficesȱ toȱ theȱ Lordȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ expiateȱ forȱ theȱ sinsȱ ofȱ theȱ peopleȱ andȱ toȱ gainȱdivineȱmercyȱandȱforgiveness.ȱThusȱtheȱpeopleȱcannotȱcommuniȬ cateȱwithȱGod,ȱandȱthisȱaggravatesȱtheȱdistressingȱsituationȱenormousȬ ly.17ȱ Fromȱ thisȱ viewpointȱ theȱ nextȱ solutionȱ wouldȱ beȱ quiteȱ naturallyȱ thatȱtheȱdeathȱofȱtheȱrighteousȱmenȱ(theȱmartyrs),ȱtheȱcontriteȱsoulȱ(or:ȱ life,ȱ Aramaicȱ aXpn,ȱ nafš¬’;ȱ Greekȱ yuch,)ȱ andȱ theȱ spiritȱ ofȱ humilityȱ (seeȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 14ȱȱ

SeeȱCOLLINS,ȱDaniel,ȱ203;ȱGILBERT,ȱLaȱprière,ȱ572;ȱBOGAERT,ȱDanielȱ3,ȱ27;ȱSCHENKER,ȱ Sacrifice,ȱ 351Ȭ356;ȱ KOCH,ȱ Daniel,ȱ 330;ȱ MITTMANNȬRICHERT,ȱ Einführung,ȱ 117;ȱ KOTTȬ SIEPER,ȱ Daniel,ȱ 232;ȱ TILLY,ȱ Rezeption,ȱ 45.ȱ HAAG,ȱ Sühnopfer,ȱ 206Ȭ207,ȱ 217,ȱ assumesȱ thatȱtheȱprayerȱoriginatedȱafterȱtheȱreȬconsecrationȱofȱtheȱtemple,ȱi.e.,ȱasȱaȱreflectionȱ aboutȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ persecutionȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ religion.ȱ However,ȱ itȱ isȱ difficultȱ toȱ readȱ Danȱ 3:38ȱ (noȱ leader,ȱ noȱ prophetȱ etc.)ȱ asȱ aȱ mereȱ “reflection”ȱ andȱ notȱ asȱ anȱ exȬ pressionȱofȱtheȱcurrentȱsituationȱinȱwhichȱtheȱprayerȱwasȱwritten.ȱ 15ȱȱ KOCH,ȱDaniel,ȱ333:ȱ“EinȱsolcherȱAbschnittȱfehltȱinȱanderenȱBeispielenȱderȱGattung.”ȱ 16ȱȱ Forȱtheȱproblematicȱtermȱ“martyrdom”ȱseeȱKOCH,ȱMärtyrertod,ȱ68.ȱ 17ȱȱ SeeȱKOCH,ȱDeuterokanonischeȱZusätze,ȱ2:ȱ54;ȱKOCH,ȱMärtyrertod,ȱ69,ȱ72.ȱ

48ȱ

T.ȱHiekeȱ

Psalmȱ51:18Ȭ2118)ȱmayȱreplaceȱtheȱsacrificesȱofȱanimals,ȱwhichȱwereȱnoȱ longerȱ possible.ȱ Theȱ prayingȱ peopleȱ (Azariahȱ andȱ hisȱ friends)ȱ dareȱ toȱ offerȱthemselvesȱasȱaȱsubstituteȱforȱtheȱsacrificesȱinȱorderȱtoȱgainȱGod’sȱ mercyȱandȱforgiveness,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱfindȱGod’sȱfavorȱandȱpleasure.ȱThisȱ ideaȱisȱexpressedȱinȱDanȱ3:40,ȱandȱhenceȱhereȱliesȱtheȱkeyȱverseȱofȱthisȱ prayer.ȱ Thisȱconclusionȱisȱ corroboratedȱ byȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ hereȱallȱ extantȱ versionsȱ differȱ considerably.ȱ Theȱ followingȱ suggestionsȱ tryȱ toȱ shedȱ someȱlightȱonȱtheȱproblematicȱpassage.ȱ

ComparisonȱofȱtheȱVersionsȱ Theȱ followingȱ synopticȱ chartȱ displaysȱ theȱ Aramaicȱ versionȱ asȱ reȬ constructedȱbyȱKlausȱKochȱfromȱtheȱtextȱofȱJerahmeelȱ(Ar),ȱtheȱSeptuaȬ gintȱ versionȱ (G)ȱ andȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ Theodotionȱ (Th)ȱ orȱ betterȱ protoȬ Theodotionȱ (prTh).19ȱ Theȱ Englishȱ translationȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ textsȱ isȱ preȬ liminaryȱandȱfollowsȱtheȱproposalsȱinȱtheȱcommentaries;ȱitȱdemonstraȬ tesȱthatȱtheȱtextȱisȱincomprehensibleȱatȱtheȱfirstȱglance.ȱLaterȱonȱaȱsugȬ gestionȱ willȱ beȱ offeredȱ aboutȱ howȱ oneȱ mightȱ understandȱ (andȱ henceȱ translate)ȱtheȱGreekȱdifferently.ȱ ȱ Arȱ

!yd amwy anlyd axbyd ahy !wdk

$mdq !m aw[rl lk !wmlkty al ahd $l !ydwhm yd ȱ ȱ thusȱtheȱslaughteringȱofȱusȱ atȱthisȱdayȱȱ mayȱfindȱfavorȱȱ beforeȱyou,ȱ

Danȱ3:40Gȱ ou[tw gene,sqw h`mw/n h` qusi,a evnw,pio,n sou sh,meronȱ kai. evxila,sai o;pisqe,n sou o[ti ouvk e;stin aivscu,nh toi/j pepoiqo,sin evpi. soi, kai. teleiw,sai o;pisqe,n sou

Danȱ3:40Thȱ(=ȱprTh)ȱ ou[twj gene,sqw qusi,a h`mw/n evnw,pio,n sou sh,meronȱ kai. evktele,sai o;pisqe,n sou o[ti ouvk e;stai aivscu,nh toi/j pepoiqo,sin evpi. soi,

ThusȱmayȱourȱsacriȬ ficeȱȱ beȱbeforeȱyouȱtodayȱ andȱmakeȱatonementȱ behindȱyou.ȱ

ThusȱmayȱourȱsacriȬ ficeȱȱ beȱbeforeȱyouȱtodayȱ andȱ[be?]ȱcompleteȱȱ afterȱyou.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 18ȱȱ 19ȱȱ

SeeȱHAAG,ȱSühnopfer,ȱ207;ȱCOLLINS,ȱDaniel,ȱ201.ȱ Forȱ aȱ similarȱ chartȱ (LXX,ȱ Vulgate,ȱ Ar—identifiedȱ asȱ Ms.ȱ Bod.ȱ Oxf.ȱ heb.d.11)ȱ seeȱ BEYERLE,ȱGottesvorstellungen,ȱ169Ȭ170.ȱ

ȱ

AtonementȱinȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱAzariahȱ

soȱthatȱallȱ whoȱconfessȱyouȱ willȱnotȱcomeȱtoȱnaught.20

Forȱthereȱisȱnoȱshameȱ forȱthoseȱ whoȱtrustȱinȱyou,ȱ andȱcompleteȱafterȱ you.ȱ

49ȱ

Forȱthereȱwillȱbeȱnoȱ shameȱforȱthoseȱ whoȱtrustȱinȱyou.ȱ ȱ

TheȱBasicȱIdeaȱbehindȱDanȱ3:40ȱ Theȱ Aramaicȱ textȱ isȱ clearȱ andȱ understandable.ȱ Theȱ menȱ declareȱ theirȱ impendingȱ deathȱ asȱaȱ “slaughtering”ȱ(axbyd,ȱ dibh̙¬’).ȱ Theȱ Aramaicȱ termȱ indicatesȱanȱexecutionȱoutsideȱtheȱcult,ȱi.e.,ȱitȱpointsȱtoȱmartyrdomȱ(theȱ termȱforȱculticȱsacrificeȱwouldȱbeȱatskn,ȱnikset¬’).21ȱTheȱfollowingȱformuȬ lation,ȱ however,ȱ clearlyȱ employsȱ culticȱ language,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ lineȱ “mayȱ findȱfavorȱbeforeȱyou”ȱisȱtheȱtechnicalȱtermȱforȱtheȱacceptanceȱofȱsacrifiȬ ces22ȱ–ȱe.g.,ȱLevȱ1:3Ȭ4:ȱ“Ifȱtheȱofferingȱisȱaȱburntȱofferingȱfromȱtheȱherd,ȱ youȱshallȱofferȱaȱmaleȱwithoutȱblemish;ȱyouȱshallȱbringȱitȱtoȱtheȱentranȬ ceȱ ofȱ theȱ tentȱ ofȱ meeting,ȱ forȱ acceptanceȱ inȱ yourȱ behalfȱ beforeȱ theȱ LORD.ȱYouȱshallȱlayȱyourȱhandȱonȱtheȱheadȱofȱtheȱburntȱoffering,ȱandȱitȱ shallȱbeȱacceptableȱinȱyourȱbehalfȱasȱatonementȱforȱyou”ȱ(NRSV).ȱTheseȱ versesȱfromȱLeviticusȱformulateȱtheȱbasicȱideaȱofȱtheȱburntȱofferingȱofȱ anȱanimalȱasȱaȱmeansȱtoȱexpressȱaȱsuccessfulȱcommunicationȱwithȱGod,ȱ toȱ findȱ favorȱ andȱ atonementȱ beforeȱ God.ȱ Sinceȱ culticȱ sacrificesȱ ofȱ aniȬ malsȱ areȱ noȱ longerȱ possible,ȱ theȱ basicȱ ideaȱ isȱ transferredȱ toȱ martyrȬ dom.23ȱGodȱwillȱregardȱtheȱimpendingȱdeathȱofȱtheȱexecutedȱmenȱasȱaȱ validȱsacrificeȱinȱorderȱtoȱmakeȱatonementȱonȱbehalfȱofȱtheȱpeople.24 ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 20ȱȱ

21ȱȱ 22ȱȱ

23ȱȱ 24ȱȱ

SeeȱtheȱGermanȱtranslationȱbyȱKOCH,ȱDaniel,ȱ321:ȱ„…ȱsoȱwerdeȱdieȱSchlachtungȱvonȱ unsȱanȱdiesemȱTagȱzumȱWohlgefallenȱvorȱdir,ȱdamitȱnichtȱzuschandenȱwerdenȱalle,ȱ dieȱdichȱbekennen.“ȱ SeeȱKOCH,ȱDeuterokanonischeȱZusätze,ȱ2:ȱ55;ȱKOCH,ȱMärtyrertod,ȱ73Ȭ74.ȱ SeeȱCOLLINS,ȱDaniel,ȱ202;ȱKOCH,ȱDaniel,ȱ321.ȱTheȱVulgateȱrendersȱutȱplaceatȱtibiȱandȱ seemsȱcloseȱtoȱAr,ȱbutȱitȱisȱnotȱtheȱsourceȱforȱAr,ȱsinceȱinȱallȱotherȱplacesȱthereȱisȱnoȱ closeȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱVulgateȱandȱAr.ȱ SeeȱSCHENKER,ȱSacrifice,ȱ354.ȱ HAAG,ȱ Sühnopfer,ȱ 209,ȱ suggestsȱ aȱ somewhatȱ differentȱ interpretation.ȱ Heȱ seesȱ theȱ basicȱpointȱnotȱinȱtheȱconceptȱofȱatonementȱforȱtheȱsinsȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱbutȱratherȱinȱaȱ personalizationȱofȱtheȱideaȱofȱsacrifice.ȱTheȱrighteousȱmenȱunderstandȱtheirȱdevotionȱ toȱ theirȱ beliefȱ wholeheartedly,ȱ whichȱ asȱ aȱ finalȱ consequenceȱ includesȱ theirȱ wilȬ lingnessȱtoȱdieȱforȱtheirȱbelief.ȱBEYERLE,ȱGottesvorstellungen,ȱ177Ȭ178,ȱquestionsȱtheȱ ideaȱ ofȱ atonementȱ inȱ thisȱ context,ȱ becauseȱ heȱ regardsȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ theȱ sacrificeȱ asȱ disputed.ȱ Isȱ itȱ theȱ lifeȱ ofȱ theȱ prayingȱ men,ȱ asȱ mostȱ commentatorsȱ sayȱ orȱ isȱ itȱ theȱ prayerȱ itselfȱ thatȱ makesȱ atonement?ȱ Forȱ theȱ secondȱ suggestion,ȱ Beyerleȱ pointsȱ toȱ HENGEL,ȱTheȱAtonement,ȱ61.ȱHowever,ȱHengelȱformulatesȱtheȱargumentȱcautiously:ȱ “Inȱtheȱoriginalȱversionȱofȱtheȱpenitentialȱprayer,ȱtheȱatoningȱsacrificeȱmayȱhaveȱreȬ

