Translation commentary on Esther 8:13   

In the Hebrew version the first half of this verse is identical to 3.14, but the second half makes a dramatic shift. In this instance it is not all peoples who are to be ready to kill, but the Jews who are to be ready to protect themselves.

On the word copy see the comment at 3.14. Decree translates the Hebrew dat, the standard term for “law” in the book of Esther (compare Good News Translation; see comment on 1.8).

By proclamation: see the comments on this same Hebrew term in 3.14.

To all peoples is translated as “to the people of every nationality” in New International Version, and “the people of every nation living in the kingdom” in New Century Version. Good News Translation simplifies too much by saying “everyone,” and loses some of the emphasis on the diverse nationalities.

The concept of vengeance (to avenge themselves) is sometimes difficult to translate. The basic meaning is to take retribution for a wrong committed, to repay an evil done to someone. In this instance the Jews have enemies who wish to harm them, and in this verse they are told that they can defend themselves when they are attacked. The translator may say “to pay back,” or there may be an appropriate idiom such as “to return hand to their enemies.”

Enemies: for comment on “enemy” see 3.10.

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 .

Translation commentary on Esther 1:1 - 1:2

In the days of Ahasuerus is literally “And it was in the days of Ahasuerus” (see King James Version). The Hebrew word wayyehi is a common opening expression that may serve as a link with a preceding book or with previous events. This same Hebrew word begins the historical books of Joshua, Judges, 1,2 Samuel, and the prophetic books of Ezekiel and Jonah. Translators may want to use a standard expression in the receptor language that is appropriate for introducing a story such as this, as the American Translation (An American Translation) has in English: “Now in the days of Xerxes….” The New Jerusalem Bible reads “It happened in the days of Ahasuerus…,” or they may want to use a sentence such as “The events here related happened in the days of Ahasuerus” (Revised English Bible; similarly Bible en français courant). Just as the book of Esther begins in a way that is typical of biblical histories, it also ends with a statement of the historical reliability of the story (see 10.2).

Ahasuerus is widely recognized today to be Xerxes I (485-464 B.C.), the son of Darius the Great, though some historians, along with the Septuagint and the first-century A.D. Jewish historian Josephus, consider Ahasuerus to be Artaxerxes (464-423 B.C.). Other modern historians identify Ahasuerus as Artaxerxes II (404-358 B.C.).

The Hebrew text refers to the king as Ahasuerus, from the Persian form of his name, and many translations transliterate this Hebrew form of the name (King James Version, Revised Standard Version, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). Others use the better-known Greek form of his name, Xerxes (Good News Translation, New International Version, Bible en français courant, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje). The translator may be advised to choose the name that is already known and accepted in local church circles. If there is no strong preference on the basis of church tradition, the translator should select the form that is consistent with principles established for the overall translation project.

Apparently the writer of Esther knew of more than one king named Ahasuerus, so after mentioning the king by name, he specifies which one was meant, by adding the Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethiopia. Some common language versions such as Good News Translation, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch have a stylistically smoother translation than the formal equivalence translation in Revised Standard Version, because they do not repeat the king’s name. However, the resulting translation both omits telling which king is meant and removes the focus on time expressed by in those days. An American Translation brings out these features of the text by adding the words “that is”: “Now in the days of Xerxes—that is, the Xerxes who reigned from India even to Ethiopia…,” and New Revised Standard Version adds the word “same”: “the same Ahasuerus who ruled over one hundred twenty-seven provinces.”

In verse 2 he is referred to literally as “the king Ahasuerus.” This is his title, which is stated in English as King Ahasuerus. Throughout the book of Esther he is referred to in this way (see comments on Vashti in verse 9). In translation it will be necessary to find an equivalent formal title.

Reigned from India to Ethiopia: he was king or ruler over a territory that included the land from western India to Upper Egypt. These were the eastern and western limits of the empire. Though nearly all translations say Ethiopia, this may be misleading because the modern state of Ethiopia does not correspond to the territory known as “Cush” in Hebrew. The biblical term included both Upper Egypt, that is, the southern part of modern Egypt, and part of modern Sudan. Therefore to call it “Sudan,” as the first edition of Good News Translation did, is not entirely accurate either.

