When Mordecai learned: Mordecai did not “learn” something literally as a schoolchild does. He “came to know” or “found out” (FOX) what had happened. The Hebrew is literally “he knew.”

Mordecai rent his clothes: tearing of clothing was a customary way of expressing great emotion such as anger, grief, and humiliation. In this context Mordecai’s emotion is probably “anguish” (Good News Translation) or mourning. It may be necessary to make explicit the reason why he tears his clothes, as Good News Translation has done.

Sackcloth and ashes were symbols of mourning and grief. They occur frequently in the Old Testament, accompanied by various actions. The action may be walking as here; often it is sitting (Jonah 3.6); and occasionally it is lying down (4.3 below). Sackcloth was a coarse cloth made out of goat hair or camel hair that was used for making bags or clothing (see Gen 37.34; 42.25; 2 Sam 3.31). Although it was not always a sack, some translations describe it as “sack-clothing,” that is, clothing made from cloth of sacks. In other languages it may be referred to as “mourning cloth.” Ashes were put on one’s head (see 2 Sam 13.19), and this is made explicit in some translations (Good News Translation, Bible en français courant).

He put on sackcloth and ashes uses the one verb for putting on clothing to refer to two different actions. However, in translation it may be necessary to use two distinct verbs that are appropriate to each gesture. For instance, it may be said, “he dressed [or, wrapped] himself in sackcloth,” and “he sprinkled [or, rubbed] ashes on his head.”

In some societies the meanings of these gestures may not be known. However, instead of making cultural adaptations in the translation, it is preferable to make the meaning clear in the context. For example, it could be said, “he dressed in sackcloth and sprinkled ashes on his head to show that he was sorrowing” or “that he was in great distress.” Another solution may be to use a footnote or a glossary entry to explain these Old Testament practices. In this way as much historical accuracy is retained in the translation as possible.

The midst of the city is not a specific location in the city. It indicates simply that Mordecai walked “through” the city (Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible), wailing or lamenting loudly and bitterly, or “with bitterness.” That Mordecai wept “with bitterness” means that he wept because of the intense misery that he experienced. The Hebrew idiom expresses not primarily a sense of anger but rather the sense of undergoing a severely unpleasant experience. In some languages this may be expressed with an idiom like “with sourness in his heart” or “with a darkened liver.” In other languages it may be better to avoid the figurative language of bitterness and say something like “crying loudly and very sadly” (New Century Version) or “crying out loudly with pain” (La Bible du Semeur).

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 .

Third year: about 483 B.C.

Of his reign: in some languages it may be more natural to use a verbal construction such as “after he became king” or “after he began to rule.”

The word banquet comes from the root word meaning “to drink” and is used in Esther to indicate eating and drinking on special occasions. The translator should use a word for a formal meal, a meal eaten during a festive event. Here banquet refers to festivities or a celebration that continued for 180 days.

Various groups of people were present at the banquet that the king gave in the third year of his reign. Princes and servants are probably government “officials” and “courtiers” (Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible), though the variety of translations of these two words indicates uncertainty as to their precise meaning: “officers and ministers” (New American Bible), “officers-of-state and ministers” (New Jerusalem Bible). In many languages princes will suggest a hereditary royal title, that of the king’s sons; this is not the meaning here. It will be better to use a word such as “governor” or “official.” The words the army chiefs of Persia and Media are literally “the army” (so Good News Translation, New Revised Standard Version, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). Many interpreters find it impossible to think that the author of Esther could have meant the entire army that consisted of some 14,000 men, according to the ancient historian Herodotus. Therefore some translations insert the words “the commanders of” or “the officers of” before the army (An American Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, New International Version, Bible en français courant, Nueva Biblia Española). Some support for this latter view comes from the Septuagint translation, which may be based on a corrupted form of the Hebrew word for “officers.”

Another possible solution is to understand the word the army to be in apposition to the words princes and servants. According to this interpretation the writer refers to the entire army by mentioning only the leaders, the princes, and servants. Following this view FOX translates “all his princes and servants, the forces of Persia and Media.”

Since the Hebrew word translated as the army chiefs may also refer to wealthy landowners, another possible solution that is followed by several translations is to translate the Hebrew term, not with the word “army,” but rather as “aristocracy” or “nobility”: “the Persian and Median aristocracy, the nobles, and the governors of the provinces” (New American Bible; so also New Jerusalem Bible). Any of the above interpretations is possible, and translators must choose one.

