Ester 3:6-7

3:6 But the thought of striking out against ¹  Mordecai alone was repugnant to him, for he had been informed ²  of the identity of Mordecai’s people. ³  So Haman sought to destroy all the Jews (that is, the people of Mordecai) ⁴  who were in all the kingdom of Ahasuerus.

3:7 In the first month (that is, the month of Nisan), in the twelfth year ⁵  of King Ahasuerus’ reign, pur ⁶  (that is, the lot) was cast before Haman in order to determine a day and a month. ⁷  It turned out to be the twelfth month (that is, the month of Adar). ⁸ 

[3:6]  ¹ tn Heb “to send a hand against”; KJV, NRSV “to lay hands on.”

[3:6]  ² tn Heb “they had related to him.” For stylistic reasons this has been translated as a passive construction.

[3:6]  ³ tc The entire first half of the verse is not included in the LXX.

[3:6]  ⁴ tc This parenthetical phrase is not included in the LXX. Some scholars emend the MT reading עַם (’am, “people”) to עִם (’im, “with”), arguing that the phrase is awkwardly placed and syntactically inappropriate. While there is some truth to their complaint, the MT makes sufficient sense to be acceptable here, and is followed by most English versions.

[3:7]  ⁵ sn This year would be ca. 474 b.c. The reference to first month and twelfth month indicate that about a year had elapsed between this determination and the anticipated execution.

[3:7]  ⁶ tn The term פּוּר (pur, “lot”) is an Akkadian loanword; the narrator therefore explains it for his Hebrew readers (“that is, the lot”). It is from the plural form of this word (i.e., Purim) that the festival celebrating the deliverance of the Jews takes its name (cf. 9:24, 26, 28, 31).

[3:7]  ⁷ tc The LXX adds the following words: “in order to destroy in one day the race of Mordecai, and the lot fell on the fourteenth day of the month.” The LXX reading is included by NAB.

[3:7]  tn Heb “from day to day and from month to month” (so KJV, NASB).

[3:7]  ⁸ tn Since v. 7 seems to interrupt the flow of the narrative, many scholars have suggested that it is a late addition to the text. But there is not enough evidence to warrant such a conclusion. Even though its placement is somewhat awkward, the verse supplies to the reader an important piece of chronological information.