Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, and most other translations make Esther’s words in verse 8 below to be the content of the request begun in this verse. It is preferable, though, to understand the invitation to a second banquet in verse 8 as an interruption of the request and not the request itself. Thus La Bible Pléiade presents Esther’s words in this verse in the form of a suspended sentence, “My petition and my request is….” This same interpretation is also expressed in Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Segond, and New Jerusalem Bible. According to this interpretation Esther’s request is not that they come to a banquet again the next day. Rather Esther withholds her real request and tells the king that she will make the request the next day if he will return then for another dinner. Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente reflects the same interpretation but translates Esther’s words in the form of a question: “What thing will I ask?” Verse 8 is then not the statement of what she will ask but rather a request to delay her request until the next day (similarly Moffatt). Esther refers to her wish with the same two words the king used in verse 6.

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 8.9 is the longest verse in The Writings, the third major division of the Hebrew Bible. Good News Translation restructures the extended Hebrew sentence into three separate sentences. The first sentence specifies the time, the second explains what Mordecai did, and the third describes the letters. This verse is similar to 3.12, but it also repeats details from 1.1 and 1.22 (see 1.1, 22 and 3.12 for comments that need not be repeated here). The author’s use of repetition from earlier verses should be seen as a deliberate stylistic device. Therefore translators should not feel obliged to vary the style and the wording merely because something appears to be repetitive.

The writing of the edict by Mordecai took place on the twenty-third day of Sivan, that is, two months and ten days after Haman’s decree in 3.12-14. Sivan was the third month in the Babylonian calendar and corresponds to May–June (see the calendar illustration, page 97). This means that the events of 4.1–8.2 fit into a period of two months and ten days. Regarding the seventy-day period between the writing of the two decrees by Haman and Mordecai, the writer does not indicate that seventy has any special significance. Possibly he intended for the postexilic Jewish readers to see an allusion to the seventy years of exile (see Jer 25.11-12; 29.10), that is, Haman’s decree leads them into danger (the equivalent of exile), while Mordecai’s decree leads them out of danger.

The twenty-third day: for comment on writing numbers, see 1.1-2 above.

Although Revised Standard Version refers to an edict, the original text does not give a name to what was written. The text can also be translated “all that Mordecai said concerning the Jews was written….”

Concerning the Jews may be translated “to the Jews” (so Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, and most translations), as the end of the verse makes clear. However, some interpreters think that the end of the verse is redundant if the writer has already said at the beginning of the verse that the edict was written “to the Jews.” Translators may follow the interpretation used in the translation they have adopted as a base. The alternative may be put in a footnote.

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 order to focus on obligation, the Hebrew word translated “impose, enjoin, establish” is used three times in this summary of the institution of the Festival of Purim (see comments on verse 21). The letters were sent to (1) “impose [establish]” these days just as Mordecai and Esther had (2) “imposed” them on the Jews, and as the Jews had (3) “imposed” them on themselves (literally “on their own nefesh”) and their descendants. Although nefesh can mean many things, including “breath, soul, life, existence, person,” when it has a pronoun suffix as it does here, it refers to “self.” In this case it designates “themselves” (see 7.3 for comments on nefesh). In some languages this may be stated “upon their own bodies” or “upon their own heads.”

As noted on 9.21, the Hebrew word translated enjoined may be translated “confirmed.” FOX translates verse 31 as follows: “to confirm the observance of these days of Purim in their set times, just as Mordecai the Jew and Queen Esther had confirmed upon them, in the way that they confirm upon themselves and their descendants matters of fasting and the accompanying laments.” In other words, according to FOX, Esther and Mordecai did not write (verse 29) to the Jews with the purpose of commanding them to observe the feast of Purim; rather they wrote to confirm that it was right that the Jews should observe these days. While the Hebrew may be understood and translated in this manner, most translators agree with the interpretation found in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation.

Appointed seasons is in the plural, in contrast to the singular “appointed time” of verse 27 above. In this context it refers generally to time in terms of festival periods.

The words and Queen Esther are omitted by New English Bible and New Jerusalem Bible in keeping with their translation of verse 29, but there is no support for such an omission in the Hebrew manuscripts. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives an “A” evaluation to the Hebrew text here.