Persia was an empire that came into existence about 550 B.C., when King Cyrus the Great defeated the Medes. The empire stretched from Greece in the west to India in the east and lasted until the time of Alexander the Great (about 330 B.C.). Media was a province within the Persian Empire. Media’s capital, Ecbatana, was one of the administrative centers of the Persian Empire (see Ezra 6.2).

The names Persia and Media occur in this same order in 1.3, 14, 18, 19. Only in 10.2 is the order reversed, that is, “Media and Persia.” Various suggestions have been given to explain the change in word order in 10.2, including that a different writer was responsible for chapter 10. Although the reason for the order of these two names does not seem to be important, the translator should retain the order given in the Hebrew text, unless there is some strong reason in the receptor language for not doing so.

The nobles and governors of the provinces: the word translated as nobles was originally a Persian word. The word translated as governors is the same word translated as princes earlier in this same verse. Nearly all translations take the words of the provinces with both nobles and governors. It is, however, possible to connect of the provinces with the last noun only, as Nueva Biblia Española does: “the nobility of the palace and the governors of the provinces.” Such an interpretation may also lie behind the Revised English Bible translation “along with his nobles and provincial rulers.” Either interpretation is possible, and translators must choose one.

Being before him: the Hebrew expression “before his face” means that the guests were gathered in the king’s presence. They were “present,” as Good News Translation says. Some languages will be able to use a similar idiom, “they were before his eyes,” for example.

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 .

And when these days were completed refers back to the 180 days of verse 4. New Jerusalem Bible reads “At the end of this period.” This clause may be translated as a transitional phrase that moves the story from the general setting of the first big banquet to the second and smaller banquet, where the story really begins.

All the people: the Hebrew says literally all the people, but since verse 9 says that the queen also gave a banquet for the women, some translations make explicit in verse 5 that the king’s banquet was for the men of the fortress or acropolis: “for all the men” (Anchor Bible [Anchor Bible]). However, to avoid giving the impression that the author is making an important point of distinguishing between men and women, it is preferable to translate with a general term people as Revised Standard Version has done. Since the banquet in verses 3-4 was for officials of the empire, Gordis translates these words as “for all the common people.”

As in verse 1, in Susa the capital refers not to the town but to the acropolis.

Both great and small: this does not mean that adults and children were present at the banquet. Great and small refers to the important people and the unimportant people, big people and little people alike (the same Hebrew terms are translated “high and low” in 1.20; see also 1 Sam 30.19; 2 Chr 15.13). Many translations show that social rank and not age is intended: “rich and poor” (Good News Translation); “high and low” (Revised English Bible and New Jerusalem Bible); “from the least to the greatest” (New International Version); “from the most important to the most humble” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible and Biblia Dios Habla Hoy). What must be made clear in the translation is that the invitation to the banquet was all-inclusive.

The second banquet of the king lasted seven days. Good News Translation uses the more common English expression “a whole week.” The number “seven,” which often has symbolic meaning of completeness and perfection in the Bible, occurs frequently in Esther: seven days (1.5), seven eunuchs (1.10), seven princes (1.14), seven chosen maids (2.9), and the seventh year of the king’s reign (2.16). Because of this repeated occurrence of the number “seven,” and because of the emphasis the author places on precision in marking time throughout the book, it is preferable to retain the number “seven” but to use it according to receptor language practice; for example, seven days may need to be rendered “seven nights.” Translators may wish to indicate in a footnote the frequent use of the number seven and its significance for the Israelite people.

In the court of the garden of the king’s palace: in front of the king’s palace was a courtyard. This was an open space that was paved with special stones (see verse 6 below). Around the courtyard was a garden or gardens (Good News Translation). This was an area where there were trees and perhaps flowers. It was not a field for farming or a vegetable garden. The courtyard, the garden, and the palace were all surrounded by a fortified wall.

The Hebrew word here translated as palace is not the usual “house of the king” (see verse 9 below and 2.8, 13) but another word that may refer to an open structure with columns and a roof. Chouraqui and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible in a footnote refer to it as a “pavilion,” and Anchor Bible says “in the courtyard of the king’s pavilion.”

