Download Free Septuagint Esther Alpha Version Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Septuagint Esther Alpha Version and write the review.

The Vetus Latina is a collection of Latin language translations of the ancient Israelite texts, mainly based on the Greek language Septuagint translation. Not all of the Vetus Latina books were translated from the Septuagint though, as some were translated from versions of the ancient texts that do not otherwise survive to the present. The Vetus Latina’s version of Esther is one of the books not translated from either the Septuagint or proto-Masoretic versions of Esther, and therefore, is the fourth primary source for the Book of Esther. The Vetus Latina, which translates as ‘Old Latin,’ were the texts in use in the Latin-speaking regions of the Roman Empire, prior to the Orthodox Church ordering an official translation into Latin, which was created by Jerome, between 382 and 405 AD. The settling of the book is also an issue that has been debated over the centuries. The king in the story is called Artaxerxes in the Vaticanus and Vetus Latina versions, but Ahasuerus in the Masoretic and Alpha versions of the book. The name Ahasuerus is not the proper translation of Artaxerxes, but of Xerxes, and most modern scholars believe the classical translation of Artaxerxes was an error. There are many indicators in the story, that point to it being set in the era of Xerxes I, the first of which is the reference to him calling all the satraps (governors) of Persia to the capital of Susa in his third year. Both the Vaticanus and Masoretic versions of Esther agree that it was the third year, while the Vetus Latina reports it was in the twelfth year. As the years in the Vetus Latina are out of order, as the events in the seventh year follow the events of the twelfth, the chronology of the Vetus Latina is suspect, and therefore most scholars accept that the original year referenced by the author was regal year 3 of the king’s reign. In the case of Xerxes I, this was 483 BC, when Xerxes did call his satraps to Susa to plan the invasion of Greece.
There are two versions of the Book of Esther the various copies of the Septuagint, however, neither originated at the Library of Alexandria. The common version of Esther is found in almost all copies, while the rare version is only found in four know manuscripts, numbered as 19, 93, 108, and 319. This version follows the rare version, also known as the Alpha version, using the oldest surviving copy as a source text, the Septuagint manuscript 319, while also comparing the other surviving manuscripts: 19, 93, and 108 The Alpha Texts version only survives in a few copies of the Septuagint, and based on its dialect, it was translated somewhere in the Seleucid Empire. The Alpha version is probably the oldest of the four translations, as it includes several unique elements that appear to have disappeared in later translations. One of these unique elements is the use of the month name Adar-Nisan, which is then clarified in a scribal note as being Dystros-Xandicos. Dystros-Xandicos was not a month, but two months on the modified Macedonian calendar used by the Seleucid Empire. As the story is set in the Persian Empire, the calendar in use was either the Persian calendar, or the Babylonian calendar. The names are the same as the Hebrew calendar, which are themselves based on the Babylonian Calendar, suggesting that this was the calendar the author used.
There are two versions of the Book of Esther the various copies of the Septuagint, however, neither originated at the Library of Alexandria. The common version of Esther is found in almost all copies, while the rare version is only found in four know manuscripts, numbered as 19, 93, 108, and 319. This edition includes both the Septuagint's versions, using the oldest surviving copies as source texts, the Codex Vaticanus, and Septuagint manuscript 319. In addition to the two copies of the Book of Esther found in the Septuagint manuscripts, there are two additional surviving copies of the Book of Esther, one is found in the Masoretic Texts, while the other is found among the Vetus Latina manuscripts. The Masoretic Texts are the Hebrew translations of the ancient Israelite and Judahite books that form the core of the modern Tanakh which is used by Rabbinical Jews, while the Vetus Latina manuscripts are the Latin translations of the ancient books that were made before Jerome's official Latin translation of the Catholic/Orthodox Christian Bible, published circa 405 AD. Each of these texts is unique, however, all appear to derive from earlier Aramaic texts. Nevertheless, the postscript specifically mentions the translation being made in Jerusalem, which therefore implies that Judea was under the rule of the Ptolemy and Cleopatra in question, or else there was no reason to have referenced them. The Greeks in Egypt were already using the Egyptian Civil calendar, with Greek names substituted for Egyptian, and that calendar would have been referenced if a Greek scholar in Egypt had added the note. In the Seleucid Empire, a modified version of the Macedonian calendar was in use, however, this is also not mentioned in the Vaticanus version. The only one of the couples named Ptolemy and Cleopatra who did rule Judea was Cleopatra I Syra of the Seleucid Empire and her husband Ptolemy V of Egypt, meaning the Vaticanus version of Esther was most likely translated in the year 181 BC.