50ȱ

T.ȱHiekeȱ

WhenȱtheȱprayerȱcontinuesȱinȱtheȱnextȱsectionȱwithȱtheȱpleaȱforȱdeȬ liverance,ȱ theȱ basicȱ ideaȱ isȱ notȱ questioned.ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ actualȱ perforȬ manceȱofȱtheȱsacrificeȱ(i.e.,ȱtheȱkilling)ȱthatȱcounts,ȱbutȱtheȱreadinessȱofȱ theȱmenȱtoȱofferȱupȱtheirȱlivesȱandȱtheirȱwillingȱconsentȱtoȱdoȱso.ȱThus,ȱ thereȱ isȱ stillȱ theȱ possibilityȱ forȱ Godȱ toȱ deliverȱ themȱ fromȱ imminentȱ death.ȱ Thisȱ situationȱ correspondsȱ toȱ theȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ Bindingȱ (Aqed¬)ȱofȱIsaacȱ(Genesisȱ22)ȱinȱEarlyȱJewishȱtradition,ȱwhichȱemphasiȬ zesȱIsaac’sȱwillingȱconsent.ȱPhiloȱofȱAlexandriaȱnotedȱthatȱevenȱthoughȱ theȱsacrificeȱwasȱnotȱcarriedȱout,ȱitȱwasȱregardedȱasȱcompleteȱandȱperȬ fect.25ȱ Theȱ Palestinianȱ Targumimȱ regardȱ theȱ Aqed¬ȱ asȱ anȱ atoningȱ actȱ equivalentȱtoȱeveryȱrealȱsacrifice.ȱIsaac’sȱwillingnessȱtoȱbeȱsacrificedȱhasȱ suchȱaȱpermanentȱeffectȱthatȱallȱsubsequentȱsacrificesȱinȱIsraelȱareȱonlyȱ aȱ remembranceȱ ofȱ thisȱ primevalȱ eventȱ inȱ theȱ landȱ Moriah.ȱ Theȱ Liberȱ AntiquitatumȱBiblicarumȱ(PseudoȬPhilo,ȱca.ȱ100ȱC.E.)ȱseesȱtheȱBindingȱofȱ IsaacȱasȱaȱburntȱofferingȱwhichȱwasȱacceptableȱbeforeȱtheȱLordȱ(acceptaȬ bilis;ȱ LABȱ 18:5).ȱ Evenȱ thoughȱ Isaacȱ didȱ notȱ actuallyȱ die,ȱ theȱ traditionȱ regardsȱ himȱ asȱ oneȱ whoȱ hasȱ laidȱ hisȱ ashesȱ onȱ theȱ altar.26ȱ Hence,ȱ theȱ basicȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ Prayerȱ ofȱ Azariahȱ (Danȱ 3:40)ȱ isȱ notȱ withoutȱ analogy.ȱ Theȱreadinessȱofȱhumanȱbeingsȱtoȱsacrificeȱtheirȱownȱlivesȱforȱothersȱisȱ equivalentȱtoȱtheȱactualȱdeathȱandȱtheȱsacrificesȱatȱtheȱtemple.27 ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ferredȱ toȱ theȱ prayerȱ itself,ȱ butȱ inȱ theȱ mouthsȱ ofȱ theȱ threeȱ menȱ inȱ theȱ burningȱ fieryȱ furnace,ȱi.e.ȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱLXXȱversion,ȱtheȱmartyrdomȱofȱtheȱthreeȱmenȱbecomesȱ anȱatoningȱsacrificeȱofferedȱtoȱGod.ȱAccordingȱtoȱDan.ȱ3.28ȱ‘theyȱofferedȱupȱtheirȱboȬ dies’ȱsoȱasȱnotȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱvenerateȱanyȱgodȱotherȱthanȱtheȱGodȱofȱIsraelȱ…ȱHereȱweȱ haveȱtheȱearliestȱaccountȱofȱaȱmartyrdom,ȱfromȱpreȬMaccabeanȱJudaism,ȱwhich,ȱhoȬ wever,ȱ endsȱ withȱ theȱ miracleȱ ofȱ God’sȱ deliverance.ȱ Forȱ laterȱ rabbinicȱ tradition,ȱ despiteȱtheirȱmiraculousȱdeliverance,ȱtheȱthreeȱbecomeȱprototypesȱofȱtheȱpiousȱmarȬ tyr.”ȱ Asȱ itȱ willȱ beȱ pointedȱ outȱ below,ȱ theȱ culticȱ languageȱ andȱ theȱ proximityȱ toȱ theȱ conceptsȱinȱExodusȱandȱLeviticusȱmakeȱaȱspiritualizedȱnotionȱasȱtheȱoriginalȱintentiȬ onȱlessȱplausible.ȱ 25ȱȱ Philo,ȱDeȱAbrahamo,ȱ177;ȱseeȱCOLLINS,ȱDaniel,ȱ201.ȱ 26ȱȱ See,ȱe.g.,ȱjTa’anitȱ2:1ȱ(accordingȱtoȱKUNDERT,ȱOpferung,ȱ32).ȱOtherȱtraditionsȱassumeȱ thatȱIsaacȱwasȱactuallyȱsacrificed,ȱe.g.,ȱbZevahimȱ62a:ȱIsaac’sȱashesȱ(orȱtheȱashesȱofȱtheȱ substituteȱ ram?)ȱ indicateȱ theȱ placeȱ forȱ theȱ templeȱ (seeȱ KUNDERT,ȱ Opferung,ȱ 43);ȱ orȱ bBerakhotȱ62b:ȱIsaac’sȱashesȱrememberȱGodȱofȱtheȱpromisesȱforȱAbrahamȱinȱGenesisȱ 22ȱandȱprotectȱIsraelȱagainstȱtheȱAngelȱthatȱdestroyedȱtheȱpeopleȱ(ibid.,ȱ45Ȭ49).ȱ 27ȱȱ SeeȱKOCH,ȱMärtyrertod,ȱ76.ȱThereȱisȱaȱChristianȱreceptionȱofȱtheseȱversesȱ(Danȱ3:39Ȭ 40)ȱandȱhenceȱofȱtheȱideaȱofȱmartyrdomȱinȱtheȱMartyrdomȱofȱPolycarpȱ14:1Ȭ2;ȱseeȱBAUȬ MEISTER,ȱ Anfänge,ȱ 298.ȱ Bothȱ textsȱ haveȱ aȱ clusterȱ ofȱ sixȱ termsȱ inȱ common.ȱ “Byȱ weavingȱ aȱ clusterȱ ofȱ phrasesȱ fromȱ Azariah’sȱ Prayerȱ intoȱ theȱ accountȱ ofȱ Polycarp’sȱ execution,ȱtheȱauthorȱofȱtheȱMartyrdomȱofȱPolycarpȱwasȱprobablyȱhintingȱatȱanȱanaloȬ gyȱ ofȱ fateȱ betweenȱ Polycarpȱ andȱ Daniel’sȱ companions.ȱ …ȱ Theȱ analogyȱ underlinesȱ Polycarp’sȱ postȬmortemȱ vindication,ȱ byȱ theȱ resurrectionȱ ofȱ bodyȱ andȱ soul.ȱ …ȱ Theȱ analogyȱ isȱ strengthenedȱ byȱ detailsȱ andȱ phrasesȱ inȱ chapterȱ 15,ȱ indicatingȱ thatȱ PolyȬ carp’sȱbodyȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱburned,ȱwhichȱareȱreminiscentȱofȱtheȱthreeȱmen’sȱrescueȱinȱ

