Ordained here translates the same verb translated “to enjoin” in verse 21 above. It reflects the fact of the Jews’ imposing or establishing a practice upon themselves. The author then uses a new synonym to shift the perspective by saying that they took it upon themselves. The translator will need to determine whether receptor language style can express a similar shift in perspective, namely, from imposition upon oneself to acceptance onto oneself. Otherwise Good News Translation provides a good model for combining the two actions into one.

As noted above on verse 21, an alternative understanding of the verb translated ordained is proposed by some interpreters who render the Hebrew verb “confirmed.” FOX, for example, says “the Jews confirmed and took it upon themselves” (see comments on verse 21 above).

All who joined the Jews are non-Jews who become converts to Judaism (so Good News Translation, Nueva Biblia Española; and see 8.17).

Without fail: this adverbial phrase translates a Hebrew verb, “to pass over,” that is described by the negative “not.” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible translates “they would not fail to observe.” One can also say “they would not omit to observe.” Good News Translation restates this in the affirmative with the adverb “regularly.”

These two days are the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar (see verse 21 above).

According to what was written refers to Mordecai’s letter (see verses 20-22 above).

In the last part of this verse, the author’s emphasis upon time becomes very obvious, as it has many times previously in the book (compare 1.13, 4.14). He refers to two days, the time appointed, and every year. The two days are the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar (see 9.21). Slight restructuring may be necessary; for example, “the time that was marked [or, cut]” or “the time Mordecai had set [or, fixed].” For every year the Hebrew says literally “in every year and year.”

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 1.19-20, the king is addressed in the third person in verses 2-4. Since it is not natural in some languages to speak to someone in the third person without causing confusion, translators may want to change to the second person as does Good News Translation. At the same time the language style of the servants is that of the court, and this should be retained in translation. Good News Translation‘s casual style implies a camaraderie that is out of keeping with the setting.

Then: the Hebrew conjunction translated Then in Revised Standard Version indicates a progression in the action, expressing either a temporal relationship with verse 1 or a logical relationship. Some translations leave the relationship between verses 1 and 2 implicit and do not translate the Hebrew conjunction (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible, Bible en français courant), while others use a temporal expression such as Then (Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, New International Version, Nueva Biblia Española). Good News Translation seems to suggest that verse 2 follows as the result of the action of verse 1.

The identity of the king’s servants who attended him is not clear. Though they may be the same as the servants mentioned in 1.10, this is not necessarily the case. They advise the king to have a search made for young women who possess two qualities: like Queen Vashti, they must be “beautiful in appearance,” and they must be virgins.

Who attended him: these words translate a participle meaning “the ones serving him.” These apparently were persons who regularly served the king, so translators may say something like “the king’s personal attendants” (New International Version) or “courtiers” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente), that is, persons who serve at a royal court.

Let … be sought: literally “let them search.” The Hebrew verb has an indefinite third person plural subject. It is natural in some languages to translate this verb with a passive form such as “Let beautiful young virgins be sought” (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible) or “Let there be sought out” (Revised English Bible). Other languages may use an indefinite pronoun “one” as the subject, as in Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch. Good News Translation “Why don’t you make a search?” should not be understood to mean that the king himself will travel throughout the empire in search of beautiful young virgins. Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente “Why don’t you cause to search?” maintains the indefinite agent while suggesting that it is not the king himself who is to do the searching. Some languages will use a causative verb form such as “Let the king cause beautiful young virgins to be searched for for him.” Other languages will prefer to restate in the form of an active verb, “Let the king tell his servants to search for beautiful young virgins for him.”

Young virgins translates two Hebrew words. The first, naʿaroth, means “young women” (or, “maidens”) and may be used of young single girls who are still virgins, or also of young married women. The second word, bethuloth, often is used to refer to virgins, but it is frequently the context and not the word itself that specifies the idea of virginity. The context in Esther strongly suggests that the sense here is “virgins.” In verses 4-13 the words “maiden” and “maidens” are used without the Hebrew word bethulah, but verse 2 sets the context in which later references to “young woman” carry the component of sexual inexperience as part of the meaning. Many languages have a specific term for “young woman” that includes the idea of not being married. For virgin it may be necessary to use a descriptive phrase. This may sometimes be stated euphemistically as “not to have been with a man.”

For the king: the Hebrew as translated by Revised Standard Version makes it clear that it is on behalf of the king or for the king’s benefit that the virgins are to be sought.

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 .

Letters were written documents. They may be referred to as “what was written,” “the writings,” or “the [written] messages.”