In addition to the two copies of the Book of Esther found in the Septuagint manuscripts, there are two additional surviving copies of the Book of Esther, one is found in the Masoretic texts, while the other is found among the Vetus Latina manuscripts. The Masoretic texts are the Hebrew translations of the ancient Israelite and Judahite books that form the core of the modern Tanakh which is used by Rabbinical Jews, while the Vetus Latina manuscripts are the Latin translations of the ancient books that were made before Jerome's official Latin translation of the Orthodox Christian Bible, published circa 405 AD. Each of these texts is unique, however, all appear to derive from earlier Aramaic texts. The oldest surviving physical copy of Esther is found in the Codex Vaticanus, which dates to circa 350 AD. The version of Esther in the Codex Vaticanus is generally accepted as being the original version added to the Septuagint sometime in the 2ⁿᵈ century BC, however, it claims to have not been translated in Alexandria, like the rest of the Septuagint. The next oldest version of Esther that survives is in the Leningrad Codex of the Masoretic Texts, with is dated to circa 1008 AD. This version is in Hebrew, and is the only one of the three copies that does not appear to have once been in Greek, and it is the only one of the three copies that does not mention God. This version was copied as part of the Masoretic Texts between the 7ᵗʰ and 10ᵗʰ centuries AD. With many Masoretic Texts, there are precursors found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, there are no known fragments of Esther found among the Dead Sea Scrolls to date. It is unclear where it originated, or why there is no reference to God in it. The Vetus Latina's version of Esther is one of the books not translated from either the Septuagint or proto-Masoretic versions of Esther, and therefore, is the fourth primary source for the Book of Esther. Dating the Vetus Latina is more difficult than the Septuagint, as it was the work of many individual translators over several centuries. The bulk of the work is believed to have been done between 330 BC and 50 AD by Judeans living within the expanding Roman Empire, however, around 50 AD the Latin-speaking Christians began using the texts as well. After Jerome translated the Vulgate bible, published in 405 AD, the Vetus Latina continued in use alongside the Vulgate in the Catholic countries until the 1300s. While the Vetus Latina is by nature a Latin translation of the ancient Israelite scriptures, the translations were generally made from existing Greek translations, and in the case of the Book of Esther, not from either the Vaticanus or Alpha versions.
The oldest surviving physical copy of Esther is found in the Codex Vaticanus, which dates to circa 350 AD. The version of Ether in the Codex Vaticanus is generally accepted as being the original version added to the Septuagint sometime in the 2ⁿᵈ century BC, however, it claims to have not been translated in Alexandria, like the rest of the Septuagint. There are two other early copies of the common version of Esther found in the Codex Vaticanus, the copy in the Codex Sinaiticus from circa 350 AD, Codex Alexandrinus from circa 450 AD. The term ‘king of the gods’ is found in chapter 4 of the Vaticanus version of Esther, however, does not make sense in the theology that developed in later Judaism, in which there was only one God, indicating the early date of the original composition. The title ‘king of the gods’ was used by Esther in the book, who use the title to refer to the god of the Israelite. While Esther was described as being the Queen (or royal consort) in the texts, she was also described as being a devote worshiped of the Israelite god, and ‘King of the gods’ was not a Zoroastrian title of Ahura Mazda either, as Zoroastrianism was also monotheistic, meaning that this title has to be traced back to the Israelite religion.
The Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of Jewish sacred writings) is of great importance in the history of both Judaism and Christianity. The first translation of the books of the Hebrew Bible (plus additions) into the common language of the ancient Mediterranean world made the Jewish scriptures accessible to many outside Judaism. Not only did the Septuagint become Holy Writ to Greek speaking Jews but it was also the Bible of the early Christian communities: the scripture they cited and the textual foundation of the early Christian movement. Translated from Hebrew (and Aramaic) originals in the two centuries before Jesus, the Septuagint provides important information about the history of the text of the Bible. For centuries, scholars have looked to the Septuagint for information about the nature of the text and of how passages and specific words were understood. For students of the Bible, the New Testament in particular, the study of the Septuagint's influence is a vital part of the history of interpretation. But until now, the Septuagint has not been available to English readers in a modern and accurate translation. The New English Translation of the Septuagint fills this gap.
This book is essentially a very exacting comparison between the Septuaginta translation of the Esther Scroll and its Hebrew text. Each and every verse in the Scroll is graphically presented in a four columned table in which we inserted the Hebrew text, broken up into syntactically coherent short phrases, its Greek counterpart and the English translations of the Hebrew and Greek phrases respectively. In the running commentary we discuss the additions and the omissions, examine how the Translator succeeded in rendering especially difficult and complicated Hebrew verses, and try to throw light on his language, his methods and his translational idiosyncrasies. We also quote the Vulgate, the Aramaic Targumim and the Greek A Text and, in most cases translate them too in English. The added value of this book is the synoptic graphic presentation of each verse which enables one to get an immediate impression of the two texts and their juxtaposition.
In the mid 3ʳᵈ century BC, King Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt ordered a translation of the ancient Hebrew scriptures for the Library of Alexandria, which resulted in the creation of the Septuagint. It is generally accepted that there were several versions of the ancient Hebrew and Samaritan scriptures before the translation of the Septuagint. The two books of Ezra were translated into Greek and added to the Septuagint before 200 BC when a large number of refugees fled the ongoing wars in Judea and settled in Egypt. The two books of Ezra were two different versions of the same basic story, one likely a Sadducee version, and the other a Pharisee text. 2ⁿᵈ Ezra became in the Masoretic Texts' version of Ezra, and by the year 100 AD, the Apocalypse of Ezra was in circulation as 3ʳᵈ Ezra. This has created some confusion among Biblical Translators throughout the centuries. This version of Ezra is called 1ˢᵗ Esdras (1ˢᵗ Ezra) in Orthodox Bibles and Protestant Bibles that include the Apocrypha, 3 Esdras in Catholic Bibles that include the Apocrypha, and Greek Ezra in the Ethiopian Bible. The Septuagint's 1ˢᵗ and 2ⁿᵈ Ezra are thematically similar, telling the generally same story, however from two different points of view. They tell the story of the fall of Jerusalem, first to the Egyptians, and then the Babylonians, followed by Babylon's fall to the Persians, following which the Judahites returned to Judah and rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem. 1ˢᵗ Ezra was clearly written from a non-spiritual viewpoint, common among the Sadducees, and repeatedly makes it clear that the author, Ezra, and various kings, viewed the Lord as the Judahite version of other gods, including the Egyptian creator and Sun-god Atum, and the Zoroastrian 'god of truth' and 'King of the Sky' Ahura Mazda. These views are inconsistent with the view of the Pharisees, which developed under the rule of the Hasmonean dynasty after Judea broke free from the rule of the Greeks, and the Lord became a separate god from all others. Both the Greek translations of 1ˢᵗ and 2ⁿᵈ Ezra, and the Hebrew translation of Ezra-Nehemiah (2ⁿᵈ Ezra), contain relics of an Aramaic source-text, unfortunately, the Aramaic Book of Ezra is lost. The difference in the surviving Aramaic words within the Greek 1ˢᵗ Ezra, and Hebrew Ezra-Nehemiah, it appears that the two versions of Ezra already existed in the Aramaic versions. 1ˢᵗ Ezra, the less spiritual of the two, clearly dates to the Persian era, as it treats the Judahite Lord of the Temple in Jerusalem as another version of Ahura Mazda, the Zoroastrian God. Several Zoroastrian titles of Ahura Mazda are applied to the Judahite Lord, including King of Truth, and King of the Sky. Letters from the Persian Kings Cyrus II, Artaxerxes I, and Darius II, as included in the book, all of which were closely associated with Zoroastrianism, yet, referred to the Judahite Lord using titles generally associated with Ahura Mazda. In the Greek 1ˢᵗ Ezra and 2ⁿᵈ Ezra, and the Hebrew Ezra-Nehemiah, the temple is described as being a Zoroastrian fire-temple, containing an eternal fire, which Nehemiah even referred to as burning naphtha, like the other fire-temples across the Persian Empire.
