When Mordecai learned: Mordecai did not “learn” something literally as a schoolchild does. He “came to know” or “found out” (FOX) what had happened. The Hebrew is literally “he knew.”

Mordecai rent his clothes: tearing of clothing was a customary way of expressing great emotion such as anger, grief, and humiliation. In this context Mordecai’s emotion is probably “anguish” (Good News Translation) or mourning. It may be necessary to make explicit the reason why he tears his clothes, as Good News Translation has done.

Sackcloth and ashes were symbols of mourning and grief. They occur frequently in the Old Testament, accompanied by various actions. The action may be walking as here; often it is sitting (Jonah 3.6); and occasionally it is lying down (4.3 below). Sackcloth was a coarse cloth made out of goat hair or camel hair that was used for making bags or clothing (see Gen 37.34; 42.25; 2 Sam 3.31). Although it was not always a sack, some translations describe it as “sack-clothing,” that is, clothing made from cloth of sacks. In other languages it may be referred to as “mourning cloth.” Ashes were put on one’s head (see 2 Sam 13.19), and this is made explicit in some translations (Good News Translation, Bible en français courant).

He put on sackcloth and ashes uses the one verb for putting on clothing to refer to two different actions. However, in translation it may be necessary to use two distinct verbs that are appropriate to each gesture. For instance, it may be said, “he dressed [or, wrapped] himself in sackcloth,” and “he sprinkled [or, rubbed] ashes on his head.”

In some societies the meanings of these gestures may not be known. However, instead of making cultural adaptations in the translation, it is preferable to make the meaning clear in the context. For example, it could be said, “he dressed in sackcloth and sprinkled ashes on his head to show that he was sorrowing” or “that he was in great distress.” Another solution may be to use a footnote or a glossary entry to explain these Old Testament practices. In this way as much historical accuracy is retained in the translation as possible.

The midst of the city is not a specific location in the city. It indicates simply that Mordecai walked “through” the city (Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible), wailing or lamenting loudly and bitterly, or “with bitterness.” That Mordecai wept “with bitterness” means that he wept because of the intense misery that he experienced. The Hebrew idiom expresses not primarily a sense of anger but rather the sense of undergoing a severely unpleasant experience. In some languages this may be expressed with an idiom like “with sourness in his heart” or “with a darkened liver.” In other languages it may be better to avoid the figurative language of bitterness and say something like “crying loudly and very sadly” (New Century Version) or “crying out loudly with pain” (La Bible du Semeur).

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Noss, Philip A. A Handbook on Esther (The Hebrew Text). (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

In terms of order of events, this verse is quite complex. There are at least four levels of past time. The earliest event referred to is the guarding of the threshold by two of the king’s eunuchs. While they were guards, they plotted to kill the king. Mordecai reported the plot, and this was recorded in writing. That record was now read to the king. The translator needs to find the receptor language’s method of recalling previous events. In some languages it may be necessary to restructure the verse to make the sequence of events clear. However, it should not be necessary to expand or add greatly to the text. The focus in the original text is on the people, Mordecai and Bigthana and Teresh.

It was found written does not mean that they were looking for that information about Mordecai. Rather, in the reading they came to this incident concerning Mordecai. Although it may be understood that he “uncovered” a plot (so Good News Translation; see 2.22), the text here only says that he told about it.

On the king’s eunuchs, who guarded the threshold and to lay hands upon King Ahasuerus, see comments on 2.21.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Noss, Philip A. A Handbook on Esther (The Hebrew Text). (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The author describes the result of the proclamation with four words, all of which have very positive connotations. Revised Standard Version follows a literal approach to their translation, while Good News Translation is more interpretive. The translator will need to determine the meaning of each word and how the receptor will understand them.

