The king rose: in some cultures the action of rising may signal judgment, but here it is the movement that will take the king out of the presence of Esther and Haman. Where the Hebrew style is sparse and elliptical, Good News Translation spells everything out. The Hebrew uses only one verb, “rose … into the garden,” while Good News Translation says “got up … left … went outside.” The translator should try to convey the anger of the king and his abrupt departure from the scene.

The feast is literally “the feast [or, banquet] of wine.” New Jerusalem Bible says “The king, in his fury, left the wine feast….” New International Version says “The king got up in a rage, left his wine and went out….” Neither Revised Standard Version nor Good News Translation translates the word “wine” here, perhaps assuming that it is not necessary, since verse 2 has already indicated that wine was being drunk at the banquet. Translators, however, are urged to follow the Hebrew here and retain this information in verse 7.

On the palace garden see comments on 1.5.

To beg his life (Revised Standard Version) or “to beg for his life” means “to beg the queen to save his life” (so Bible en français courant, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). In verse 3 above, Esther is pleading to the king for her nefesh, life; here Haman begs Esther for his nefesh, life.

Evil was determined against him: the Hebrew says raʿah “evil, calamity, wickedness,” which is interpreted by some to mean “fate” in this context (so New English Bible, New International Version). The author makes a play on words here. The same Hebrew word used here with reference to Haman was used by Esther when she described him in verse 6 (“This wicked Haman!”). Some languages may prefer to restructure the sentence and use an active verb, like New Jerusalem Bible, which says “he saw that the king had resolved to destroy him,” or Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, which says “upon realizing that the king had decided to condemn him to death.” Although there is an implication of punishment (compare Good News Translation), it is not punishment in a strictly legal sense, but more in the sense of vengeance. The emphasis in the following verses is not on Haman’s having broken a law but on the king’s anger over Haman’s actions. Gordis renders these words in idiomatic English as “he saw that his doom was sealed with the king.”

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 Hebrew word translated as villages in Revised Standard Version is actually a noun that refers to people who live in open settlements, that is, “villagers.” The very same Hebrew word is used with “towns” to mean open towns that have no protective walls around them: (Anchor Bible “Jewish villagers who are living in unwalled towns”; FOX “village Jews, living in unwalled towns”). A translation such as open towns (Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Gordis) will have no meaning in many languages. Though the words “small towns” correctly preserve one aspect of the meaning, they fail to preserve the cultural fact that larger towns were often surrounded by walls for protection, while smaller isolated villages were not. Revised English Bible correctly focuses on the aspect of being remote and isolated: “Jews in the countryside who live in remote villages” (similarly Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). Biblia Dios Habla Hoy preserves both the meaning that these were “small towns” and that they were unwalled: “the Jews who live in towns and villages that don’t have walls.” Another model may be “Jews who live in the rural areas in remote unprotected villages.”

A day for gladness and feasting and holiday-making: in this verse the special day is described as it had been previously (see 8.16, 17 above), although the descriptive features are reversed in order. However, the author does not merely repeat. He emphasizes the special nature of the day by providing an additional detail. It is also a “good day,” frequently translated as a “holiday,” a day when special gifts are given to one another.

The sending of choice portions to one another during festivals was a customary practice (see 1 Sam 1.4; Neh 8.10). The choice portions were portions of food. The same Hebrew word for choice portions is translated as “portion of food” in 2.9. In this context it may be best to follow Good News Translation, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, and New American Bible, which say “gifts of food.” The word “presents” as in New Jerusalem Bible and New International Version is too general and suggests gifts other than food.

One another: the Hebrew is literally “each to his fellow, his companion, his neighbor.” It may be translated “to one another, to each other,” or by a verb form that expresses reciprocal action.

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 presence of in Hebrew is literally “to the face of.” The meaning is that Memucan spoke “in front of” the king and his officials, or “to the king and his officials” (Good News Translation). Many languages have idioms similar to the Hebrew; for example, “in [to] the eyes of.” However, the translator must take care to avoid using an expression that suggests arrogance or defiance on the part of the speaker.

On the princes see comment on 1.3.

Memucan’s answer to the king is reported also in direct quotation form and takes the emphatic form, Not only … but also…, which is restructured in Good News Translation to maintain and clarify emphasis according to English style (similarly Bible en français courant). To avoid making a sentence that is long and overly complicated, the translator may prefer to divide it into two separate sentences as the New Century Version (New Century Version) has done: “He said, ‘Queen Vashti has not done wrong to the king alone. She has also done wrong to all the important men and all the people in the empire of King Xerxes.’ ” Each language will have its own preferred grammatical structures and emphatic expressions; for example, “Queen Vashti has done wrong toward the king. On the head of that, she has done wrong to all the big people and all the people in all the lands under King Ahasuerus!” In some languages the exclamation point will be represented by an emphatic particle. In translating this verse and the following verses, the translator must remember that Memucan is speaking in the presence of the king and the princes. Courtly protocol must be respected in the form of language used to translate Memucan’s words.

