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 Today’s English Version 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.

Septuagint 7.4

Instead of using infinitives as the Hebrew does, the Greek prefers nouns: “we have been sold for destruction and plunder and slavery.” Both New Revised Standard Version and Today’s English Version have restructured according to English grammar, and they have made certain information explicit to make the meaning clear. The translator may need to make similar adjustments in order for the meaning to be clear and the style to be good. Though it is possible to understand the Greek to mean that the Jews “have [already] been plundered” as in Today’s English Version, it is more natural to read the Greek as in New Revised Standard Version (also Revised English Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), that is, as referring to anticipated action in the future.

This has come to my knowledge is a better translation of the Greek than is Today’s English Version‘s “and so far I have kept quiet.” The Greek verb may mean “to hear accidentally” or “to hear talk of.” Revised English Bible says “or so I have heard.” This verb may also mean “pay no attention to” or “refuse to listen to.” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible says “I have turned a deaf ear,” meaning that Esther did not pay much attention to what was being said. Either interpretation is possible, so translators must simply choose one.

The word antagonist is the Greek word diabolos, the word translated as “the Devil” in the New Testament. Here it must be translated as antagonist or “the one who slanders us” (see Bible en français courant and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). The pronoun Our in Our antagonist does not include the king. Some languages will therefore use a first person plural exclusive pronoun.

Brings shame on: this translation in New Revised Standard Version is a rather free rendering of the Greek, which is literally “is not worthy of.” The sense is that Haman is not worthy of “remaining” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) in power in the royal court. Compare Bible en français courant: “It is scandalous that the man who slanders us carries out duties in the royal court.” This final sentence has no parallel in the Hebrew.

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