ȱ

AtonementȱinȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱAzariahȱ

51ȱ

SuggestionsȱforȱtheȱProblematicȱTermsȱinȱtheȱGreekȱVersionsȱ DidȱtheȱGreekȱversionsȱemployȱthisȱbasicȱidea?ȱTheȱcommentariesȱusuȬ allyȱ regardȱ theȱ Greekȱ textsȱ asȱ hopelesslyȱ corrupt:ȱ “Scholarlyȱ discussiȬ onsȱofȱthisȱobviouslyȱcorruptȱclauseȱhaveȱproducedȱmuchȱheatȱbutȱlittleȱ light,”ȱ saysȱ Careyȱ A.ȱ Moore,ȱ quotedȱ byȱ Klausȱ Kochȱ withȱ approval.28ȱ Thisȱ isȱ reasonȱ enoughȱ toȱ addȱ anotherȱ guess,ȱ anotherȱ suggestionȱ toȱ makeȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ text(s).ȱ Theȱ threeȱ problematicȱ termsȱ areȱ evxila,saiȱ inȱ Gȱ versusȱ evktele,saiȱ inȱ prTh,ȱ theȱ prepositionȱ phraseȱ o;pisqe,n souȱinȱbothȱversions,ȱandȱteleiw,saiȱinȱG.ȱ (1)ȱevxila,sai.ȱThisȱverbȱisȱnormallyȱconstructedȱwithȱperi,,ȱinȱrareȱcaȬ sesȱwithȱtheȱaccusative,ȱandȱonceȱwithȱu`pe,rȱ(Ezekȱ45:17).ȱItȱisȱtheȱstanȬ dardȱequivalentȱforȱtheȱHebrewȱrootȱrpk,ȱkipperȱ(toȱmakeȱatonement,ȱtoȱ purge)ȱ whichȱ clearlyȱ pointsȱ toȱ aȱ culticȱ context.ȱ Theȱ basicȱ meaningȱ ofȱ kipper,ȱ however,ȱ canȱ beȱ derivedȱ fromȱ Genȱ 32:21.ȱ Jacobȱ saysȱ beforeȱ theȱ meetingȱwithȱhisȱbrotherȱEsau:ȱ“Iȱmayȱappeaseȱhimȱ(achieveȱreconciliaȬ tion;ȱwyn"p' hr"P.k;a];ȱevxila,somai to. pro,swpon auvtou/)ȱwithȱtheȱpresentȱthatȱgoesȱ aheadȱofȱme,ȱandȱafterwardsȱIȱshallȱseeȱhisȱface;ȱperhapsȱheȱwillȱacceptȱ me.”ȱ Hence,ȱ kipperȱ isȱ anȱ activityȱ toȱ gainȱ one’sȱ favorȱ withoutȱ anyȱ warȬ rantyȱorȱexpectationȱthatȱtheȱaddressedȱpersonȱwillȱinȱfactȱanswerȱfavoȬ rably.ȱTheȱbasicȱideaȱaboutȱtheȱburntȱofferingȱquotedȱaboveȱ(Levȱ1:3Ȭ4)ȱ alsoȱ usesȱ kipperȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ theȱ offering:ȱ “toȱ makeȱ atonementȱ forȱ him,”ȱ i.e.,ȱ “inȱ orderȱ toȱ achieveȱ reconciliationȱ forȱ him”ȱ(wyl'[' rPek;l.;ȱevxila,sasqai peri. auvtou).ȱSoȱifȱtheȱAramaicȱoriginalȱalreaȬ dyȱ usedȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ Levȱ 1:3Ȭ4,ȱ theȱ Greekȱ translationȱ mightȱ alsoȱ pointȱ toȱ theseȱ verses,ȱ butȱ insteadȱ ofȱ usingȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ God’sȱ favorȱ (Hebrewȱ !Acr';; ȱ Aramaicȱ aw[rl,ȱ l eraȆaw¬’),ȱ Gȱ usesȱ theȱ otherȱ characteristicȱ termȱ forȱ atonement:ȱ evxila,skomai,ȱ kipper.ȱ Thisȱ makesȱ perfectȱ sense.ȱ Theȱ sacrificeȱ ofȱ theȱ prayingȱ humanȱ beingsȱ shallȱ makeȱ atonement,ȱ achieveȱ reconciliation.ȱȱ Theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ nonȬculticȱ atonementȱ canȱ alsoȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ Benȱ Sira:ȱ o` timw/n pate,ra evxila,sketai a`marti,ajȱ(“Thoseȱwhoȱhonorȱtheirȱfatherȱatoneȱ forȱ sins”;ȱ Sirȱ 3:3);ȱ or:ȱ pu/r flogizo,menon avposbe,sei u[dwr kai. evlehmosu,nh evxila,setai a`marti,aj (“Asȱ waterȱ extinguishesȱ aȱ blazingȱ fire,ȱ soȱ almsgiȬ vingȱatonesȱforȱsin”;ȱSirȱ3:30).ȱThusȱtheȱconceptȱtoȱtransformȱtheȱbasicȱ ideaȱofȱatonementȱbyȱanimalȱsacrificesȱtoȱanȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱritualȱ withoutȱ bloodshedȱ thatȱ isȱ stillȱ efficaciousȱ (butȱ inȱ aȱ differentȱ manner)ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Danȱ3:46Ȭ50LXX/Th.”ȱ VANȱ HENTEN,ȱDanielȱ3ȱandȱ6,ȱ157Ȭ158.ȱOneȱmustȱalsoȱpointȱtoȱ Wisdomȱ3:6:ȱGodȱtriedȱtheȱrighteousȱasȱgoldȱinȱtheȱfurnaceȱandȱreceivedȱthemȱasȱaȱ burntȱofferingȱ(w`j o`loka,rpwma qusi,aj);ȱseeȱSCHENKER,ȱSacrifice,ȱ351Ȭ353.ȱ 28ȱȱ SeeȱMOORE,ȱDaniel,ȱ59;ȱKOCH,ȱMärtyrertod,ȱ74;ȱBEYERLE,ȱGottesvorstellungen,ȱ177.ȱ