Another solution may be to retain the biblical names, both Cush and India, and use a footnote to indicate that the northeastern corner of Africa is meant by the former, while the latter corresponds roughly to the area of India today. To avoid the footnote and the unknown word “Cush,” this phrase may also be translated “from India to regions of Africa beyond Egypt.”

Ahasuerus ruled over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces. Darius, the father of Ahasuerus, had organized his empire into twenty administrative units called satrapies. Rulers of the satrapies were called satraps and are mentioned in Esther 3.12; 8.9; 9.3 (see also Ezra 8.36). Provinces were smaller administrative units or subdivisions of the satrapies. In the Persian period Palestine was included in the satrapy called “Beyond the River” in Revised Standard Version and “West-of-Euphrates Province” in Good News Translation (see Ezra 4.10; 8.36).

Most translations write out the number one hundred and twenty-seven fully in words, but some, like Good News Translation, use digits (“127”). Translators will need to decide which numbers to write out in words and which numbers to write in digits. Higher numbers are sometimes written with digits to avoid writing very long words or complicated compound constructions. Decisions should be based on principles that relate to making reading as easy as possible. In English, for example, the practice is sometimes followed of using digits if the number consists of more than two words.

Provinces may be translated as “divisions of land” or “parts of kingdom” if no equivalent exists in the receptor language. Occasionally a borrowed term may be used on the basis of present-day political administration, but care must be taken not to imply that the structure of Persian government administration was the same as that of a modern state.

In those days: many rather literal translations such as Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente reflect the repetitive nature of the Hebrew text. The repetition serves to underline that the story which follows happened in those days. In translation the first verse may be restructured to introduce the time and setting of the story. A phrase referring to that time may then serve as a discourse element linking and introducing verse two, in which the king can be presented.

Sat on his royal throne: though the Hebrew says that the king “sat on the throne of his kingdom,” the meaning is that he was in residence at Susa, that is, he was living there (see comments on 5.1). He “occupied the royal throne” (New Jerusalem Bible); “was occupying” (New American Bible [New American Bible]) or “was settled on the royal throne” (Revised English Bible). Nueva Biblia Española says that he “was residing in the acropolis of Susa.”

When Xerxes succeeded his father Darius as king in 485, Egypt was in rebellion against the Persians. Shortly thereafter Babylon also rebelled against Persia. \La Bible du Semeur translates this verse in light of these events (“when the emperor Xerxes came to take his place on his royal throne”), and a corresponding note states that this statement refers to “his first coming to the citadel of Susa, after having put down rebellions in his empire caused by his ascension to the throne.” (See the Septuagint, which uses the verb “enthroned.”) Such a translation of the Hebrew text, however, is more specific than the information in the text itself permits.

In Susa the capital: Susa was the winter residence of the Persian kings, 320 kilometers (200 miles) northeast of Babylon. The Hebrew name is shushan. It was one of four Persian capitals. Since the identity of Susa is unknown to many modern readers, Good News Translation has made explicit that Susa was “Persia’s capital city.”

Neither the capital (Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation), nor “palace” (King James Version) is entirely accurate as a translation of the Hebrew. The capital will suggest a city itself to many readers, but since a distinction is made between the “palace” and the city that was also called Susa (3.15; 4.1, 6; 8.15), translators should not use a word or expression that will mean a city. “The palace” is also too limited as a translation, since another Hebrew expression (“house of the king”) is used to refer to the palace (see 2.8, 13).

Susa was an acropolis (Nueva Biblia Española), that is, a fortress. It covered about 120 hectares (300 acres) and overlooked the city of Susa, which was located to the east of the acropolis. The palace, covering about five hectares, was located within the acropolis. New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Bible en français courant, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible say “in the citadel of Susa”; New Jerusalem Bible has “in the fortress Shushan,” with a note explaining that this was the “fortified city.” Other translations have “in the stronghold of Susa” (New American Bible).

