Translation introduction to The Prayer of Manasseh (United Bible Societies)

The Prayer of Manasseh is a little jewel, a treasure of spiritual devotion. In spite of the fact that this prayer has never achieved canonical status or even, for most Christians, deuterocanonical status, it will simply not go away. It is received as canonical Scripture by the Orthodox churches, which place it immediately after 2 Chronicles. Its Greek text is not part of the Septuagint, and it has never been accepted as Scripture in the Catholic Church, although it has long been known and highly valued; in a Latin form (later than Jerome) it appears in an appendix at the end of Vulgate editions of the Bible. Martin Luther treasured it and translated it, making it part of his Apocrypha. As such it found its way into English Bibles, although Wycliffe himself had included it in his translation. In the Geneva Bible of 1560, it appears among the Old Testament books, following 2 Chronicles, but headed “Apocryphe.” The earliest text of The Prayer of Manasseh we possess is in Syriac, where it is incorporated into a Christian document known as Didascalia, dated from the third century A.D. The Greek text, which we are following, is found in two major manuscripts of the Greek Old Testament, but in a supplement to the Book of Psalms called “Odes.” The presence of this poem in this supplement shows that it was known by the Greek church and used liturgically from an early date.

The Manasseh to whom the title refers is the King Manasseh who ruled Judah from 698 to 642 B.C. According to 2 Kgs 21.1-18, Manasseh was the low point of the Judean kings, the worst of them all, but he ruled for 55 years. The account in 2 Chr 33.1-20 is quite different. There too, Manasseh is a wicked king, and is taken captive by the king of Assyria. While in exile, however, he repents of his sin, and God brings him back to Jerusalem. In 2 Chr 33.12-13 his prayer of repentance is mentioned, and in 33.18-19 it is said that his prayer was recorded in two different places. There is no evidence whatever that the poem we call The Prayer of Manasseh was in fact written or spoken by Manasseh, was ever part of the books of 1-2 Chronicles, or was ever contained in the two sources mentioned by the Chronicler. It is so short that it is difficult to speak with any confidence about its origin, but scholars are most comfortable dating it in the last two centuries B.C., although the early part of the first century A.D. is not out of the question. The original language of the poem is very much in doubt, with some scholars favoring a Greek original, others a Semitic language. It could have been written almost anywhere, but Palestine is favored. Claims were made in the past for a Christian author, but opinion today strongly favors a Jewish writer. The writer may have been consciously composing a prayer such as King Manasseh might have prayed in exile, or, since there are a few subtle connections between The Prayer of Manasseh and the language of 2 Chr 33, an anonymous and nameless prayer may have come to be associated with the repentant king, thus receiving its traditional title.

The prayer can be divided into three parts:

1-7 Invocation and praise to God
8-10 Confession of sin
11-15 Petition for mercy

While these phrases could be used as section headings, the prayer is so brief that breaking it into sections may not be seen as necessary. If one heading for the whole prayer is desired, NEB provides a helpful one-word title: “Repentance.” Another possibility is “Manasseh repents.”

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see

Translation introduction to Psalm 151 (United Bible Societies)

The book of Psalms in the Hebrew Bible consists of 150 psalms. These psalms are accepted as canonical Scripture by Jews and all Christians. However, the Greek manuscripts of the book of Psalms contain 151 psalms; this additional psalm is considered part of the canonical book of Psalms by the Orthodox churches. It has not traditionally been included among the apocryphal books of Protestant Bibles, but RSV expanded its Apocrypha in an “expanded edition” in 1977 to include Psalm 151, as well as 3-4 Maccabees, other books valued in the Orthodox tradition. NRSV continued this practice.
Besides the Greek, this psalm is also known in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Arabic, and Ethiopic. It has been used in the coronation ceremony for the emperors of Ethiopia.

Although this psalm was translated from Hebrew, no Hebrew text was known until it was discovered on a scroll of psalms found at Qumran in 1956. The Hebrew text is longer than the Greek, and is followed by fragments of another psalm that also parallels the Greek Psalm 151. RSV gives a translation of the Hebrew as part of the introduction to the psalm. It is believed that the long-known Greek Psalm 151 is an abbreviation of the two Hebrew psalms noted above. The complete Hebrew psalm deals with David’s selection by God; the fragmentary psalm apparently dealt with the contest between David and Goliath. This Handbook deals with the Greek text only.