52ȱ

T.ȱHiekeȱ

beginsȱtoȱbecomeȱestablished.29ȱHowever,ȱBenȱSiraȱalsoȱknowsȱtheȱproȬ cessȱ ofȱ ritualȱ atonementȱ asȱ anȱ importantȱ taskȱ ofȱ theȱ priestsȱ (Sirȱ 45:16;ȱ 45:23),ȱwhileȱtheȱBookȱofȱLeviticusȱitselfȱalreadyȱisȱfamiliarȱwithȱaȱsubȬ stitutionȱ forȱ theȱ bloodȱ ofȱ anȱ animal.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Levȱ 5:11Ȭ13,ȱ poorȱ peopleȱ whoȱ cannotȱ affordȱ anȱ animalȱ (notȱ evenȱ aȱ pairȱ ofȱ doves)ȱ mayȱ bringȱ oneȬtenthȱ ofȱ anȱ ephahȱ ofȱ choiceȱ flourȱ instead,ȱ andȱ thisȱ offeringȱ willȱbeȱfullyȱacceptedȱasȱaȱvalidȱpurificationȱoffering.ȱ (2)ȱ Theȱ nextȱ problematicȱ wordingȱ isȱ theȱ prepositionalȱ phraseȱ o;pisqe,n sou:ȱ …ȱ makeȱ atonementȱ –ȱ behindȱ you/afterȱ you?30ȱ Thereȱ areȱ severalȱ suggestionsȱ forȱ emendation:ȱ (a)ȱTheȱ easiestȱ oneȱ isȱ toȱ assumeȱ aȱ misspelling:ȱ o;pisqe,n souȱ shouldȱ readȱ e;mprosqen sou,ȱ beforeȱ you.31ȱ (b)ȱAnotherȱideaȱwouldȱbeȱtoȱcorrectȱtheȱtextȱaccordingȱtoȱMalȱ1:9:ȱkai. nu/n evxila,skesqe to. pro,swpon tou/ qeou/ u`mw/n kai. deh,qhte auvtou/ …ȱ Andȱ nowȱ entreatȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ yourȱ God,ȱ andȱ makeȱ supplicationȱ toȱ himȱ …ȱ (c)ȱTheȱ prThȱ versionȱ (evktele,sai o;pisqe,n sou)ȱ “soundsȱ veryȱ muchȱ likeȱ aȱ veryȱ literalȱ Greekȱ renderingȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ idiomȱ mall¾’ȱ ’ah̙areyk¬,ȱ ‘toȱ whollyȱfollowȱyou’ȱ(cf.,ȱforȱexample,ȱNumȱ14:24;ȱDeutȱ1:36;ȱJoshȱ14:8);ȱ unfortunately,ȱhowever,ȱourȱGreekȱverbȱekteleçȱisȱneverȱusedȱinȱtheȱLXXȱ toȱrenderȱthisȱHebrewȱphrase.”32 Insteadȱofȱanȱemendation,ȱoneȱmayȱsuggestȱseriousȱconsiderationȱofȱ theȱideaȱofȱapproachingȱGodȱ“fromȱbehind.”ȱTheȱPrayerȱofȱAzariahȱisȱ dominatedȱ byȱ theȱ confessionȱ ofȱ sin;ȱ theȱ overallȱ feelingȱ ofȱ theȱ prayingȱ peopleȱisȱhumbleȱandȱlow.ȱBecauseȱofȱtheirȱsinȱandȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱlackȱ ofȱaȱproperȱplaceȱtoȱsacrificeȱforȱatonement,ȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱdareȱtoȱapproȬ achȱ Godȱ faceȱ toȱ face.ȱ Withoutȱ properȱ culticȱ provisionsȱ (seeȱ Leviticusȱ 16),ȱitȱisȱlethalȱforȱhumanȱbeingsȱtoȱapproachȱGodȱdirectlyȱ(see,ȱe.g.,ȱtheȱ storyȱofȱpoorȱUzzahȱinȱ2Samȱ6:6Ȭ8).ȱHence,ȱtheȱideaȱbehindȱo;pisqe,n souȱ mightȱ beȱ thatȱ oneȱ approachesȱ Godȱ “fromȱ behind,”ȱ becauseȱ theȱ atoneȬ mentȱviaȱtheȱselfȬsacrificeȱofȱtheȱmartyrsȱwasȱsoȱunusual.33ȱThisȱconceptȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 29ȱȱ

30ȱȱ

31ȱȱ 32ȱȱ

33ȱȱ

ThisȱholdsȱalsoȱtrueȱforȱtheȱQumranȱliterature;ȱsee,ȱe.g.,ȱ4Q174ȱfrg.ȱ1Ȭ3ȱcol.ȱi:ȱ„Andȱheȱ [God]ȱ commandedȱ toȱ buildȱ forȱ himselfȱ aȱ templeȱ ofȱ man,ȱ toȱ offerȱ himȱ inȱ it,ȱ beforeȱ him,ȱtheȱworksȱofȱthanksgiving.“ȱ KOCH,ȱMärtyrertod,ȱ74:ȱ“wobeiȱo;pisqe,n souȱnochȱniemandȱerklärenȱkonnte.”ȱSeeȱalsoȱ KOCH,ȱDeuterokanonischeȱZusätze,ȱ1:ȱ88;ȱ2:ȱ56;ȱSCHMITT,ȱTheodotionproblem,ȱ22,ȱn.ȱ 93.ȱ SeeȱKOCH,ȱDeuterokanonischeȱZusätze,ȱ2:ȱ56;ȱKOCH,ȱDaniel,ȱ321.ȱ MOORE,ȱAdditions,ȱ59.ȱSeeȱalsoȱGILBERT,ȱLaȱprièreȱd’Azarias,ȱ573.ȱGilbertȱtranslatesȱ prThȱ asȱ follows:ȱ “queȱ telȱ puisseȱ êtreȱ notreȱ sacrificeȱ devantȱ toiȱ aujourd’huiȱ etȱ pleinementȱ teȱ suivre…”ȱ (p.ȱ 562)ȱ andȱ assumesȱ aȱ referenceȱ toȱ Caleb,ȱ “whoȱ hasȱ folȬ lowedȱYahwehȱwholeheartedly”ȱ(Numȱ14,24;ȱDeutȱ1,36;ȱJosȱ14,8Ȭ9.14).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ MITTMANNȬRICHERT,ȱ Einführung,ȱ 132:ȱ Dieȱ durchȱ dasȱ Opferȱ gewirkteȱ VerȬ söhnungȱ „hinterȱ Gott“ȱ „zeugtȱ davon,ȱ daßȱ manȱ sichȱ derȱ Neuartigkeit,ȱ ja,ȱ eigentlichȱ

