• DOI:10.1086/369606
• Corpus ID: 170984856

Critical Notes on Esther

@article{HauptCriticalNO,
  title={Critical Notes on Esther},
  author={Paul M Haupt},
  journal={The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures},
  volume={24},
  pages={97 - 186}
}

• P. Haupt
• Published 1 January 1908
• Linguistics
• The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures

In the following nn. I have not attempted to give all the divergences exhibited by the Ancient Versions; as a rule, I have recorded only variations which throw some light on the iEIeb. text.* The ancient versions of E are so free and inaccurate (cy. e.g.nn. on3, t3. t4; 4,.zz.z4; 5, t3; 6, t; 7, 3.4) that it would be a waste of time to discuss all discrepancies. W'st and J'st theory that 6 is more original than y seems to me untenable (cy. e. g. nn. on 6, t; 7, 4; 8, 8). The fact that the text of 6 does not read like a translation from the Eeb. (cy. however qrevzv re?7, 6, t3)!1 iseasily explained by the popularity of E. As soon as a foreign book becomes popular, the translations become tnore idiomatic and free.§ If a French play is to be a success in America or England, it is impossible to present a