The Ba‘al Cycle, or Ba‘al Saga, is a collection of stories about Ba‘al Hadad, the supreme god of the Canaanite pantheon in the late bronze age. The Ugaritic Texts are ancient tablets that were recovered from archaeological digs at the ruins of Ugarit, a bronze-age city in northwest Syria, at the foot of the mountain Jebel Aqra on the modern Syrian-Turkish border. The Ba‘al Cycle is generally divided into several sections, based on the groupings of the tablets that were discovered, however, this series of translations is divided into just two sections, Victorious Ba‘al, and Ba‘al Defeats Mot. These divisions are always subjective. Some translators divide the central section regarding the building of Ba‘al’s Temple on Mount Zaphon from the preceding battle with Yam. Others also separate out the intermediate section involving Ba‘al’s discussion with Anat, however, this series is divided based on the apparent shift in source material between the early section and the later section. The earliest section appears to be a translation from ancient Egyptian and includes Egyptian loanwords, as well as numerous references to the houses of the gods, which seems to be a reference to the system of decans used in Egypt from the Old Kingdom onward, to tell time at night. The main section of Ba‘al Defeats Mot, appears to have been translated from an old Akkadian text that retold a Hurrian and Hattic story about two gods descending into the underworld. Many Akkadian, Hattic, and Hurrian loanwords are found in the later section, which are mostly missing from the earlier section, as well as the conclusion. The major exception being the messenger Ủgar, who was a Hurrian psychopomp, like the Canaanite Horon, and Greek Charon. As the city of Ugarit was named after him, this name clearly predates the text itself, and so it cannot be used to date the text. Nevertheless, does indicate that the city was originally a Hurrian settlement before becoming Semitic, which helps to explain why the older second section, appears to be a translation of an Akkadian retelling of a Hurrian story. Additionally, Luwian names are found in the second section, which places the origin of the Akkadian source text to sometime between when the Luwians settled in western Anatolia, generally dated to circa 2000 BC, and when the Hittites absorbed the Hattians around 1700 BC. As the text appears to have then been translated into Egyptian, before Ugaritic, it may trace the route the Hyksos took to Egypt, via the Luwian, Hattic, and Hurrian lands. The first section, Victorious Ba‘al, appears to be a later text, written after 1700 BC, when a massive series of earthquakes destroyed most of the Minoan cities and palaces. The earthquake marks the division between the Old Palace Period and the New Palace Period of Minoan architecture. At the time, there was a significant change in the sky, as the Bull stopped being the asterism that marked the northern vernal equinox, and the Ram replaced him. Unlike the Bull, the Ram was not on the ecliptic, the line in the sky that the sun and planets travel on relative to the earth, but above it. Below the ecliptic, and closer to it, was the Sea Monster, later called Cetus. The battle in the Victorious Ba‘al, was about the storm-god Hadad battling the sea-god Yam, to take over the kingship from the ram-god Attar, and appears to be about the struggle between these two gods to rule the earth after the bull god El had turned over his throne to the ram god Attar. That transition would have happened in circa 1700 BC, and so this text had to be written later than that.