The Irrevocability of the Law according to theVersions of Daniel and Esther
In: TextusSearch for other papers by Jonathan Arulnathan Thambyrajah in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
The interpretation of the Masoretic editions of Esther and Daniel 6 has normally assumed that these texts claimed that the laws of the Persians and Medes were “irrevocable.” This paper studies the various ways in which the translations of Esther and Daniel handle this interpretative issue (Greek translations, namely the Old Greek and Theodotion for Daniel, and LXX and Alpha Text Esther; Vulgate and Vetus Latina; Peshitta; Coptic; Ethiopic; Georgian; Armenian). While these versions take a wide range of approaches to the problem, only Josephus’ paraphrase in Jewish Antiquities has the understanding that the laws were irrevocable. Other versions either have no concept of any irrevocability or assume that while others could not change the laws, the king himself was not bound in this way.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 159 | 159 | 8 |
| Full Text Views | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 20 | 20 | 1 |
The Irrevocability of the Law according to theVersions of Daniel and Esther
In: TextusSearch for other papers by Jonathan Arulnathan Thambyrajah in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
The interpretation of the Masoretic editions of Esther and Daniel 6 has normally assumed that these texts claimed that the laws of the Persians and Medes were “irrevocable.” This paper studies the various ways in which the translations of Esther and Daniel handle this interpretative issue (Greek translations, namely the Old Greek and Theodotion for Daniel, and LXX and Alpha Text Esther; Vulgate and Vetus Latina; Peshitta; Coptic; Ethiopic; Georgian; Armenian). While these versions take a wide range of approaches to the problem, only Josephus’ paraphrase in Jewish Antiquities has the understanding that the laws were irrevocable. Other versions either have no concept of any irrevocability or assume that while others could not change the laws, the king himself was not bound in this way.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 159 | 159 | 8 |
| Full Text Views | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 20 | 20 | 1 |