Psalm 151 has a superscription. After that the psalm has two parts:

1-5 David tells of his selection by God
6-7 David tells of killing Goliath

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see

Translation introduction to Susanna (United Bible Societies)

This story is about a beautiful Jewish woman named Susanna who lived in Babylon. When two judges falsely accuse her of being unfaithful to her husband, Daniel as a wise young judge is able to prove her innocence.

The Masoretic Text of Daniel contains the twelve chapters that are translated as the book of Daniel in Jewish and Protestant Bibles. The Greek Old Testament, however, contains two additional chapters, besides the long addition to chapter 3. These chapters constitute part of the canonical Daniel in the Orthodox churches. They were translated into Latin, and became part of the Vulgate. They are part of the canonical Daniel in other Catholic Bibles as well. The Catholic Bible numbers the story of Susanna as chapter 13. The Orthodox Bible begins the book of Daniel with the story of Susanna; this is its position in Theodotion’s Greek text (see the paragraph below). Protestant Bibles include Susanna as a separate book of the Apocrypha, consisting of one chapter.

The name of Daniel (meaning “God has judged” in Hebrew) was associated in Semitic folklore and legend with judgment. A Daniel or Danel appears in Ugaritic literature as a king renowned for fairness in judgment (compare Ezek 28.3). As noted above, Daniel appears in Susanna as a young man, wise in judgment. It may be because Daniel appears in Susanna as a youth that this story precedes the rest of the book of Daniel in Theodotion’s Greek text. This Handbook and all translations follow the Greek text of Theodotion for the additions to Daniel, rather than the Septuagint. The Septuagint text of Susanna is much shorter than Theodotion’s text, and quite different.
It is not known when or where the story of Susanna was written. The action takes place among the exiled Jews in Babylonia, but the writing was surely much later. Scholarly opinions range from sometime in the Persian period (sixth to fifth centuries B.C.) to sometime just preceding the translation of Daniel into Greek, around 100 B.C. The story could well be older than the writing of it. Most scholars think the story was written in Palestine, but opinions are based on general impressions rather than hard evidence.

The book has been interpreted in various ways: (a) as a Jewish story that takes as a point of departure the story of two adulterous prophets in Jer 29.21-23; (b) as an attack by the Pharisees against the legal practices of the Sadducees; (c) as a folk tale; and (d) as a martyr legend. J. R. Busto Saiz has a unique approach, which has much to commend it. It accounts for some puzzling features. He presents the story as an encoded, apocalyptic appeal to the Jews to be faithful in spite of persecution. The two elders who appear as friends of Susanna’s family, as seducers, and as accusers, represent Antiochus IV and his predecessor Seleucus IV, who had at one time been friends of the Jews, who had “seduced” the Jews by crossing Palestine several times to go to battle with the Ptolemies, and who were their persecutors (accusers). The appearance of Daniel (meaning “God has judged”) shows that God will judge. Susanna is of course the Jewish people, who prefer death to infidelity. This explains the strange fact that Susanna’s father and husband are mere names in the story, not characters; it is the names that are important. She is the daughter of “the Lord’s heritage” (Hilkiah) and wife of “the Lord establishes” (Joakim). Busto Saiz assumes that the story would have been told with an accompanying oral explanation. This interpretation accounts for the addition of Susanna to Daniel, a book of apocalyptic themes.

There is really no hard evidence for the original language of the story. In verses 54-55 and 58-59, wordplays appear that are based on Greek. This has long supported the idea that the book was written in Greek, but opinion today favors an original in either Aramaic or Hebrew since the Greek occasionally reflects Semitic idiom (see the comments on verses 15-16.) Scholars believe the wordplays in Greek are an attempt by the Greek translator to reproduce the wordplays in the original language.
Susanna is a beautifully crafted short story. The main challenge to the translator is to convey the liveliness, interest, and suspense of the tale. It is only 64 verses long. Before beginning work, translators should read it for enjoyment and get a feel for it, so as to develop a consistent narrative approach.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

Translation introduction to Baruch (United Bible Societies)

Some characteristics of the book of Baruch

The book of Baruch (also known as 1 Baruch) is presented as a message that Baruch, the companion of the prophet Jeremiah, sent from Babylon to the religious authorities in Jerusalem. There are three distinct parts to this message: prayers (1.15–3.8), a poem in praise of Wisdom (3.9–4.4), and a series of poems offering comfort to the Jews living in Babylonian exile and to those remaining in Jerusalem. There is a cover letter from the exiled community that is placed before Baruch’s message (1.10-14). And before this is a narrator’s introduction to the reader (1.1-9). See “Discourse structure of Baruch” below.