Translation commentary on Esther 2:9   

The maiden who pleased Hegai is Esther (see Good News Translation). The sense seems to be that Esther pleased Hegai more than the other virgins pleased him. Consistent with his style, the writer expresses the same idea two different ways, first saying that she was “pleasing [good] in his eyes,” and secondly that she “won favor [chesed] before him” (compare Dan 1.9). The first probably emphasizes the fact that Hegai liked her; the second, that he acted kindly toward her.

On her ointments see comments on 2.3.

Portion of food: literally “her portions,” which in this context means the food that was especially prepared for her (see also comments on 9.19). Good News Translation, using contemporary language, says “special diet” (compare Traduction œcuménique de la Bible: “her diet”). Another way of expressing this idea may be to say “her own food,” or perhaps “food cooked for her.”

Seven chosen maids: the number seven occurs frequently in the book of Esther (see comment on 1.5). The Hebrew says literally “with the seven maids selected to give to her from the king’s palace.” The presence of the definite article with seven maids may suggest that each of the virgins was assigned seven maids to care for her. If this interpretation is correct, then the addition of the word “specially” before the word “chosen” in Good News Translation is misleading (see also New Jerusalem Bible and Revised English Bible). The New Jerusalem Bible translation is preferable: “as well as with the seven maids who were her due from the king’s palace.”

The best place in the harem: literally “the good of the house of the women.” The meaning is most likely that they were given the best place to live. La Bible du Semeur says “the best apartment of the harem,” understanding the Hebrew as a reference to physical location within the building. Revised English Bible, however, says “favourable treatment in the women’s quarters,” taking the words as a reference to how Esther and her maids were treated (see comments on Septuagint at ESG 2.9). In many languages the superlative idea is expressed by implied exclusiveness; for example, “the very good one of the places of the women,” while in other languages it is stated explicitly, “the place that is the good one surpass all the other places of the women.”

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 .

Translation commentary on Esther 4:6   

This is a pivotal verse whose function is to shift the scene from Esther to Mordecai.

The open square was the open space that was located in front of the king’s palace. A technical term such as “city square” (Good News Translation) or “plaza” may be used, or a description such as “open area.”

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 .

Translation commentary on Esther 6:11   

This verse repeats much of verse 9 above, including the proclamation, which is repeated word-for-word. Repetition is a common stylistic feature of the book of Esther and should be retained in translation wherever possible.

As noted for 6.9, some interpreters understand the words and made him ride through to be incorrectly translated. They argue that the verb here as in verse 9 means “and he caused Mordecai to be mounted on the horse,” with no reference to moving through the city square. This interpretation is almost universally rejected in modern translations. The translator should follow the widely accepted interpretation, namely, that Haman “led” or “paraded” Mordecai through the city center.

Proclaiming: see comments for verse 9 above. It is important that the language and style of this announcement be appropriate in the context.

Thus shall it be done: see the comments on verse 9 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 .

Translation commentary on Esther 9:12   

And the king said introduces a new development in the narrative. It may be appropriate to indicate this by a major discourse marker in the receptor language; for example, “and then it happened that….” In many languages it will also be expected that a verb of motion will introduce the king’s speech; for example, “Then the king went [or, came] and said to Esther.” But the author does not indicate where or how this encounter between the king and queen took place.

On Susa the capital and five hundred men, see comments on 9.6. The words “in Susa the citadel” are in emphatic position in Hebrew. Good News Translation brings out this emphasis by adding the word “alone,” that is, “In Susa alone” (so also Anchor Bible and New Jerusalem Bible).

What then have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces!: was the king expressing astonishment or simply asking a question? Revised Standard Version‘s insertion of the word then into the translation of the Hebrew text and the use of an exclamation mark suggests that King Xerxes was appalled at what the Jews must have done in the rest of the countryside (so also New Jerusalem Bible). New Revised Standard Version is perhaps a better translation of the Hebrew: “What have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces?” (so New International Version also). Notice again the formal style of the king’s reference to himself.

