. . .the text of 1 Esdras lacks any reference
to the letter sent to Artaxerxes as having been written in Aramaic and
translated (presumably into Persian). Hypothetically, it could be that the
writer of 1 Esdras omitted these details both in the initial description of the
letter (Ezra 4:7) and in the king’s response (Ezra 4:18). The translator of 1
Esdras was, after all, writing in Greek and not in Hebrew and Aramaic, hence
such details could be easily skipped over. But upon careful consideration, the
situation does not seem to be so simple. To begin with, there are cases in the
Hebrew Scriptures in which the transition from Hebrew to Aramaic is not formally
marked (Gen 31:47; Jer 10:11) as it is in Ezra 4:7. Such comparative evidence
includes the book of Ezra itself. The transition from Aramaic to Hebrew in Ezra
6:18 is not explicitly designated. Similarly, the transition from Hebrew to
Aramaic pertaining to the Rescript of Artaxerxes is not formally marked (Ezar
7:12//1 Esd 8:9). Nor is the transition back from Aramaic to Hebrew (Ezra
7:26//1 Esd 8:24). This evidence indicates that the original transition from
Hebrew to Aramaic in Ezar 4 need not have been explicitly marked either.
Second, there is the case of the Assyrian
envoys sent by King Sennacherib speaking in “Judahite” (יהודית) to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. There,
both the MT and the LXX mention the request that they speak in “Aramaic” (MT
and L 2 Kgs 18:26//Isa 36:11). The fact that the LXX is a translation does not
lead the translators to omit this important detail found in their Vorlage. Third, in another case in which
the transition from Hebrew to Aramaic is explicitly marked (ארמית; Dan 2:4). The LXX to Dan 2:4 follows suit.
There is no discrepancy between the MT and the LXX in this instance. The same
is true for the transition back from Aramaic to Hebrew (Dan 7:28). In sum, the
comparative textual evidence cautions against assuming that the writers of 1
Esdras deliberately omitted this detail from their Vorlage. Rather, it stands to reason that the detail was lacking in
their source.
Finally, one could content that because 1
Esdras contains the proper names of the letter senders in Era 4:7-10 (“Beslemos,
Mithradates, Tabellios, Raoumos, Beelteemos, and Samsaios”), the writers of 1
Esdras must have had the full text of Ezra before them. In such a reconstruction,
the writers of 1 Esdras reproduced all the names found in their Vorlage but reduced the communications
sent by these dignitaries to the central Achaemenid court to one. But such a
scenario seems unlike. In most, albeit not all, cases of textual transmission,
a text tends to become longer and more complex over time, rather than shorter
and simpler over time. Given the likelihood that Ezra 4:6-11a contains one or
more expansions in its literary development [such argues in favour of the
priority of 1 Esdras]. (Deirdre N Fulton and Gary N. Knoppers, “Lower Criticism
and Higher Criticism: The Case of 1 Esdras,” in Lisbeth S. Fried, ed. Was 1 Esdras First? An Investigation into
the Priority and Nature of 1 Esdras [Ancient Israel and Its Literature 7; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2011], 11-29, here, pp. 25-26, comment in
square bracket added for clarification; for more on Ezra 4:6-11a, see pp. 26-28
)