ȱ

AtonementȱinȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱAzariahȱ

53ȱ

resemblesȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ Mosesȱapproachesȱ theȱgloryȱ ofȱ Godȱ inȱ EȬ xodȱ 33:23.ȱ Heȱ isȱ hiddenȱ inȱ aȱ cleftȱ ofȱ theȱ rockȱ whileȱ theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ Godȱ passesȱby;ȱkai. avfelw/ th.n cei/ra kai. to,te o;yh| ta. ovpi,sw mou [yr"xoa]-ta,] to. de. pro,swpo,n mou ouvk ovfqh,setai, soi.ȱ“AndȱIȱwillȱremoveȱmyȱhand,ȱandȱthenȱ shallȱyouȱseeȱmyȱbackȱparts;ȱbutȱmyȱfaceȱshallȱnotȱappearȱtoȱyou.”ȱThisȱ meetingȱ betweenȱ Godȱ andȱ Mosesȱ isȱ aȱ veryȱ extraordinaryȱ one,ȱ andȱ itȱ happensȱafterȱtheȱgreatȱsinȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱwithȱtheȱGoldenȱCalf.ȱUnlikeȱ theȱmeetingȱatȱtheȱburningȱbushȱinȱExodȱ3Ȭ4,ȱMosesȱhereȱcannotȱcomȬ municateȱdirectlyȱwithȱGodȱ“faceȱtoȱface”—probablyȱdueȱtoȱtheȱdeteriȬ orationȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱGodȱandȱtheȱpeopleȱofȱIsraelȱbecauȬ seȱ ofȱ theȱ greatȱ sin.ȱ Thisȱ constellationȱ alsoȱ matchesȱ theȱ Prayerȱ ofȱ Azariah.ȱTheȱtextȱconfessesȱtheȱgreatȱsinȱofȱtheȱpeople,ȱandȱhenceȱitȱisȱ notȱpossibleȱtoȱfaceȱGodȱdirectlyȱinȱtheȱsanctuary.ȱTheȱhumbleȱsacrificeȱ ofȱ theȱ martyrsȱ mightȱ beȱ aȱ wayȱ toȱ comeȱ closeȱ toȱ Godȱ “fromȱ behind.”ȱ Thisȱ attitudeȱ alsoȱ suitsȱ theȱ nextȱ verseȱ (Danȱ 3:41),ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ prayerȱ explicitlyȱ statesȱ thatȱ “weȱ seekȱ yourȱ face”ȱ (zhtou/men to. pro,swpo,n sou).ȱ Theȱ phraseȱ impliesȱ thatȱ normalȱ contactȱ withȱ God’sȱ faceȱ (likeȱ inȱ theȱ usualȱritualȱatȱtheȱsanctuary)ȱisȱnotȱpossibleȱ(dueȱtoȱtheȱhistoricalȱsituaȬ tionȱandȱtheȱgreatȱsinsȱofȱtheȱpeople).ȱTheȱtermsȱo;pisqenȱ(Danȱ3:40)ȱandȱ ovpi,swȱ(Exodȱ33:23)ȱareȱconventionalȱtranslationsȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱrx;a;.ȱ (3)ȱTheȱ thirdȱ problemȱ isȱ theȱ additionalȱ phraseȱ inȱ G,ȱ kai. teleiw,sai o;pisqe,n sou.ȱUsuallyȱitȱisȱregardedȱasȱcorruptȱandȱhenceȱnotȱtranslated. 34ȱ HasȱitȱsomethingȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱprThȱversionȱ(evktele,sai o;pisqe,n sou)?ȱIfȱ oneȱ looksȱ atȱ theȱ concordance,ȱ anotherȱ possibilityȱ comesȱ toȱ mind:ȱ Theȱ verbȱteleio,wȱisȱusedȱtogetherȱwithȱta.j cei/rajȱasȱtheȱverbatimȱtranslationȱ ofȱtheȱHebrewȱidiomȱdy alm,ȱ“fillȱtheȱhand(s)ȱ(ofȱsomebody),”ȱwhichȱisȱ theȱtechnicalȱexpressionȱforȱconsecratingȱ(ordaining)ȱaȱpriest.ȱTheȱclasȬ sicȱ passage,ȱ Exodȱ 29:9,ȱ reads:ȱ kai. zw,seij auvtou.j tai/j zw,naij kai. periqh,seij auvtoi/j ta.j kida,reij kai. e;stai auvtoi/j i`eratei,a evmoi. eivj to.n aivw/na kai. teleiw,seij ta.j cei/raj Aarwn [!roh]a;-dy: t'aLemiW]ȱ kai. ta.j cei/raj tw/n ui`w/n auvtou/ (“andȱ youȱ shallȱ girdȱ themȱ withȱ sashesȱ andȱ tieȱ headdressesȱ onȱ them;ȱandȱtheȱpriesthoodȱshallȱbeȱtheirsȱbyȱaȱperpetualȱordinance.ȱYouȱ shallȱthenȱordainȱAaronȱandȱhisȱsons”).ȱItȱisȱtheȱtaskȱofȱtheȱconsecratedȱ priestȱtoȱbringȱbloodȱfromȱtheȱsacrificedȱbullȱintoȱtheȱsanctuaryȱinȱorderȱ toȱ achieveȱ reconciliationȱ (kipper):ȱ kai. labw.n o` i`ereu.j o` cristo.j o` teteleiwme,noj ta.j cei/raj avpo. tou/ ai[matoj tou/ mo,scou kai. eivsoi,sei auvto. evpi. th.n skhnh.n tou/ marturi,ou (“Theȱanointedȱpriest,ȱwhoȱhasȱhadȱhisȱhandsȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ derȱ Unmöglichkeitȱ einerȱ menschlichȱ dargebotenenȱ Sühneleistungȱ unabhängigȱ vomȱ TempelȱalsȱderȱgottgegebenenȱSühnestätteȱbewußtȱwar.“ȱ 34ȱȱ SeeȱSCHMITT,ȱTheodotionproblem,ȱ22,ȱn.ȱ93:ȱMsȱ88ȱandȱSyhȱputȱtheseȱwordsȱbetweenȱ obelosȱandȱmetobelos.ȱȱ