It is disputed whether, in the current form of the book, the two poetic sections (3.9–4.4 and 4.5–5.9) are to be considered part of Baruch’s message, or whether they are completely separate blocks of material that have been added to Baruch’s prayers. From a scholarly point of view, they probably are separate, with different authors and times of writing. But in the present form of the book, as it has been received as Scripture, it seems best to assume that the whole of 1.15–5.9 is part of Baruch’s message. For more discussion on this complex matter, see the sections below on “Circumstances of writing Baruch” and “Discourse structure of Baruch.”

The matter is complicated further by the fact that often the separate writing known as “The Letter of Jeremiah” is attached to Baruch as chapter 6. This Handbook will treat The Letter of Jeremiah as a separate book, but translators wishing to include it as part of Baruch must add it as chapter 6.

Even though the three main sections of Baruch’s message are of different natures, the book hangs together reasonably well. We begin with a prayer of confession of sins, to be recited by those in Jerusalem (1.15–2.10), and then we move to a prayer for salvation, to be said by the Jews in exile (2.11–3.8). The central section concentrates on Wisdom, but in particular, Wisdom as she has been granted to Israel in the form of the Torah, God’s Law (3.9–4.4). The final section offers comfort and hope, first to the exiles, and then to the people of Jerusalem, who are told to prepare for the homecoming of the exiles (4.5–5.9).

The book lacks something in originality. Most of it reflects the obvious influence of other parts of Scripture, sometimes with word-for-word correspondence. There are many parallels to passages in Jeremiah, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah chapters 40–66. The poem on Wisdom has close parallels to Job 28 and Sir 24.

Although scholars sometimes refer to this book as 1 Baruch, it has no relation to the Syriac book known as 2 Baruch, or the Greek writing known as 3 Baruch.

Circumstances of writing Baruch

Tradition, as well as the first verse of the book itself, attributes authorship to Baruch, the man who was a close associate of the prophet Jeremiah. He appears in chapters 32, 36, 43, and 45 of Jeremiah, and is especially important in chapter 36. But scholars are virtually unanimous in their opinion that the historical Baruch had nothing to do with the writing of this book. The main reason for this is that our book has Baruch among the Jewish exiles in Babylonia, whereas according to Jer 43.1-7, Baruch went with the prophet to Egypt. No other biblical tradition places him in Babylonia. Further, stylistic factors as well as matters of content suggest multiple authorship. For instance, Bar 1.10-14 reveals an attitude of acceptance toward Babylonian authority, while Bar 4.30-35 is bitterly hostile.

There is no scholarly consensus regarding the date of the book, but given the probability of multiple authorship, we must deal with separate dates for at least the three main sections of Baruch’s message, and a date for the final editing. We know only that the book uses the Greek version of Jeremiah, Dan 9, and The Psalms of Solomon. This would appear to make the latest part of the book (4.5–5.9) no earlier than the first century B.C., but other parts could well go back to the early second century B.C. The material in the book suggests that it may have been brought together for the purpose of giving encouragement to a Jewish community under some considerable stress. Some scholars locate this in the pre-Maccabean period of the early second century B.C., but others bring it down as late as the Roman period, after 70 A.D.

The text of Baruch

The accepted text of Baruch is that of the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. The text of this book is reasonably well preserved, and does not present many severe textual problems. There is some scholarly dispute about the original language. All agree that the first part, 1.1–3.8, was written in Hebrew. Most scholars think the rest of the book also was composed in Hebrew, but some argue for Greek. No Hebrew fragments of the book exist, though there have been ingenious attempts at reconstructing it (see Burke and Tov in the bibliography). Sometimes these reconstructions give useful guidance to translation.

Special problems in translating Baruch

Dating: Ordinarily, the date of writing does not present a special problem for the translator, but in the case of Baruch it does, since the first sentence of the book (1.1-2) gives a date for the writing, but unfortunately it is not clear. It may be, as most scholars would point out, that the actual time of the writing and composition of the book of Baruch has nothing to do with the date given in this passage, which may be a creation of the author. The translator may agree or disagree with that, but the problematic date still has to be translated.