The word couriers is literally “runners” in Hebrew (see also verse 15 below). It is possible that the messengers here were running on foot, as Good News Translation implies. However, the Persian Empire had couriers who were famous for carrying messages great distances quickly, traveling by horse. Therefore, since the same word occurs in 8.10, 14, where the “runners” were on horseback, it is also possible that the “couriers” here traveled by horse. Horses are explicitly mentioned in chapter 8, because emphasis in the plot of the story there requires more focus on the speed with which the letters were sent.

The king’s provinces: see comments on 1.1. The Good News Translation translation “every province of the empire” omits direct reference to the king, thereby shifting attention away from the central role of the king in all of the provinces.

No real distinction of meaning is intended among the words destroy, slay, and annihilate. The repetition of similar words indicating thoroughness of the action is consistent with the writer’s style and should be retained if it has the same effect in the receptor language. In addition to destroying in a general sense, and killing in a specific sense, some languages have a special verb or expression for killing in great quantities, that is, totally liquidating wild game or people.

All Jews, young … children: by specifically designating young and old, women and children, the writer is not excluding men. That men were to be killed is understood without being stated. The additional mention of women and children has the sense “even young and old, women and children.” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch makes this explicit: “All Jews—men, women, and children.” In Hebrew the word order is literally “child and women.” The translator should follow this order of presentation as Traduction œcuménique de la Bible has done, unless it is unnatural or gives a wrong meaning. Since it is more natural in English to say “women and children,” most English translations have reversed the order.

Plunder their goods: their belongings were not merely to be taken, but all their wealth was to be seized as booty.

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 .

Honor or dignity are usually translated as near synonyms, as in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation (compare New Jerusalem Bible: “honor or advancement”). These two words may be a hendiadys, that is, the expression of one idea through two separate words (so Anchor Bible: “What great honor was conferred on Mordecai for this?”). Bible en français courant translates “recompense and honor,” but there should probably not be a suggestion of reward to a higher position in the government, since Mordecai will return to his same post (verse 12 below).

In translating this verse, attention must be paid to the relationship between question and answer. The king asks What honor or dignity…? and the answer is given, Nothing, literally, “Not a word [or, thing].” By restating the question as “How have we…?” Good News Translation changes the emphasis.

The king’s servants who attended him may seem to be redundant (compare Good News Translation), but this phrase indicates his personal servants, specifically “those who were serving him” (Segond) or “those who were in attendance on him” (New Jerusalem 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 first sentence of this verse contains four pairs of near synonyms: province–city; command–edict; gladness–joy; feast–holiday. The author surely intended to use this stylistic pattern of repetition, but the translator will need to decide how it can be represented in the receptor language. Good News Translation has restated to express the meaning of the words, while changing the form to have only two pairs of near synonyms.

A holiday is literally “a good day.” Here, as in later Hebrew, these words indicate a religious festival. Many languages will say “festival day,” although this must not be so culturally restricted as to make the reader or the listener associate this Jewish holiday with a specific holiday in one’s own culture.

The phrase many from the peoples of the country refers to “the peoples of the world” (Revised English Bible), “people of other nationalities” (New International Version). These were non-Jews who lived throughout the Persian Empire. Moffatt says “many pagans.” These people declared themselves Jews, that is, they “became Jews” (Good News Translation, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible), for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them. The fear of the Jews is not fear of what the Jews feared; rather these peoples of the world were afraid of the Jews. Some interpreters, however, understand the fear in this verse to be “religious awe.” That is, the people became Jews, not because they were afraid of the Jewish people, but because they had seen the power of the God of the Jews. Against this latter interpretation is the use of “fear” in 9.2 in the sense of “to be afraid of.”

The Hebrew masculine plural participle “the ones becoming Jews” is variously interpreted in the versions. The participle is in the hithpael form; and as Waltke and O’Connor state, “the Hithpael may denote esteeming or presenting oneself in a state, sometimes without regard to the question of truthfulness” (pages 430-431). Revised Standard Version leaves a certain ambiguity as to whether they merely declared themselves Jews or actually became Jews. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible expresses the same ambiguity in a footnote, stating that the Hebrew may mean either “pretending to become Jews” or “converting to Judaism.” New Jerusalem Bible says that they “professed to be Jews,” implying that it was in name only. Even stronger than New Jerusalem Bible is Gordis, “pretended to be Jews.” Many versions, however, understand that they “made themselves Jews” indeed (so Segond and Bible en français courant; compare New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible). This interpretation is supported by 9.27. The translator should follow this latter interpretation.

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 .

Went in to the king: the meaning here is that the maiden went in to be with the king, not simply that she moved from one location to another, as may be understood from the Good News Translation rendering.