54ȱ

T.ȱHiekeȱ

validated,ȱshallȱtakeȱsomeȱofȱtheȱbloodȱofȱtheȱbullȱandȱbringȱitȱintoȱtheȱ tentȱofȱmeeting”;ȱLevȱ4:5).ȱ Theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ consecratingȱ priestsȱ wouldȱ fitȱ veryȱ wellȱ inȱ theȱ culticȱ contextȱofȱDanȱ3:40.ȱIfȱtheȱmartyrdomȱofȱtheȱrighteousȱmenȱstandsȱforȱaȱ sacrifice,ȱ aȱ priestȱ whoȱ offersȱ theȱ sacrificeȱ isȱ stillȱ missing.ȱ Maybeȱ theȱ PrayerȱofȱAzariahȱaddsȱtoȱtheȱideaȱofȱatonementȱtheȱconceptȱofȱconsecȬ rationȱofȱpriests.ȱTheȱwillingnessȱofȱtheȱmenȱdoesȱnotȱonlyȱmakeȱthemȱ fitȱforȱaȱvalidȱsacrifice,ȱbutȱitȱalsoȱconsecratesȱthemȱasȱpriests.ȱHowever,ȱ sinceȱthisȱconceptȱsoundsȱveryȱbold,ȱitȱisȱexpressedȱonlyȱfragmentarily:ȱ Theȱmentioningȱofȱtheȱhandsȱisȱmissing,ȱandȱtheyȱagainȱdoȱnotȱapproȬ achȱ Godȱ faceȬtoȬface,ȱ butȱ “fromȱ behind.”ȱ Theȱ phraseȱ kai. teleiw,sai o;pisqe,n souȱcouldȱalsoȱstandȱforȱtheȱcompletionȱandȱendingȱofȱtheȱliturȬ gicalȱservice,ȱwhichȱisȱinȱmindȱhere.ȱAȱsimilarȱwordingȱisȱusedȱinȱBenȱ SiraȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱpraiseȱofȱtheȱhighȱpriestȱSimonȱsonȱofȱOnias:ȱkai. evdeh,qh o` lao.j kuri,ou u`yi,stou evn proseuch/| kate,nanti evleh,monoj e[wj suntelesqh/| ko,smoj kuri,ou kai. th.n leitourgi,an auvtou/ evtelei,wsanȱȱ(“Andȱtheȱ peopleȱofȱtheȱLordȱMostȱHighȱofferedȱtheirȱprayersȱbeforeȱtheȱMercifulȱ One,ȱ untilȱ theȱ orderȱ ofȱ worshipȱ ofȱ theȱ Lordȱ wasȱ ended,ȱ andȱ theyȱ completedȱ hisȱ ritual”;ȱ Sirȱ 50:19).ȱ However,ȱ theȱ verbalȱ formȱ inȱ Danȱ 3:40Gȱ (thirdȱ personȱ singularȱ active),ȱ whichȱ needsȱ aȱ singularȱ subject,ȱ doesȱnotȱfitȱintoȱtheȱconceptȱofȱ“endingȱ(aȱceremony).”ȱ(ForȱaȱfullȱtransȬ lationȱorȱparaphraseȱofȱDanȱ3:40Gȱseeȱtheȱconclusion.)ȱ UlrikeȱMittmannȬRichertȱ underscoresȱ thatȱ theȱ twoȱ problematicȱ ocȬ currencesȱ ofȱ o;pisqe,n sou,ȱ i.e.,ȱ theȱ atonementȱ “behindȱ God/afterȱ God,”ȱ indicateȱ thatȱ theȱ writerȱ wasȱ wellȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ atonementȱ byȱ humanȱselfȬsacrificeȱindependentlyȱofȱtheȱtempleȱasȱGod’sȱchosenȱplaceȱ forȱ reconciliationȱ isȱ somethingȱ impossible.ȱ Thereforeȱ theȱ humanȱ workȱ isȱplacedȱbehindȱorȱafterȱtheȱdivineȱwillȱforȱatonement,ȱforgivenessȱandȱ reconciliation.ȱ Butȱ nevertheless,ȱ thisȱ interpretationȱ alsoȱ confirmsȱ thatȱ theȱ basicȱ ideaȱ behindȱ Danȱ 3:40Gȱ consistsȱ ofȱ aȱ realȱ selfȬsacrificeȱ ofȱ huȬ manȱbeingsȱasȱanȱextraordinaryȱsubstituteȱforȱtheȱanimalȱsacrifice:ȱ“Dieȱ ungewöhnlichȱ starkeȱ Betonungȱ derȱ Vorordnungȱ desȱ göttlichenȱ VerȬ söhnungswillensȱ vorȱ dieȱ menschlicheȱ Sühneleistungȱ istȱ einȱ deutlichesȱ Indizȱ dafür,ȱ daßȱ dieȱ dingliche,ȱ aufȱ dieȱ menschlicheȱ Lebenshingabeȱ zielendeȱOpfervorstellungȱdenȱursprünglichenȱTextsinnȱbezeichnetȱundȱ nichtȱdieȱspiritualisierte.”ȱ35 ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 35ȱȱ

SeeȱMITTMANNȬRICHERT,ȱEinführung,ȱ132.ȱHAAG,ȱSühnopfer,ȱ211,ȱfollowsȱMittmannȬ Richert’sȱinterpretationȱofȱo;pisqe,n sou.ȱHeȱreadsȱtheȱphraseȱinȱregardȱofȱtime:ȱ“afterȱ you”ȱ orȱ “followingȱ you.”ȱ Theȱ sacrificeȱ ofȱ theȱ righteousȱ menȱ followsȱ theȱ atonementȱ whichȱ wasȱ alreadyȱ madeȱ byȱ Godȱ inȱ theȱ revelationȱ ofȱ God’sȱ planȱ forȱ history;ȱ withȱ theirȱsacrificeȱtheyȱwantȱtoȱachieveȱtheȱcompletionȱofȱGod’sȱeschatologicalȱplan.ȱ