The text of 1.1-2 is unclear at two points. In the Revised Standard Version the first half of verse 2 reads “in the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month.” We are left with two questions: Five years after what? The seventh day of which month? This Handbook takes the widely-accepted position that the reference is to the fifth year after the burning of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587/586 B.C., and that the fifth month is intended (see 2 Kgs 25.8 and Jer 52.12; these two passages disagree on the day of the month when Jerusalem was burned but agree that it was during the fifth month).

There are some difficulties with this position, and it is fair to point that out at the beginning. The principal problem is that 1.5-14 assumes that the priesthood is still functioning at the temple. After the disaster of 587/586, this could hardly have been the case. Some scholars believe that the reference in 1.2 is to five years after the first conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 598, which is described in 2 Kgs 24. On that occasion King Jehoiachin was deposed and exiled, and Zedekiah was placed on the throne. The final destruction of the temple and the city happened about 12 years later when Zedekiah rebelled against his Babylonian overlord. Placing the time of the book of Baruch in or about 593, five years after the first conquest, solves one problem, but it raises still others. First, 1.2 mentions the burning of Jerusalem, which happened in 587/586, not 598. Second, the high priest during Jerusalem’s last days was Seraiah (2 Kgs 25.18), not Jehoiakim (Bar 1.7). Third, according to Jer 43, Baruch was still with Jeremiah in Jerusalem some time after the fall of the city. (In fact, the last we hear of Baruch there, he was going with Jeremiah into exile in Egypt, and never set foot in Babylon.)

Any solution we adopt can be objected to, and part of ur problem may be that we are dealing with an author who is not very careful about the historical record. Along with the problem of discourse structure (see below), the translator must deal with this problem as soon as work on the book begins.

Poetic form: It is widely agreed that 1.1–3.8 is prose, but that the rest of the book reflects a poetic structure. The translator must decide in advance which way to proceed. Those who have worked with poetic structure in the Old Testament will certainly want to consider the possibility of poetic form in 3.9–5.9. Most recent translations use indented lines to show that this was originally poetry. The Good News Translation and the Contemporary English Version do not. The New English Bible did not, although its successor, the Revised English Bible, has rethought the matter and has cast everything from 3.9 forward as poetry. The lines of the text in these translations follow the formal patterns of Hebrew poetry, although the Greek, of course, has no way of indicating this.

Terms for Wisdom: The poem in praise of Wisdom (3.9–4.4), like all the Old Testament wisdom literature, uses a variety of terms for wisdom, which are nearly the same in meaning. Since the Greek text is a translation, and since we are dealing with Hebrew poetry here, the translator should not feel an obligation to make nice distinctions among terms variously translated as “wisdom,” “understanding,” “knowledge,” and so forth. There will be opportunities for combining terms without losing meaning. “Wisdom” is the central term, and would be reasonably rendered by whatever term has been chosen to represent the personified figure of Wisdom in Pro 8–9 and Sir 24. Wisdom is not the same as knowledge or intelligence or information. It is all of these, but it is also good sense, the ability to use knowledge or intelligence in the right way. Choices of other terms meaning “understanding,” “knowledge,” and so on can be made on the basis of sensitivity to context and what sounds appropriate in reading aloud.

The Psalms of Solomon: This book is not really a problem for the translator, since the translator can deal with Baruch quite well with no reference to or even knowledge of this document. The scholarly literature will refer to it, however, and we will make reference to it in the Handbook. This book, which never achieved the status of Scripture, is a collection of eighteen psalms, originally in Hebrew but preserved only in Greek and Syriac. There is general agreement that it dates from the first century B.C. in Judea. There is no historical connection with Solomon. Psalm 11 in this collection has an undeniable relationship to Bar 4.36–5.9, particularly to chapter 5. The wording is strikingly similar at points. Most scholars believe the Baruch passage is dependent on the psalm, but a few think the psalm is dependent on Baruch.

The connector “For”: In Baruch and the other books in this Handbook there are numerous instances of the connector “For” (gar in Greek). In some cases this connector serves no clear grammatical purpose and may be omitted. In other cases it may be rendered “Because,” “Therefore,” “So,” or even “Yes” to indicate a stress. In each case we will try to help translators understand the linguistic purpose of the connector.