Light is symbolic of prosperity and life (see Job 22.28; 30.26; Psa 27.1; 36.9). In many receptor language contexts, light will be understood in opposition to darkness. The fear of impending doom is gone, and the Jews find themselves in “lightness.” The words gladness and joy, which often occur together in the Old Testament, describe the emotions of the Jews (see verse 17). For gladness and joy many languages have words or idioms to express happiness that is revealed outwardly, and inner joy that is a deeper emotion. Though honor may also be an emotion experienced by the Jews as in Good News Translation, it possibly refers to the attitude of the non-Jewish population toward the Jews. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch reads “and they [the Jews in the city] enjoyed respect that people showed to them.” Good News Translation and Bible en français courant translate the Hebrew term rather freely as “a sense of victory” and “triumph,” assuming that the honor is the respect earned through victory. For honor the translator may have to choose between “praise” or “respect.” The latter is preferable.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Noss, Philip A. A Handbook on Esther (The Hebrew Text). (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

He sent letters: Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente supplies the implicit information that the decree was “translated,” that is, “The king had a decree prepared and sent it to every province, translated into the language of every people and written in the local script.” Translators may find this a helpful model in their own language.

All the royal provinces, that is, the 127 provinces (see 1.1).

Every province and every people: the Hebrew uses an idiom that is literally “to province and province … to people and people.” Many languages will have similar idioms that show that every province and people was included, one after the other, with none omitted.

In its own script … in its own language: in the vast Persian Empire, many languages were spoken. The main languages were various dialects of Persian, Elamite, Babylonian, Aramaic, Phoenician, Egyptian, and Greek; and each of these languages had a different script. Letters and other written documents were sent in the various languages spoken in the Empire, using the script of each language, that is, the letters were written in the “way [or, manner]” of each language (see also 3.12; 8.9).

The intention of the king’s decree was that every man be lord in his own house. Although most versions use a noun, to be lord, “master” (Good News Translation), or “ruler” (New International Version), some languages may prefer to follow the pattern of the Hebrew, which uses a participle, “ruling,” from the verb “to rule, to be master.” House may be translated as “home” (Good News Translation), “foyer,” or “concession,” depending on cultural context, making it clear that the authority of the husband is not to be exercised merely within the walls of a house, but rather within the social unit which is the family.

The words speak according to the language of his people present a problem both of text and of interpretation. The three words that appear in the Hebrew are absent from the Septuagint. New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Nueva Biblia Española, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch follow the Greek text in omitting these words. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project considers the reading of the Septuagint to be a scribal change of the Hebrew text in an attempt to make sense of a difficult text. Of those translations that follow the Hebrew, some translate literally, as Revised Standard Version and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, while others such as Good News Translation translate the supposed meaning. Probably the sense is that a husband should speak his mother tongue in his home, and not the language of his foreign wife (see Neh 13.23-24). This may mean that he should show his authority over his wife by imposing his language in the home (Bible en français courant: “impose the use of his maternal language there”; so also Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). However, according to Revised English Bible, the sense is not that the husband should show his authority by imposing his mother tongue, but rather that “each man, whatever language he spoke, should be master in his own home.” The translations of Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, An American Translation, and Anchor Bible are based on a slight change in the Hebrew text: “should speak whatever seemed proper to him.” The New English Bible translation rests on yet a different alteration of the Hebrew text: “and control all his own womenfolk.”

Hebrew Old Testament Text Project rejects translations based on changes in the Hebrew text with no support by any manuscripts. The recommendation of Hebrew Old Testament Text Project is that the words “and speaking according to the language of his people” be understood, not as part of the content of the king’s decree, but rather as stating the manner in which the king’s command is to be carried out by those officials who deliver the decree. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives a “B” evaluation to the Hebrew text, indicating some doubt as to whether this is the correct text (compare Septuagint and footnote in Traduction œcuménique de la Bible and Bible en français courant).

The diversity of interpretations and translations of these final three words makes it difficult to recommend any one of them, but either the solution followed by Bible en français courant or that proposed by Hebrew Old Testament Text Project seems preferable. The New International Version translation agrees with the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommendation: “He sent dispatches to all parts of his kingdom, to each province in its own script and to each people in its own language, proclaiming in each people’s tongue that every man should be ruler over his own household” (New International Version).

