The Alpha-Text of Esther: Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text

by Karen H. Jobes, Jobes

Book by Jobes, Karen H., Jobes

524 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Karen H. Jobes (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary) is Gerald F. Hawthorne Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois.

Reviews

[Nicholas Meriwether · Rating 5 out of 5]

You might not think reading a PhD dissertation about a syntactic-critical analysis of the Greek and Hebrew versions of Esther would be so interesting, but it is! Jobes processes an extremely large amount of data, and uses her detailed study to reinforce her conclusions. One of the biggest takeaways for Esther scholarship more broadly is that her data suggests that outside of the Greek additions to the LXX Esther and alpha-text of Esther, the Greek language is translational Greek. In other words, the LXX and AT were not based on a different underlying Hebrew text, nor were they entirely composed in Greek. Additionally, the Hebrew of the Masoretic text seems to be a reliable representative of that Hebrew underlying text. Talks of different Vorlage plague Esther scholarship, so Jobes' data driven analysis is a welcome addition.

[Fred Kohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is certainly the most thorough investigation of the Alpha text of Esther I have read to date. If one were to read just one book on the redaction of Esther, I would wholeheartedly recommend this one. A wonderful feature of this book is a parallel reading of the Alpha text along with the Masoretic text and the Septuagint text (also called the Beta text) in a lengthy appendix. That would make the book well worth having in one's personal library, but the only copy on Amazon is $800 (for a used paperback!) A copy of David J.A. Clines's English translation is also provided in an appendix.

Particularly interesting are the numerous statistical analyses Jobes applies to the A-text. She then compares her conclusions to the work of previous scholars. In a lengthy critique she examines the conclusions of Raymond Martin's 1974 study of Greek texts known to be translations of Hebrew vorlagen which uses statistical methods to determine if a Greek text is a translation. She determines that in some cases Martin's methods are valid but in others stylistic variation is a better explanation of the statistical data.

Jobes devotes a chapter to comparing her conclusions to those of three previous scholars: Emmanuel Tov, Clines, and Michael V. Fox. She differs with these scholars mainly in her conclusion that the Hebrew vorlage of the A-text probably did not differ radically from the Masoretic text, particularly in the later chapters. Although I appreciated having read Clines and Fox before reading this chapter, I suppose that one can appreciate these chapters without having read them. I reckon at some time in the future I will read Tov's study as well.