Discourse structure of Baruch

There are several voices in this book, as indicated in the boxed outline below. A narrator introduces the book in 1.1-9, speaking of Baruch in the third person, telling of his writing a book, and reading it to the people gathered with him in exile. The people send this writing to Jerusalem, introduced by a cover letter (1.10-14). The book itself then follows. Within the section 1.15–3.8, there appear two other voices. The prophets are referred to in 1.21 and quoted in 2.21-23, and in that material the prophets quote God, while at another point (2.29-35) God is quoted directly. Within the section 4.5–5.9, there is a passage in which the personified Jerusalem speaks; then at 4.34 God speaks directly. We thus have voices embedded within voices.

Scholars disagree about the extent of the material sent to Jerusalem. By setting apart 1.10–3.8, the letter is limited to only that much. Others believe the rest of the book should also be considered part of the book composed by Baruch (1.1), read to the people (1.3), and sent to Jerusalem (1.14). This is the approach we have adopted in the outline above and in this Handbook. To be sure, Baruch is probably a composite piece of writing, as scholars point out. Yet the three main sections (the prayers in 1.15–3.8, the poem in praise of Wisdom in 3.9–4.4, and the prophetic words in 4.5–5.9) do hang together, even though loosely. The person or persons compiling the material into this book surely considered all three sections to be the “book” mentioned in 1.1, 3, and 14. This approach has two other advantages. One is that it does not require complicated tricks of punctuation or typographical layout. A problem arises with the clauses “And they said…” in 1.10 and “And you shall say…” in 1.15, but there are ways of handling these clauses without forcing a series of quotes within quotes for the rest of the book. A second advantage is that this arrangement allows for other interpretations. A reader disagreeing with this outline will not be hindered by punctuation or typography from understanding the book in his or her own way.

This is a problem that translators really need to solve to their own satisfaction before starting work, since it will affect the translation of the very first verse of the book. This is a short book, and reading it carefully with an eye to its organization before beginning the actual work of translation may save a lot of time later on. (It is perhaps worth noting that the structure and occasion of this book recall the structure and occasion of Jer 29, another passage where the discourse structure is difficult to make clear.)

Translators who include The Letter of Jeremiah as chapter 6 of Baruch must see that in the outline it is parallel to the “Narrator’s introduction” here, not to any part of Baruch’s book. Indeed, The Letter of Jeremiah has its own introduction by the writer.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

Translation introduction to The Letter of Jeremiah (United Bible Societies)

Some characteristics of the book of The Letter of Jeremiah

This little book, known as “The Epistle of Jeremy” in King James Version, is often presented as chapter 6 of Baruch, but it is clearly independent. It is easy to account for its association with Baruch, however. Just as Baruch consists of a “letter” written to Jerusalem by Baruch, this is a “letter” said to be written by Jeremiah to the exiles in Babylon. Since Baruch was a close companion of Jeremiah, these two writings were quite naturally grouped together. Translators choosing to present this as chapter 6 of Baruch must, of course, add it to their outline of Baruch, but in such a way that it is not incorporated into Baruch’s book, which is Baruch’s communication to Jerusalem.

The Letter of Jeremiah is a warning against the worship of idols. It is often characterized as a long sermon based on Jer 10.11 (a unique verse in the book of Jeremiah; it is in Aramaic rather than Hebrew), which reads “Thus shall you say to them: ‘The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens.’ ” It draws from certain passages in the Hebrew Bible, particularly Jer 10.2-15 and Psa 115.3-8; but there are parallels as well to Deut 4.27-28; Psa 135.15-17; Isa 40.18-20; 41.6-7; 44.9-20; and 46.5-7. All these passages deal with the theme of the folly of worshiping idols.

It is a commonplace to point out that this book is repetitious, has little literary merit, and demonstrates no logical progression in its thought. To an extent this is true, but it may underestimate the earnestness of the author or the realities of the situation that he, or his intended audience, faced. People do not go to this much trouble over a matter of little concern. Although there is no logical progression from one point to another, the author uses various images to demonstrate how illogical it is to worship idols. The key to understanding the author may be his use of the word “fear” as applied to these “gods,” especially in verses 4-5. The meaning is “awe,” “reverence,” “veneration.”

