Discovery BoxEsther 1:22 
Context1:22 He sent letters throughout all the royal provinces, to each province according to its own script and to each people according to its own language, 1 that every man should be ruling his family 2 and should be speaking the language of his own people. 3
Esther 3:6
Context3:6 But the thought of striking out against 4 Mordecai alone was repugnant to him, for he had been informed 5 of the identity of Mordecai’s people. 6 So Haman sought to destroy all the Jews (that is, the people of Mordecai) 7 who were in all the kingdom of Ahasuerus.
1 sn For purposes of diplomacy and governmental communication throughout the far-flung regions of the Persian empire the Aramaic language was normally used. Educated people throughout the kingdom could be expected to have competence in this language. But in the situation described in v. 22 a variety of local languages are to be used, and not just Aramaic, so as to make the king’s edict understandable to the largest possible number of people.
2 tn Heb “in his house”; NIV “over his own household.”
3 tc The final prepositional phrase is not included in the LXX, and this shorter reading is followed by a number of English versions (e.g., NAB, NRSV, NLT). Some scholars suggest the phrase may be the result of dittography from the earlier phrase “to each people according to its language,” but this is not a necessary conclusion. The edict was apparently intended to reassert male prerogative with regard to two things (and not just one): sovereign and unquestioned leadership within the family unit, and the right of deciding which language was to be used in the home when a bilingual situation existed.
4 tn Heb “to send a hand against”; KJV, NRSV “to lay hands on.”
5 tn Heb “they had related to him.” For stylistic reasons this has been translated as a passive construction.
6 tc The entire first half of the verse is not included in the LXX.
7 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.