What then…? Now what…? And what…?: it may be noted that the question “what” occurs three times in close succession in the king’s words to Esther. In the Hebrew text the “what” is even more striking, because in the king’s first question it occurs toward the end of the sentence, “… what have they done?” The second question follows immediately and begins with “And what…?” The third question follows in the same pattern, “And what…?” The translator should try to emphasize the questions as the Hebrew has done.

Revised Standard Version introduces the king’s requests for Esther’s petitions with an emphatic Now, which translates the Hebrew conjunction “and.” Good News Translation expresses the same implied contrast by placing “now” at the end of the first request. This contrast is made explicit in the second request by the Hebrew “again, further, yet.” The king here repeats his earlier double question and promise to Esther, except that this time he does not offer the half of his kingdom (see translation and comments on 5.6; 7.2).

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 .

Translation commentary on Esther 1:8   

This verse is difficult to interpret. The first part says that drinking was according to the law. This is the first occurrence of one of the terms used in the book for “law” or “command.” It is the Hebrew word dat translated law in Revised Standard Version. Probably this law was not an existing law about drinking but rather a rule that the king established for this banquet. In other contexts it may mean that, whenever the king drank, everyone drank, and such an interpretation receives support from ancient historians. But this interpretation contradicts the next part of the verse, no one was compelled, and therefore does not seem to fit this context.

One solution to this difficulty is to follow the Septuagint, which has a negative in the first half of this verse. Anchor Bible, for example, says “The drinking was not according to the law: no one was constrained.”

Another solution to this problem takes the verb compelled to mean “constrain” or “restrain.” The meaning is then that no one was limited in the amount he drank. Good News Translation so interprets this verse, expressing it in the form of a modern English idiom: “there were no limits on the drinks.” New American Bible states “By ordinance of the king the drinking was unstinted.” New Jerusalem Bible also follows this interpretation: “And the rule for the drinking was, ‘No restrictions!’ ” Other translations agree with Revised Standard Version: no one was compelled, that is, no one was forced to drink more than he wanted (Nueva Biblia Española, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). The New International Version translation (“each guest was allowed to drink in his own way”) is ambiguous, meaning either that no one was compelled or forced to drink, or that no one was limited in the amount he was allowed to drink. Translators should choose the interpretation that seems most probable to them in the context.

In some languages it is necessary to specify what was drunk. Here the context indicates that it was wine (see also 3.15; 4.16; 7.2).

Similarities in sound between the Hebrew words “drinking” mishte at the beginning of this verse and the name “Vashti” at the beginning of verse 9 may be an intentional wordplay to make a link between the banquet, or the drinking, and the misfortune that befalls Vashti.

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 .

Translation commentary on Esther 2:21   

A duplicate version of the incident recounted here in 2.21-23 occurs with some differences in the Septuagint at the beginning of the book of Esther (Addition A).

In those days refers to the time setting described in verse 19. Some languages will need to make the opening clause less ambiguous, perhaps using an expression similar to Good News Translation, “At the time that…,” or simply “When….”

Regarding the meaning and translation of sitting at the king’s gate, see comments on verse 19.

Bigthan and Teresh are mentioned again in 6.2.

On eunuchs see 1.10. These two eunuchs guarded the threshold, that is, they guarded the entrance to the king’s private living quarters in the palace. Bible en français courant and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente say that they guarded the entrance to “the royal apartments.” An equivalent expression may be “the sleeping place of the king.” The Greek states why the two guards became angry, but since the Hebrew does not, translators should not attempt to provide a reason here.

The words “to lay hands on someone” mean in this context “to kill someone” (see 3.6; Gen 37.22). Good News Translation and New Revised Standard Version both say “to assassinate,” a technical term referring to premeditated murder, usually of an important person. An idiom equivalent to “lay hands on” may be used, or the intent to kill the king may be stated explicitly.

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 .