People of whatever religious tradition are often awe-struck when confronted with a mode of worship foreign to their experience, particularly if there is something about the setting that is architecturally or artistically or musically designed to produce feelings of reverence and awe. Perfectly devout Christians may be moved at a Buddhist shrine, for example, or at the communal solidarity of Muslim worship, or the intensity of prayer in a synagogue. Traditional Baptists find themselves discovering awe in the processional of Episcopal worship, and High Church Anglicans have found the spirit moving in Pentecostal worship. Nonbelievers are moved by the solemnity of light coming through cathedral windows. Atheists have found themselves caught up somehow in the excitement of voodoo ritual. Transfer this experience to the world of the Jewish people several centuries before the time of Christ. The Jews were in an alien country, a minority among a population of people more powerful than they were. Some of the remains of ancient Babylon are impressive even today. Could an ancient Jew, a stranger in a strange land, confronting the atmosphere of Babylonian religion with its brightly colored buildings and impressive ceremonies, not be moved? Could that person not feel some sense of presence there?

The author of The Letter of Jeremiah knew this, and knew how strong the temptation would be for his people to be influenced by the contagious enthusiasm of the Babylonians in their worship. So he reasons with them. Unlike the God of Israel, who cannot be confined to an image, these “gods” were nothing but handmade objects, having less power than the hands that crafted them. There is some satire in the author’s approach, but he is in no position to ridicule Babylonian worship. He knows of a real danger, and he is just as earnest as he can be.

It is true that the book is largely repetitious and there is no discernible outline. But an obvious structure is provided by the fact that there is a refrain that comes nine times (verses 16, 23, 29, 40, 44, 52, 56, 65, and 69) in similar wording, a variation on “they are not gods, so do not fear them.” It is difficult, however, to see distinct themes developed in any of these “stanzas” set off by the refrain. Still, it is helpful to the reader to subdivide the text, and in this Handbook we will follow Harrington’s lead in dividing it into the following units, marked by the refrain:

1-7 Introduction
8-16 First warning: Idols are not gods
17-23 Second warning: Idols can’t protect themselves
24-29 Third warning: Idols don’t feel anything
30-40a Fourth warning: Idols cannot give anything back to people
40b-44 Fifth warning: It is useless to worship idols
45-52 Sixth warning: Idols are only made by human beings
53-56 Seventh warning: Idols are powerless
57-65 Eighth warning: Idols can be stolen by robbers
66-69 Ninth warning: Idols have no power at all
70-73 Tenth warning: Idols are helpless

Circumstances of writing The Letter of Jeremiah

Scholars do not believe the prophet Jeremiah wrote this book. It is dependent on biblical passages that date from after Jeremiah (see above), and it is not up to Jeremiah’s standards in depth of thought or literary quality. The author is unknown, although the letter that Jeremiah wrote to the exiles in Babylonia (Jer 29) probably gave him the idea of composing a “letter” in Jeremiah’s name.

The date of writing is uncertain. It must have been written after the latest passages in Isaiah, to which it refers (about 540 B.C.). The book itself is referred to in 2 Macc 2.1-4, which means that it must have been written before the first century B.C. There is a tendency in scholarship to center on a date around 317 B.C., which is suggested by the reference to “seven generations” in verse 3. Seven generations (of forty years) after the Babylonian invasion of 597 B.C. would place us at 317 B.C. (see the comments on verse 3). Moore believes this should be taken seriously as a clue, but admits that the current Greek translation of the book may date from the second century B.C. It is generally supposed that the book was written in Judea, but the author seems to be genuinely familiar with Babylonian religion. Consequently, some scholars think of Babylonia as the place of writing. This would generally involve a dating in the late fourth century B.C. (that is, around 317).

It is generally accepted that the book was written in Hebrew. Even references to Old Testament passages appear to be from the Hebrew Bible rather than from the Greek translation. No Hebrew copies are known, however. A small Greek fragment of verse 44 was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (from Cave 4).

Since the entire subject matter of this letter is the folly of worshiping idols, we must suppose it to have been written for Jews who might be tempted into this sin, probably away from their Judean homeland. However, the troubles suffered by the Jews living in Judea in Maccabean times, when pressure to conform to Greek ways was strong, could have prompted the writing, or at least the translation.

Special problems in translating The Letter of Jeremiah

Person of discourse: The letter contains two places (verses 3 and 7) in which God speaks in the first person. All the surrounding discourse is best seen as the words of the prophet. Rather than interrupt the discourse to say “God says…” or something similar, it is probably easier to translate the first person references to God as third person references, as Good News Translation has done.