The word peoples is plural because the speaker is referring to all the different ethnic groups in the large Persian Empire. In the light of the following verses, which refer explicitly to husbands, the implicit meaning here is that the Queen has wronged “every man” (so Good News Translation and Bible en français courant). However, since Memucan is emphasizing the seriousness of the queen’s offense by referring to the entire kingdom, it will be better in the receptor language to use a general word for peoples in this verse, as in Revised Standard Version.

In all the provinces of King Ahasuerus refers to the 127 provinces mentioned in 1.1. Good News Translation shortens and combines information by omitting part of the author’s repetition of detail.

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 .

Disdained: the Hebrew verb expresses strong negative connotations, “to scorn, despise.” New Jerusalem Bible translates “he thought it beneath him merely to get rid of Mordecai.”

On to lay hands on someone, see 2.21.

They had made known: they here refers to the same persons who were identified as the king’s servants in verse 3 and who told Haman about Mordecai in verse 4. Revised Standard Version translates the Hebrew verb as a pluperfect, had made known, because it is obvious that Haman’s decision to destroy the Jews was taken after learning Mordecai’s identity. Although most languages can express previous action, some translators may wish to restructure the verse to show clearly the order of events, as Good News Translation has done.

In the second half of this verse, some interpreters change one vowel so that the people of Mordecai becomes “with Mordecai.” The translation will then be “Haman sought to destroy all the Jews with Mordecai,” but such a change really does not alter the meaning of the entire verse, nor is it necessary.

The Hebrew says the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus. This kingdom was “the whole Persian Empire” (Good News Translation).

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 queen prefaces her second invitation by two conditions instead of one as for the first invitation in 5.4. The first condition is personal, the second is formal (see comment on “If it pleases the king” in 1.19). This use of two conditions parallels the king’s use of two questions in verse 6. The style of Esther’s language is formal, as when she was before him in audience in verse 4.

There in verse 4 she invited the king to a banquet that she had prepared “for him.” Now, in verse 8, she invites the king and Haman to the banquet that she will prepare for them. In Good News Translation the second occurrence of the pronoun “you” in this verse should be understood as being plural.

The Hebrew says “let the king and Haman come to the banquet that I will prepare for them,” but most translations add the word “tomorrow,” as does the Septuagint (see footnote in Revised Standard Version). Since Esther has already given one banquet, Good News Translation also adds the word “another”: “tomorrow at another banquet.” Revised English Bible says “come again tomorrow.” Since the Hebrew does say at the end of this verse that Esther will do “tomorrow” as the king has said, there is good reason to expect that the time of the second banquet is “tomorrow,” and this information may be inserted earlier in the verse, as Revised Standard Version has done.

This delay in telling the king her wish is not intended to mean that she considers herself to be the king’s equal, nor is it a sign of disrespect. It serves rather to heighten the drama, and the king is apparently not troubled by the delay. According to the following verse, Haman went away “happy” (Good News Translation).

I will do as the king has said: Esther’s assurance that she will do as the king wishes is restated by Good News Translation to make explicit what Esther is promising to do. This is no doubt the meaning, but Revised Standard Version reflects the formal similarity of the text of Esther’s promise with that of the king’s promise in verses 3 and 6 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 .

This verse repeats elements of 3.12b-13a. It includes several expressions that have been used previously, together with several Persian technical terms. The literary effect is to emphasize the legitimacy of what is taking place and the rapidity with which it is carried out.

The verse is in two parts, the first focusing on The writing and the second on the letters. In the case of the first, it may be possible to restate and say “they wrote,” while the second can be “what was written” or “the [written] messages.” Moffatt‘s translation states explicitly that “Mordecai wrote,” but it is more likely that Mordecai “had the letters written” by secretaries (see verse 9 above).

On in the name of see comments on 2.22.

Sealed with the king’s ring: see the comments on 3.10.

Swift horses that were used in the king’s service, bred from the royal stud: the exact meaning of the Hebrew in this phrase is unclear, especially the word translated as stud in Revised Standard Version. The word translated as royal in Revised Standard Version is a word borrowed from the Persian language. The meaning seems to be “fast horses especially bred for the king” (New International Version). A possible translation may be “horses that run fast that were bred [or, born] in the king’s concession [or, compound].” Compare also New Century Version: “The messengers rode fast horses, which were raised just for the king.” Good News Translation also provides a good model here. The King James Version rendering of the last part of this verse, “and riders on mules, camels, and young dromedaries,” is widely rejected by contemporary scholarship.

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 command is maʾamar that was first used of the king’s command addressed to Queen Vashti (see comments 1.15). Now it is Queen Esther’s command that fixed (“imposed, enjoined”) the rules of Purim. Command is expressed by a verb that implies speaking the command, but the result was recorded in writing.

Practices of Purim is literally “the words of Purim.” New Jerusalem Bible says “observances,” while Good News Translation says “rules.” The translator will need to select an appropriate term to express the “matters” that relate to Purim, or the “way” of Purim.