ȱ

AtonementȱinȱtheȱPrayerȱofȱAzariahȱ

55ȱ

HypothesesȱaboutȱtheȱOriginȱofȱtheȱGreekȱText(s)ȱ Theȱ possibleȱ originȱ ofȱ theȱ differentȱ versionsȱ mayȱ beȱ reconstructedȱ hypotheticallyȱasȱfollows:ȱThereȱisȱnoȱproofȱofȱwhetherȱtheȱoriginalȱtextȱ wasȱwrittenȱinȱHebrew,ȱinȱAramaic,ȱorȱinȱGreek,ȱalthoughȱthereȱisȱsomeȱ probabilityȱthatȱtheȱGreekȱgoesȱbackȱtoȱaȱSemiticȱVorlage.ȱTheȱonlyȱexȬ tantȱ Semiticȱ versionȱ isȱ theȱ Aramaicȱ textȱ ofȱ Jerahmeel,ȱ andȱ Kochȱ assuȬ mesȱ thatȱ theȱ correctedȱ Aramaicȱ versionȱ (Ar)ȱ isȱ theȱ oldestȱ stageȱ ofȱ allȱ extantȱ variations.ȱ However,ȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ heȱ reversesȱ theȱ usualȱ textȬ criticalȱ argumentȱ ofȱ theȱ lectioȱ difficilior,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ Aramaicȱ textȱ ofȱ hisȱ reconstructionȱisȱmuchȱeasierȱtoȱunderstandȱthanȱtheȱGreekȱtext(s).ȱ (1)ȱTheȱbasicȱideaȱofȱtheȱtextȱlinksȱwithȱtheȱTorahȱandȱitsȱconceptȱofȱ sacrifice,ȱbutȱsinceȱthereȱisȱnoȱproperȱplaceȱforȱaȱsacrificeȱofȱanimals,ȱtheȱ martyrdomȱofȱtheȱrighteousȱmenȱtakesȱtheȱplaceȱofȱtheseȱsacrificesȱandȱ makesȱatonementȱinȱorderȱtoȱgainȱGod’sȱfavor.ȱȱ (2)ȱTheȱGreekȱtextȱ(or:ȱtranslation)ȱ(Gr*ȱasȱtheȱbasisȱforȱbothȱGȱandȱ prTh)ȱdidȱnotȱuseȱtheȱideaȱofȱ“God’sȱfavor,”ȱbutȱratherȱtheȱconceptȱofȱ atonement:ȱ evxila,skomai “achieveȱ reconciliation”ȱ asȱ technicalȱ termȱ forȱ Hebrewȱ rpk,ȱ kipper.ȱ Whileȱ theȱ Aramaicȱ textȱ mentionsȱ aȱ “slaughtering”ȱ (axbyd,ȱdibh̙¬’),ȱtheȱGreekȱcallsȱitȱaȱritualȱsacrificeȱ(h` qusi,a).ȱMaybeȱalreaȬ dyȱatȱthisȱstageȱtheȱideaȱofȱconsecratingȱtheȱmenȱasȱpriestsȱthroughȱtheirȱ martyrdomȱ(teleiw,sai [ta.j cei/raj])ȱwasȱaddedȱ(alternativelyȱtheȱSeptuȬ agintȱ versionȱ [G]ȱ addedȱ it).ȱ Byȱ analogyȱ toȱ Moses’ȱ meetingȱ withȱ Godȱ afterȱtheȱgreatȱsinȱofȱtheȱGoldenȱCalfȱinȱExodȱ33:23,ȱtheyȱapproachȱGodȱ notȱfromȱtheȱfront,ȱbutȱfromȱbehind—theȱmartyrs’ȱsacrificeȱmakesȱatoȬ nementȱo;pisqe,n sou.ȱ (3)ȱTheȱSeptuagintȱ(G)ȱpreservedȱtheȱOldȱGreekȱ(Gr*),ȱbutȱforȱprotoȬ Theodotionȱ(prTh)ȱtheȱideaȱofȱatonementȱthroughȱmartyrdomȱwasȱtooȱ difficultȱ orȱ simplyȱ notȱ understandable.ȱ Hence,ȱ theȱ textȱ wasȱ paraȬ phrasedȱ differently,ȱ perhapsȱ influencedȱ byȱ theȱ hardlyȱ understandableȱ phraseȱteleiw,sai o;pisqe,n souȱand/orȱtheȱHebrewȱidiomȱmall¾’ȱ’ah̙areyk¬,ȱ ‘toȱ whollyȱ followȱ you’ȱ (seeȱ above).ȱ Thus,ȱ prThȱ introducesȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ “perfection”ȱ orȱ “completion,”ȱ “andȱ mayȱ weȱ unreservedlyȱ followȱ you”ȱ(NRSV)ȱorȱ“andȱbeȱcompleteȱafterȱyou”.36 (4)ȱTheȱSyriacȱversionȱomitsȱtheȱideaȱofȱatonementȱcompletelyȱandȱ doublesȱ theȱ followingȱ phrase:ȱ “andȱ letȱ notȱ yourȱ servantsȱ beȱ ashaȬ med.”37

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 36ȱȱ 37ȱȱ

MOORE,ȱAdditions,ȱ55.ȱ SeeȱCOLLINS,ȱDaniel,ȱ195Ȭ196;ȱKOCH,ȱDaniel,ȱ321.ȱ

56ȱ

T.ȱHiekeȱ

3.ȱConclusionsȱ TheȱPrayerȱofȱAzariahȱinȱitsȱAramaicȱandȱGreekȱversionsȱ(withȱevxila,sai;ȱ i.e.,ȱDanȱ3:40G)ȱpromotesȱtheȱideaȱthatȱtheȱselfȬsacrificeȱandȱmartyrdomȱ ofȱtheȱrighteousȱmenȱmayȱfunctionȱasȱaȱvalidȱsacrificeȱinȱorderȱtoȱmakeȱ atonementȱ(achieveȱreconciliation;ȱHebrewȱkipper)ȱbefore,ȱor,ȱasȱGȱsays,ȱ “behind”ȱGodȱforȱallȱtheȱsinsȱofȱtheȱpeople.ȱTheȱrighteousȱmen,ȱsentenȬ cedȱtoȱdeath,ȱofferȱtheirȱlifeȱasȱatonement,ȱsinceȱmartyrdomȱtranscendsȱ everyȱconventionalȱsacrifice.ȱTherebyȱtheyȱtryȱtoȱreceiveȱGod’sȱfavorȱforȱ aȱhappyȱfutureȱforȱallȱthoseȱwhoȱtrustȱinȱGod.38 Theȱ Greekȱ versionsȱ areȱ difficultȱ toȱ understand.ȱ Theȱ prThȱ versionȱ seemsȱtoȱspiritualizeȱtheȱideaȱofȱsacrificeȱandȱplayȱdownȱtheȱconceptȱofȱ atonement.ȱ Itȱ speaksȱ ofȱ aȱ completeȱ (orȱ perfect?)ȱ sacrificeȱ beforeȱ theȱ Lord.ȱTheȱSeptuagintȱversionȱ(G)ȱwhichȱisȱperhapsȱcloserȱtoȱtheȱoriginalȱ Greekȱtextȱ(Gr*)ȱemploysȱtermsȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱreadȱasȱhiddenȱallusionsȱ toȱculticȱandȱritualȱconceptsȱofȱExodusȱandȱLeviticus.ȱIfȱtheȱreaderȱdaresȱ toȱ regardȱ theȱ problematicȱ termsȱ asȱ “abbreviations”ȱ andȱ toȱ fillȱ upȱ theȱ missingȱ partsȱ fromȱ theȱ alludedȱ passages,ȱ aȱ veryȱ interestingȱ messageȱ emerges.ȱ Theȱ resultȱ canȱ beȱ illustratedȱ byȱ theȱ followingȱ paraphrasingȱ translation:ȱ ȱ Paraphraseȱ(Gȱ