Verse numbers: Verse numbers in The Letter of Jeremiah vary from edition to edition and translation to translation. The principal difference is that verse 1 of many versions (including Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation) is in others an unnumbered introductory statement; but this is not the only place where the numbering differs among translations. The numbering of Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, which coincide, is used in this Handbook.

The manufacture of images: It is a good idea for the translator to have in mind a mental picture of the kind of idol our author speaks of, for he often refers to its appearance and manufacture. Our knowledge of these cult objects is derived from objects actually found by archeologists, and from ancient religious texts. Divine images from Mesopotamia range in size from only a few centimeters tall to full human size. Those that our writer is concerned with are freestanding images or statues (not carved out against a background) and life size, or at least close to it. The image could be seated, as a king on a throne, or standing. It was placed in surroundings made to resemble a royal throne room. It was fashioned with a wooden core, which was then overlaid with metal: gold, silver, or copper. The metal could be applied in thin plates, or beaten onto the core from as thin a material as gold leaf. Some statues could have been molded from a less precious metal, and then ornamented with gold or silver. Precious stones were used for the eyes. The statue was dressed in rich clothing. By tradition, certain materials had to be used, and the craftsmen had to be skilled. The way these “gods” were carved and decorated was stylized. Two features, a horned crown and a garment trimmed with pleats, distinguished images of gods from images of worshipers, which were sometimes made as offerings to the gods. Different gods were represented by particular symbols or weapons, rather than by a distinctive appearance.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

Translation introduction to The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men (United Bible Societies)

In the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles this material has no name to separate it from the rest of Daniel, since it is considered an integral part of the book. Nor does it have a name in Greek manuscripts, where it forms part of Daniel. Names in the Protestant Apocrypha vary. King James Version knew it as “The Song of the Three Holy Children.” New Revised Standard Version calls it “The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews.” New English Bible knows it as “The Song of the Three.” This material is inserted between 3.23 and 3.24 of the Aramaic Daniel text.

In that context three young Jews, named Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah in Hebrew), are ordered to be thrown into a fiery furnace by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia because they have refused to worship his god. The furnace was heated seven times hotter than usual, and the men who tossed these three young men into the flames were themselves burned to death. At this point there is a rather obvious gap in the Hebrew narrative, which the Greek addition fills. This material consists of four parts: TYM 1-22 [Dan 3.24-45] The prayer of Azariah (poetry, with a brief prose introduction) TYM 23-27 [Dan 3.46-51] Prose narrative TYM 28-34 [Dan 3.52-56] Hymn (poetry) TYM 35-68 [Dan 3.57-90] Psalm (poetry) The hymn and the psalm together constitute the “Song of the Three Young Men,” but there is such an obvious difference between these two parts (the hymn is addressed to God; the psalm is a doxology calling on God’s creatures to praise him) that they are treated here separately.

The four parts of this addition probably have separate origins, and there is virtually no evidence to assist the scholar in assigning dates or determining place(s) of origin. A clue may lie in verse 9 [3.32], where the vile king is seemingly Nebuchadnezzar, but could easily reflect the author’s real feelings about Antiochus Epiphanes, the Seleucid king who ruled Palestine from 175 to 164 B.C. Most would agree that Hebrew, rather than Greek or Aramaic, was the original language of all four parts. In the 1890s Moses Gaster claimed to have isolated an Aramaic original for these verses, as well as the story of Daniel and the dragon, embodied in the medieval composition Chronicles of Jerahmeel. His thesis was widely ignored until Klaus Koch recently took it seriously enough to call for a renewed investigation, and felt justified in using the Aramaic text as a tool in the textual study of the material. This is noted for information only; this Handbook will make no appeal to this Aramaic text.

The greatest uncertainty concerns the prose narrative, for some scholars hold that it is an original part of the Aramaic text, filling in the obvious gap between 3.23 and 3.24 of the Aramaic. The problem with this position is that verses 23-25 [3.46-48] contradict 3.22. There, the men who threw the three into the furnace were consumed by the heat, but in the prose addition they were still feeding fuel to the flames, and later perished. If this addition was composed separately as a preface to the hymn and psalm, it too was probably written in Hebrew. If it formed part of the original Daniel, it would have been in Aramaic. It is not a problem that needs to hinder the translator.