The words whatever she desired to take with her are not specific. Clothing, cosmetics, jewelry, or other items may be included. Probably the words mean that she could wear whatever garment or jewelry she desired (so Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente “all the ornaments she asked for” and Good News Translation “she could wear”), though the Hebrew does not actually state that whatever she took with her was something to wear. The translator should not attempt to specify what the young woman took with her.

Good News Translation restructures the verse to avoid repetition. In so doing, the artist’s style of repetition and parallel structures is lost. From the harem to the king’s palace is literally “from the house of the women to the house of 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 .

This verse provides an introduction for the direct quotation that is given in verse 11. The apparent redundancy in Esther spoke to Hathach and gave him a message is a reflection of the Hebrew use of two verbs “said” and “charged [or, instructed].” In translation an acceptable equivalent needs to be used that is not wooden or unnatural.

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 uses a form of the verb that is like a passive to describe the calamity that has fallen upon her people (For we are sold), to avoid directly naming the villain. Use of the passive voice also helps build suspense in the story, so that in verse 5 the king asks “Who is he?” Some languages have no passive voice and need to make the agent explicit, but Haman should not be named at this point. To do so would make the king’s question in verse 5 seem absurd. An indefinite “they have sold” or “somebody has sold” may be used.

For we are sold, I and my people: these words are probably an allusion to the ten thousand talents of silver that were offered by Haman (3.9), but the Hebrew word “to sell” is sometimes used to mean “hand over” or “give up,” with no thought of money being paid by one person to another (see Judges 4.9; 1 Sam 12.9; Ezek 30.12). This latter meaning is chosen in New Jerusalem Bible, “For we have been handed over,” and in New American Bible, “For my people and I have been delivered to destruction.” The original Hebrew syntax as reflected by Revised Standard Version is very dramatic. The statement of what has happened is made, then the victims are specified, and finally the end that is planned for them is spelled out in three separate verbs. Some languages may say “we and my people,” while others will restructure as Good News Translation and New American Bible have done.

On to be destroyed, to be slain, and to be annihilated, see 3.13.

Held my peace: literally “be silent [or, keep still].” The Revised Standard Version translation is an English idiom that is seldom used in modern speech. In some languages this may be expressed as “I would not have spoken” or “My mouth would not have allowed a word to come out.”

The clause translated in Revised Standard Version as for our affliction is not to be compared with the loss to the king is difficult to translate. The Hebrew text may be corrupted here and may be in need of correction. The meanings of three of the six words in this Hebrew clause are uncertain, leading at least one interpreter to claim that this is the most difficult clause to translate in all of Esther, in the sense that it is difficult to recover the meaning.

Moffatt states in the preface to his translation that at some points the Masoretic text (Masoretic Text) “is in such disrepair that no conjecture can heal it. Such passages I have been content to leave with three dots (…).” In his judgment this clause should be left untranslated: “If we had been merely sold into slavery, I would have said nothing….” Translators should, however, translate this clause, with perhaps a footnote indicating that the correct meaning is uncertain.

The Hebrew word translated as affliction in Revised Standard Version may also mean “the enemy.” The consonants will be the same with either word. New Jerusalem Bible reads “for the adversary is not worthy of the king’s trouble.” New Jerusalem Bible says “but in the present case, it will be beyond the persecutor’s means to make good the loss that the king is about to sustain” (so also New American Bible and New Revised Standard Version).

If affliction is chosen as the proper translation, then the text may refer to a situation in which the Jews had been threatened with slavery only and not with annihilation. In this case their affliction would not have been serious enough for them to cause the king to lose the money he would have been paid (so New English Bible, Revised Standard Version). FOX’s paraphrase is based on this interpretation: “Please understand that if we had merely been sold into slavery, I would not have asked for a cancellation of the sale, for the misery we would suffer thereby would not have been severe enough to justify causing the king to forfeit the money the sale was supposed to bring him.”

The Hebrew word translated as loss in Revised Standard Version occurs only here in the Old Testament, and its meaning is uncertain. (1) It may refer to damage in the sense of “damage to the empire’s revenue,” that is, financial loss. (2) It is understood by other interpreters to mean “trouble.” The meaning then is “for our problem would not have been worth bothering [troubling] the king [about]” (so Anchor Bible, Bible en français courant, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). The translation by Gordis may be a good model based on this second interpretation: “for our distress would not have justified troubling the king.”

The words affliction and “enemy” both make good sense in the context, as do the words loss and “trouble.” The evidence is inadequate for interpreters to be certain. Translators should choose the interpretation that seems best on the basis of principles they have adopted for their translation. They should be sure that the meaning is clearly expressed. An alternative translation may be placed 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 .