It was recorded is a passive construction that may need to be restated; “they wrote it,” for example.

In writing is literally “in the book.” The Hebrew grammar seems to indicate a specific book (“in the book”; so Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, New American Bible). Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch says “in a special book.” With a slight change in the initial vowel, “in the book” becomes “in a book” or “in writing.” Many translations use an indefinite article: “in a book” (Bible en français courant) or “on a scroll” (Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible). Since the vowel in the Hebrew text is the equivalent of a definite article, the translation should indicate a definite book, that is, “the book” or, as in New International Version, “the records.” It is not clear what book this was, if a specific writing is intended. Probably the writer is not referring to the present book of Esther, though Segond reads “The story of Esther institutes the ritual of Purim; that’s why it is written in this book.” More probably the reference is to a book preserved by the Jews that contained the origins of the festival of Purim or an official record similar to the “Book of the Chronicles” (2.23; 6.1; 10.2). New International Version says “written down in the records.” Here in 9.32 some translations use the word “scroll” (Good News Translation and New Jerusalem Bible).

The Hebrew noun rendered writing in Revised Standard Version (also New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible) clearly refers to a scroll in many Old Testament passages, but it may also refer to writings in different forms and of various materials. In the Hebrew Old Testament a different noun is used more than forty times to refer to writing tablets. But as was noted in the comments on the Septuagint text of 9.20 (see ESG 9.20), it is possible that the form of the writing here consisted of clay tablets. Translators may choose to say either “book” (so New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant) or “scroll” (so Good News Translation and New Jerusalem Bible). In some languages there may be no specific word for “scroll,” so a general word such as “book” or “writing” will be used regardless of the decision regarding the original form of this writing.

Translators may wish to include a footnote similar to the following: “This is not the book of Esther, but without doubt another book preserved by the Jews at that time, but now lost, which tells the origins of the festival of Purim” (a similar footnote is given in Traduction œcuménique de la Bible).

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 subject of this verse is ambiguous. Most interpreters understand the subject to be either Mordecai or Kish. If it refers to Mordecai, then he was over one hundred years old at the time of the story, since the first deportation from Jerusalem took place in 597 B.C. Good News Translation restructures this verse and makes it clear that Mordecai was the one who was deported. New Jerusalem Bible retains the relative pronoun who in verse 6, but since the word who extends into verse 7 as the person who was rearing Esther, the antecedent of who is clearly Mordecai. Reina-Valera revisada is the same as New Jerusalem Bible in construction; that is, Mordecai must be the antecedent of the pronoun who.

It is possible to understand the subject to be Kish, the great-grandfather of Mordecai (according to one interpretation of verse 2.5). New Jerusalem Bible reads “[Kish] had been exiled from Jerusalem…” (so also New Revised Standard Version).

The New International Version study Bible suggests a third possibility. The names “Jair,” “Shimei,” and “Kish” refer not to immediate ancestors of Mordecai, but rather to remote ancestors in the tribe of Benjamin. But since Mordecai himself would have been over one hundred years old, the New International Version note takes this as an elliptical construction in the sense “whose family had been carried into exile.” The note in Traduction œcuménique de la Bible similarly states that Mordecai is a descendent of a family deported at the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch similarly says “Mordecai’s family.”

On both grammatical and exegetical grounds, it is most likely that the antecedent of the pronoun must be Mordecai and not Kish.

Captives: these are prisoners carried away by a victorious army. In Hebrew the words had been carried away and the captives have the same root. A rather literal translation of this verse reads “who had been exiled from Jerusalem in the exile that had been exiled with Jeconiah….” In some languages that construct verbs and nouns from the same word roots, it may be possible to describe the captives as “the carried-away-ones.” In other languages captives may be referred to as “war-prisoners” or even “war-slaves,” or by a paraphrased expression, “the people who were forcibly taken away.” According to 2 Kgs 24.14, ten thousand people were taken into exile by Nebuchadnezzar. The text here in Esther does not indicate whether many or few were taken as captives, but Biblia Dios Habla Hoy makes explicit that Nebuchadnezzar took “many” captives.

At the time of the Babylonian captivity, which began in 597 B.C., Jeconiah was king of Judah. The name of this king is spelled three different ways in the Old Testament: Coniah (Jer 22.24, 28; 37.1), Jeconiah (1 Chr 3.16), and Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 24.6-17; 2 Chr 36.8-9). Some common language translations use the name Jehoiachin in all places where this king is named, following the spelling of the historical books (so Good News Translation). Other translations that also use Jehoiachin, the better-known name from 2 Kings, indicate in a note that this is a variant of the name Jeconiah in the Hebrew (so New International Version). The translator should base decisions in cases like this on principles established for translation of the entire Old Testament.

Babylon: the region of Babylonia occupied the southern part of Mesopotamia in what is now the country of Iraq. Babylon was the capital city of the Babylonian empire. In the Hebrew Scriptures the name Babylon refers both to the city and to the region.

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 .