A problem the translator will have to face is the matter of verse numbering and the order of certain verses in the psalm (35-68 [3.57-90]). There are several places where the order of verses is a bit different in the Theodotion text from that in the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Both Revised Standard Version and Good News Bible, as versions of Protestant origin, which include this passage as part of the Apocrypha, simply follow the Theodotion text. The Catholic translations New American Bible and New Jerusalem Bible, although they too are translating Theodotion’s Greek text, take the liberty of rearranging the material in these places so as to agree with the traditional order and verse numbering of the Vulgate. This involves no significant change of the meaning of the text at all, and Catholic translators for whom this passage is part of the third chapter of Daniel will probably want to follow the lead of New Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible in these places. This Handbook will carefully note these places.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

Translation commentary on Bel and the Dragon

Bel and the Dragon (Bel and the Snake in some translations) is a separate book of the Protestant Apocrypha, but for the Orthodox and Catholics it constitutes part of the canonical book of Daniel. In Catholic Bibles it is chapter 14, the last chapter, of Daniel (see “Translating the Additions to Daniel,” page 183). The main character in the chapter is Daniel, who appears in much the same way as in Susanna (Dan 13), although here perhaps not so much wise as clever. There are obvious parallels between this chapter and chapter 6 of Daniel. The traditional name given to this additional chapter, Bel and the Dragon, is somewhat misleading since it suggests that Bel and the dragon have something to do with each other, while actually there is a story of Daniel and Bel and another about Daniel and the dragon.

There are actually three short tales here, which constitute an easy outline for the book:

1-22 Daniel and the priests of Bel
23-27 Daniel and the snake-god (the dragon)
28-42 Daniel in the pit of lions

The three stories are skillfully woven together into one narrative; they are three steps in a story of how King Cyrus of Persia was converted to believe in the god of Daniel. The episode involving the prophet Habakkuk in verses 33-39 is thought by some scholars to be a later addition, but a good case can be made for its originality.

Most scholars assume that the story was translated into Greek from a Semitic original, although there is not much confidence whether that original was Hebrew or Aramaic. There is no evidence that even as a Semitic original, it ever formed part of the book of Daniel before being placed at the end of the book by the Greek translator. In the 1890s Moses Gaster claimed to have isolated an Aramaic original for the story of Daniel and the dragon, as well as the additions to chapter 3, embodied in the medieval composition Chronicles of Jerahmeel. His thesis was widely ignored until Klaus Koch recently took it seriously enough to call for a renewed investigation, and felt justified in using the Aramaic text as a tool in the textual study of the material. This is noted for information only; this Handbook will make no reference to this Aramaic text.

This book was probably written in the second century B.C. (it is no later), though the story and its parts may be older. It could have been written anywhere Jews lived who knew something of the Babylonian experience. Recent thinking favors Palestine.

Like the other deuterocanonical additions to Daniel, this chapter is found in two forms in the Greek manuscripts: the Septuagint version and that of Theodotion. As in the case of the other two additions, the church tradition has always favored Theodotion’s text. That is the basis of most translations, and it is the text that will be followed here.

The Septuagint version of the story introduces Daniel at the beginning, as if he were unknown to the readers, and identifies him as a priest. This seems to presuppose some other Daniel than the prophet, who was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi (Dan 1.6; a priest named Daniel is mentioned in Ezra 8.2 and Neh 10.6). In Theodotion’s text, which we follow, Daniel is not introduced. It is assumed that the reader will identify him with the Daniel of the book to which this story is appended.

The Septuagint text begins with this superscription: “From the prophecy of Habakkuk son of Joshua of the tribe of Levi.” A prophet named Habakkuk appears in verses 33-39 of Theodotion’s text of Bel and the Dragon, but in the Septuagint text this Habakkuk is not called a prophet. The canonical book of Habakkuk does not identify either the father or the tribe of the prophet. Ever since the fourth century A.D., there has been a question as to whether the Habakkuk of Bel and the Dragon is the well-known Habakkuk or some other figure. It seems certain, however, that the Theodotion text does think of the Habakkuk of verses 33-39 as the same figure as the canonical prophet. There is no evidence, in spite of the Septuagint’s superscription, that this chapter of Daniel ever formed part of a collection of Habakkuk’s prophecy.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

Translation commentary on Baruch 2:9

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.