Fasts and lamenting: see comments on 4.3, 16. It is not clear how the words with regard to their fasts and their lamenting relate to the rest of this verse, since they are added with no grammatical connection. Several interpretations are given by commentators:

(1) The meaning seems to be that Jews are to fast and mourn during the celebration of Purim. It is not clear, however, whether it is in these letters referred to in verse 30 or in an earlier letter by Mordecai (see verses 20 and 23) that instructions about fasting and mourning are given. If the instructions were given in these letters, then New Century Version provides one model: “… Mordecai the Jew and Queen Esther had sent out the order for the Jews. They had set up for themselves and their descendants these two days. They set them up so the Jews would give up eating and cry loudly.” New Jerusalem Bible follows the same interpretation but with a slight difference, saying that Esther wrote to tell the Jews to observe these days of Purim at the appointed time “with additional ordinances of fasts and lamentations.”

(2) Others understand that Mordecai had previously given instructions about fasting and mourning in an earlier letter. Compare New Revised Standard Version (similarly Bible en français courant): “[Letters were sent] giving orders that these days of Purim should be observed at their appointed seasons, as the Jew Mordecai and Queen Esther enjoined on the Jews, just as they had laid down for themselves and for their descendants regulations concerning their fasts and their lamentations.” One problem with this interpretation is that nothing in Mordecai’s earlier letter (9.21-22) mentions fasting and mourning. It does seem, however, from 9.22 that the Jews at first did fast and mourn in celebrating Purim. So this letter may instruct them to continue doing as they did from the beginning and as Mordecai had told them to do. Perhaps this second interpretation is the best of the three listed here.

(3) A third interpretation is that the Jews are to begin observing the days of Purim, just as they have already been observing other religious festivals during which they fasted and mourned (see, for example, Zech 7.5; 8.19). This interpretation seems to be the basis for the New Jerusalem Bible translation: “These days of Purim shall be observed at their proper time, as Mordecai the Jew—and now Queen Esther—has obligated them to do, and just as they have assumed for themselves and their descendants the obligation of the fasts with their lamentations.”

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 verses 5-7 the narrative briefly and suddenly turns to a completely different subject, in order to introduce Esther and explain how she came to be in Susa. In verses 12-14 something similar happens in order to provide background information.

There was a Jew in Susa: the Hebrew text makes an abrupt break with the preceding story line. In dramatic fashion the author interrupts his account to announce “A man a Jew was in Susa the citadel and his name was Mordecai.” Most translations reflect this interruption and change of focus as both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have done. Good News Translation, however, highlights the city Susa rather than the man Mordecai. There is no word in the Hebrew corresponding to the word Now in Revised Standard Version. The English word Now is used in Revised Standard Version to indicate a transition point in the story (so also New Jerusalem Bible, Maredsous, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

Jew: only after telling his reader that Mordecai was a Jew does the author indicate where he lived, and only then that his name was Mordecai. Jew was the name given to the people of Judah after the Babylonian exile in 586 B.C., and after that it came to be applied to Israelites more generally, including people of the tribe of Benjamin. It may be rendered by a borrowed term or by an equivalent expression such as “child of Judah” or “Judah-person.”

Although the Hebrew says only that Mordecai was “in” Susa, the meaning probably is that he lived there (so Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible).

Susa the capital is here “the citadel of Susa” (New Revised Standard Version). See comments on 1.2.

The son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish: this tells us the ancestral line of Mordecai. It is not clear whether the persons named are his immediate ancestors, that is, his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, or whether they are his distant ancestors. The pattern of repeating “the son of” is a common construction for citing genealogies in the Old Testament. Translations should follow accepted practice for citing ancestry; for example, “son of…, grandson of…, great-grandson of….”

Mordecai was a Benjaminite, that is, he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. This information about the ancestry of Mordecai is important for understanding the conflict between Mordecai and Haman (see the comments on 3.1). The translation may specify that he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, or it may use an equivalent expression such as the Hebrew, “he was a man of Benjamin,” or else “he was a son of Benjamin.”

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 went up to means that he went as far as the gate. FOX says “he came up to the King’s Gate but no farther.” The Hebrew is literally “until the face of the gate,” meaning he stopped in front of the gate. Mordecai stopped at the palace entrance, because no one dressed in sackcloth was allowed to enter the palace. Wearing sackcloth within the palace was prohibited, not merely because of the crude appearance of sackcloth, but because it symbolized mourning and death.

