Which version of the book of Esther do you think is more accurate?

[NathanH83]

The Greek Septuagint version or the Hebrew version?

 

[Origen]

There are two Greek versions of Esther.

 

[NathanH83]

There are two Greek versions of Esther.

That doesn’t answer the question

 

[NathanH83]

There are two Greek versions of Esther.

What are the two Greek Septuagint versions of Esther?

 

[Origen]

What are the two Greek Septuagint versions of Esther?

That doesn’t answer the question either.

 

[Andrew]

 

[NathanH83]

That doesn’t answer the question either.

If you don’t have a response to the original post, then why bother commenting?
Go pester someone else.
And you haven’t shown that there’s two different versions of Esther in the Septuagint.

 

[Origen]

If you don’t have a response to the original post, then why bother commenting?

Because it is important that others reading this know the facts. It is important they have reliable and accurate information.

 

[NathanH83]

Because it is important that others reading this know the facts. It is important they have reliable and accurate information.

Then what are the two Septuagint versions of Esther?

 

[NathanH83]

There are very significant differences between the Greek Septuagint version of Esther and the Hebrew Masoretic version. The Septuagint even has whole entire extra chapters. I’d be interested in hearing other’s opinions on which version of Esther they deem more accurate.

Origen is mentioning some 3rd version of Esther (which he has not yet identified) in his attempt to sabotage the discussion and create confusion by veering the conversation away from its intended purpose and throw it into a tangent, by plunging it into some rabbit hole of a million irrelevant technicalities.

I don’t know when or if Origen will share what this 3rd version of Esther is.

But in the meantime, feel free to comment on the differences between the LXX and Masoretic versions of Esther.

 

[Andrew]

There are very significant differences between the Greek Septuagint version of Esther and the Hebrew Masoretic version. The Septuagint even has whole entire extra chapters. I’d be interested in hearing other’s opinions on which version of Esther they deem more accurate.

Origen is mentioning some 3rd version of Esther (which he has not yet identified) in his attempt to sabotage the discussion and create confusion by veering the conversation away from its intended purpose and throw it into a tangent, by plunging it into some rabbit hole of a million irrelevant technicalities.

I don’t know when or if Origen will share what this 3rd version of Esther is.

But in the meantime, feel free to comment on the differences between the LXX and Masoretic versions of Esther.

"The AT Version of Esther
The second Greek version of Esther is found in only four manuscripts dating from the
Medieval period.52 It is known by two names: L and the Alpha-Text (AT).53 The AT is the most
perplexing version of Esther, and its relationship to both the LXX version and the MT has long
puzzled scholars. Jobes notes that, “the total AT is, in spite of the additions, shorter than the MT
by about 20%.”54 The shocking difference in both length and material between the MT and the
AT has led many scholars to believe that the AT represents an altogether different textual
tradition of the book of Esther"

 

[Origen]

Origen is mentioning some 3rd version of Esther (which he has not yet identified) in his attempt to sabotage the discussion and create confusion by veering the conversation away from its intended purpose and throw it into a tangent, by plunging it into some rabbit hole of a million irrelevant technicalities.

It is very telling that you believe providing more information is sabotage.

 

[Andrew]

It is very telling that you believe proving more information is sabotage.

I don't believe he is talking about the medieval Esther, so there you go

 

[NathanH83]

One difference between the LXX Esther and the Masoretic is the LXX says that Esther married King Artaxerxes. But the Masoretic says king Ahasuerus.

 

[NathanH83]

It is very telling that you believe providing more information is sabotage.

It’s not just that you provide extra information. It’s the fact that you try to argue about technical details that are not exactly relevant to the original post.

I’m asking about the differences between the LXX and the Masoretic.

 

[NathanH83]

"The AT Version of Esther
The second Greek version of Esther is found in only four manuscripts dating from the
Medieval period.52 It is known by two names: L and the Alpha-Text (AT).53 The AT is the most
perplexing version of Esther, and its relationship to both the LXX version and the MT has long
puzzled scholars. Jobes notes that, “the total AT is, in spite of the additions, shorter than the MT
by about 20%.”54 The shocking difference in both length and material between the MT and the
AT has led many scholars to believe that the AT represents an altogether different textual
tradition of the book of Esther"

Is this version found in the Septuagint?

 

[Andrew]

Is this version found in the Septuagint?

Nope

 

[NathanH83]

Nope

That’s what I thought.