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 exact meaning of much of verse 6 is not clear, although it obviously emphasizes the splendor of the banquet. Not connected grammatically with the preceding verse, it is a list or catalog of items describing the royal setting.

The beginning of the verse is literally “white stuff [either cotton or linen], finely woven material [either cotton or linen], purple wool, held fast with cords of fine linen and purple wool on rings of silver and pillars of precious stone and alabaster.” The image described appears to be that purple and white curtains were used as awnings to provide shade from the sun. A descriptive phrase such as “cloths that were spread out and hung from pillars” may be used. The curtains were attached by cords to rings fastened to marble pillars.

The invited guests reclined on the couches while they ate (see Amos 6.4). The Hebrew word for “bed” sometimes refers to a mat placed on the ground and sometimes to the frame on which the mat was placed. Here it is probably the frame itself. The Persians had couches and tables of gold and silver, which may have been covered or plated with gold and silver, or which may have been made from gold and silver.

A mosaic pavement: the ground in the courtyard was paved, that is, it was covered with stones to make the surface hard and beautiful. The surface of the courtyard was a mosaic. It was made of four kinds of colored stones that were arranged in beautiful patterns or designs. Several of the Hebrew words for stones occur only here in the Old Testament, and their meaning is not certain, as the differences in translations indicate.

The first stone is called porphyry in Revised Standard Version. This is a rock that has feldspar crystals, that is, large crystal-like minerals contained within a dark red or purple mass of fine-grained rock. Good News Translation translates this stone as “red feldspar”; Revised English Bible calls it “malachite.”

The second stone is called marble in Revised Standard Version and “white marble” in Good News Translation. Marble is a form of limestone that can be cut and polished for building, or that can be carved by artists for making sculptures.

The third item in the list is apparently mother-of-pearl, which is not a stone. It is the inside of the shell of the clam that produces pearls. The inside of these shells has soft colors like a rainbow. The mother-of-pearl was probably used for making delicate patterns by being inserted into the other stones.

The fourth item also is a word of uncertain meaning. Revised Standard Version and New Jerusalem Bible simply use a generic expression, precious stones; New American Bible and New Revised Standard Version use a similar general expression, “colored stones”; Good News Translation and Revised English Bible say “blue turquoise,” a stone that is found in Persia. New Jerusalem Bible reads “mosaics.”

Even though equivalents for the various names of stones given in the different versions may be difficult to find, it is important to indicate that valuable stones of different colors were used to make a pavement, or “floor,” for the courtyard. Since the names and colors of several of these stones are not known with certainty, the translator may be advised to follow the model of Bible en français courant, which says “a mosaic of red, white, pearly, and black slabs.” In place of mosaic a technical verb such as “laying” or “finishing” a floor may be used.

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 .

Drinks were served: this passive construction may need to be restated; for example, “The king’s servants served [or, gave] drinks….”

Goblet is a general term that may be used to refer to drinking vessels of different sizes and shapes. Goblets of different kinds means that they were all different in appearance, a fact that emphasizes the wealth of the king. Existing goblets from this period show that some of these goblets were made in the shapes of animals at the base and covered with silver or gold.

Royal wine: wine in this context is a fermented drink made from the juice of grapes. If grape wine is not known in the receptor language area, it may be necessary to use a general term for fermented beverages. However, because of the importance of the grapevine, vineyards, and wine in the history of Israel, and as a symbol in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, a way should be found to express each of the terms in translation. In some areas the name of a local vine that is related to the grapevine and that produces fruits may be used for the biblical grapevine. Sometimes borrowed words may be used where wine is well known in recent times. However, wine should not be translated as “whisky,” nor should it be rendered “grape juice” without reference to fermentation. Royal wine is the kind of wine that the king himself drank, that is, the wine from the king’s own supply (Louis Segond [Segond] “the king’s wine”). New Jerusalem Bible says wine “provided by the king.”

According to the bounty of the king is literally “according to the hand of the king.” The meaning of this Hebrew expression is uncertain. The Septuagint translation renders it “which the king himself drinks” (see ESG 1.24[7]). Some translations take it to have adverbial meaning: “in royal style” (Revised English Bible), “royally” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), or “as befits a king” (New Jerusalem Bible). Bible en français courant speaks of “royal generosity.”

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 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 .