While some translations like Revised Standard Version and New International Version use the verb he went, others like Good News Translation and FOX say “he came.” The difference in the two verbs is in the perspective of the author, who sees Mordecai going toward the palace, and therefore away from the one telling the story, or who sees Mordecai coming toward the palace and therefore toward the one telling the story. This difference is not specified in the Hebrew verb, but it is made explicit in the English went and “came.” Translators will need to choose a word in their language that is consistent with the way the story is being told.

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 .

When Haman entered, the king gave him no opportunity to say why he had come. Instead, he asked his own question. As in 1.15, he asked advice on what was right to do.

What shall be done to the man: in English to do something to someone usually has a negative connotation. Since the king wants to do something good here, Good News Translation and New Revised Standard Version both say “for” the man. Speaking as king he refers to himself in the third person. Good News Translation uses a very casual style in this verse, which may not be appropriate.

Although Revised Standard Version says delights, this may be translated as “wants very much” (compare Good News Translation) or as “desires” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). A word appropriate to the wishes of a king should be used.

The translator may encounter at least three problems with Haman’s question. The first is that the author uses direct quotation to reveal what Haman said “in his heart.” The second is that Haman’s thoughts take the form of a rhetorical question. That is, they are not a real question because Haman thought he already knew the answer. The third problem is the comparative construction, more than me.

For the first, Good News Translation also uses direct quotation, which it introduces by saying “thought to himself.” In the case of the second problem, Good News Translation makes explicit the answer to Haman’s question, “Me, of course.” The third problem is restated to eliminate the comparison. Some languages may prefer a pattern that is closer to the original Hebrew, “The king would wish to do honor to whom besides me?” or “Whom would the king wish to honor if not me?” or perhaps “Whom would the king want to honor surpass me?” Sometimes a rhetorical question may be replaced by an emphatic statement; for example, “Surely the king would want to honor no one but me!”

Translators should not make explicit in this verse that it is Mordecai whom the king wants to honor, since Haman’s rhetorical question makes sense only if he does not know that the king is thinking of Mordecai. Haman’s plight is both humorous and tragic.

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 .

For …: by means of two parallel clauses, verse 4 provides the reason why non-Jews were afraid of Mordecai in verse 3.

In the king’s house: as in 2.13 and 4.13, this means the royal palace (so Good News Translation). That Mordecai was great in the palace means that he had much influence. He was a “big” man or a “heavy” man.

His fame spread: fame is what one hears, one’s reputation or one’s renown, and Mordecai’s renown literally “went” throughout the empire. This is a stronger, more active statement than Good News Translation‘s “It was well-known.”

Only a very literal translation may say the man Mordecai. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible modifies slightly to say “this man, Mordecai.” In Revised Standard Version as in the Hebrew text, this is the second occurrence of Mordecai’s name within a single sentence. It may be more natural to restructure the verse as Good News Translation has done. Instead of saying he grew more and more powerful, it may be necessary to restate and say “he gained more and more power,” or “he continued to find [or, acquire] more power,” or “he went forward and forward in power.” The translation should make clear Mordecai’s progression or advancement in prestige and importance.

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 riches of his royal glory is literally “the wealth of the glory of his kingdom.” Glory here has the sense of “dazzling”; Revised English Bible says “the dazzling wealth of his kingdom,” and Moffatt (Moffatt) says “his royal treasures in their splendour.” Since the display of the wealth of the kingdom is focused in the royal court, Good News Translation reads “the riches of the imperial court.” According to one modern historian, when Alexander the Great captured the Persian cities of Susa and Persepolis in 331 B.C., he found treasures that were the equivalent of 836 tons of gold (Olmstead, pages 518, 520).

The splendor and pomp of his majesty: these words are literally “the costly splendor of his [or, its] greatness.” The Hebrew pronoun attached to the word “greatness” may refer to the imperial court (so Good News Translation), but it is equally possible that it refers to the king (Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible). The word splendor sometimes means “ornament” and may refer to clothing (Isa 52.1) or to jewels (Ezek 16.17, 39). Moffatt renders these words “his rare kingly robes.” If the reference is to the king, then the meaning may be the glorious appearance and majesty of the king himself.

A hundred and eighty days was the length of time that the banquet continued, and this detail gives emphasis to the claim that the king showed his majesty for many days. Though most translations keep a literal rendering, some modern versions give the equivalent time in months, since it is more natural in those languages to speak of six months than of 180 days (Good News Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Bible en français courant). In other languages it may be more acceptable to speak of “nights” or “markets,” that is, weeks, or even “half a year.” If days are converted to weeks, the total time specified should still be equal to 180 days.

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 .