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Noss, Philip A. A Handbook on Esther (The Hebrew Text). (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Then: see comment on 2.2.

The king’s secretaries were summoned: though the verb “to call” is passive, it is possible that Haman is the implicit agent. Good News Translation makes this explicit: “Haman called the king’s secretaries.” The secretaries were probably scribes who were responsible for writing official correspondence. Here they wrote under Haman’s authority or according to his instructions. For secretaries it may be necessary to say “writers” or “writers of letters.”

On the first month see 3.7.

Edict: this is the first of three official edicts recorded in the book (see also 8.9; 9.14), but the text says simply that “it was written all as Haman commanded [or, ordered].” In verse 14 below, what was written will be specifically identified as a dat “law, edict” (see also 9.14).

The satraps, governors, and princes of all the peoples are mentioned in order of rank (see 1.1). The satraps were responsible for the large administrative units called “satrapies,” the governors ruled over the provinces, and the princes were ethnarchs or tribal chieftains.

In its own script … in its own language: see comments on 1.22. Script is the “symbols [marks]” used in writing or the “way” of writing of each people.

On the expression in the name of, see comments on 2.22.

On sealed with the king’s ring, see the comments on verse 10 above.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Noss, Philip A. A Handbook on Esther (The Hebrew Text). (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

As in verse 4, no time frame is provided. Probably all of the trips back and forth between Esther and Mordecai in verses 5-15 occurred in a short space of time, maybe even all on the same day. The Hebrew does not state how quickly all of this happened.

Like verse 6, this is a pivotal verse that shifts the scene back to Esther. The repetition of the names of Esther and Mordecai in the Hebrew (see also Revised Standard Version) is a way of keeping these two people in focus. Hathach is only a messenger carrying out his duty. Good News Translation shortens this verse considerably in order to avoid repetition. Such avoiding of repetition is characteristic of modern English style but may not be desirable in other languages, especially if it changes the emphasis of the text as it does here.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Noss, Philip A. A Handbook on Esther (The Hebrew Text). (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Esther’s response begins with the same conditions she set forth in 5.8 above. In the second part, her plea parallels the structure of the king’s double question and promise. Her petition is for her nefesh, life, her request is for her people. The word nefesh occurs frequently in the Old Testament with a range of meanings, “breath, soul, the seat of emotions, oneself.” In this context most versions say “life.” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible says “my own life,” and Chouraqui says “my being.” In many languages life is not an object to be given or taken. It may be necessary to restate Esther’s request to say “that I may [continue to] live” or “that I not be killed.”

At my petition means “in response to my petition” and may be translated “My petition is that you allow me to live.” At my petition and at my request may also be combined and translated as in Good News Translation.

The words and my people at my request are elliptical in Hebrew, that is, words are missing that must be supplied to complete the meaning. This is part of the poetic form of the story. Esther is not asking that her people be given to her, but that “the deliverance of” her people be granted to her. Revised English Bible restructures in prose form to make the meaning clear, but in doing so it loses dramatic impact: “what I ask is that my own life and the lives of my people be spared.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Noss, Philip A. A Handbook on Esther (The Hebrew Text). (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Many translators interpret the Hebrew to mean that the Jews of verses 5-10 were those living in the citadel and not in the city proper (so New Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible). Good News Translation‘s use of the words “got together again,” however, suggests incorrectly that in verse 15 it is the same people acting again who acted in 9.5-10. Good News Translation emphasizes this interpretation by saying “more people” and “But again,” although these adverbs do not occur in the original text. The final clause is an exact repetition in the Hebrew of the final clause of verse 10 (see above).

On the Good News Translation translation of three hundred men as “three hundred people” (also New Revised Standard Version), see comments on 9.6.

Plunder: see comment on verses 7-10 above.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Noss, Philip A. A Handbook on Esther (The Hebrew Text). (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .