If integrated into the book of Daniel: 14.28.

When the Babylonians heard it; that is, they heard about the destruction of the snake-god.

They were very indignant and conspired against the king: There are two verbs here, one expressing anger and the other expressing a coming together of people. New English Bible says it well: “they gathered in an angry crowd to oppose the king.” Good News Translation “they staged an angry demonstration against the king” is surely the way the scene would be reported in today’s newspapers.

The king has become a Jew: He had not, of course. Even at the climax of the book when he confesses Daniel’s God, it is not said that he becomes a Jew. The citizens are agitated because the king’s close adviser has caused the destruction of Bel, its temple, its priests, and the snake-god. New English Bible captures the accusatory tone of the crowd with “The king has turned Jew!” The word “turned” in this sense says not only that the king has become a Jew, but that it was a traitorous thing to do.

He has destroyed Bel, and slain the dragon, and slaughtered the priests: Destroyed is literally “pulled down,” which in the case of a large statue, is what would have to be done to destroy it. Slaughtered translates a vigorous verb. In verse 22 it is reported that the king “killed” the priests, but the mob expresses it in stronger language here. (And of course they are right!) Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version put the events here in chronological order: First he killed the priests, and then the dragon. The idiom in Good News Translation (“First he … and now he has…”) expresses extreme impatience on the part of the mob, and requires the chronological arrangement. On the other hand, the original order (Revised Standard Version) makes the killing of the priests the climax of the series, and such a mass murder would surely have been a memorable, spectacular event, likely to cause more anger in a community than the destruction of a building or the killing of a big snake—even a holy building or a sacred snake. Translators may take their choice, but the Handbook slightly prefers the Revised Standard Version order. To build in the angry mood, we could say “He destroyed Bel! He killed our dragon! He slaughtered the priests!”

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.

If integrated into the book of Daniel: 14.29.

Going to the king, they said may be rendered “The Babylonians went to the king and said” (Contemporary English Version).

Hand Daniel over to us, or else we will kill you and your household: In Greek this is direct discourse. Good News Translation restructures the first clause in this statement as indirect: “that Daniel be handed over to them.” In Good News Translation‘s restructuring said becomes “demanded” and “warned.” This is quite proper in theory, but the problem is that Good News Translation‘s translation of this scene sounds much too calm and formal. It is as if the people have a spokesman making a formal demand couched in proper language (“put … to death” instead of “kill”). But this is an unruly mob that scares the king. The verb said can be translated by a verb with more content, such as “demanded,” and then the translator can give the words of the crowd in vigorous direct discourse: “Hand Daniel over to us, or we’ll kill you and your whole family!”

Household is literally “house,” and can mean the king’s family and all the people associated with it, such as servants, but in this context it surely means “family” (Good News Translation), and most translations so render it.

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.

If integrated into the book of Daniel: 14.30.

The king saw that they were pressing him hard: This is literal but does not express well the seriousness of the threat here. Good News Translation “When the king saw [realized] that they meant what they said” is an idiomatic way of building in the king’s fear. New American Bible “When he saw himself threatened with violence” is another approach. New Jerusalem Bible restructures it as “They pressed him so hard that….” Both of these are worth considering, but in English neither has the impact that the Good News Translation rendering has.

Under compulsion he handed Daniel over to them: We cannot say this very often, but here Good News Translation “he was forced to hand Daniel over to them” (similarly Contemporary English Version) is more literal than Revised Standard Version, and better, as well.

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.

If integrated into the book of Daniel: 14.31.

They threw Daniel into the lions’ den: They are, of course, the mob who just demanded that Daniel be handed over to them. They may be expanded to “The men” to keep from using too many pronouns. This assumes that the crowd consisted of men and not both men and women, and that is probably a fair assumption. The Greek word translated den is properly a pit, as in Good News Translation and other translations. It describes a large hole dug in the ground, here for the purpose of containing captive wild animals. The word den, on the other hand, suggests a natural shelter chosen by the animals themselves.

He was there for six days: Good News Translation “they left him for six days” is misleading; it suggests they came back for him after the six days were over. Revised Standard Version is a better model, or this clause can be restructured as suggested below in the comments on verse 32.

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.

If integrated into the book of Daniel: 14.32.

Every day they had been given two human bodies and two sheep: The Greek is reasonably, if not absolutely, clear that the human bodies were dead, and they could have been male or female, adults or children. It is not said whether the sheep are alive or dead when they are fed to the lions.

But these were not given to them now, so that they might devour Daniel: Now presumably refers to the whole six-day period mentioned in verse 31, not just the day when Daniel is thrown in. So Good News Translation has “But they were given nothing to eat during these six days, in order to make sure that Daniel would be eaten,” or we may use the active voice; for example, “But the Babylonians gave the lions nothing to eat for those six days to ensure that they would eat Daniel.”

Contemporary English Version combines verses 31-32 as follows:

• The Babylonians kept seven lions in a large pit and fed them two people and two sheep each day. Daniel was thrown into this pit, and for the next six days the lions were given no other food. The Babylonians wanted to make sure that the lions would eat Daniel.

An alternative model that combines these two verses is:

• They took Daniel to a deep pit, where seven lions were kept, seven lions that were regularly fed two human bodies and two sheep every day. They threw Daniel to the lions, and to make sure that they ate him, did not feed them for the next six days.

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.

If integrated into the book of Daniel: 14.33.

Now the prophet Habakkuk was in Judea: Here the translator’s problem is to handle a sudden and unexpected shift in scene smoothly, but a prior question has to be answered. Is the author introducing Habakkuk here as the prophet well known to his audience, or is he unknown to the audience, perhaps even another Habakkuk? If we assume no prior knowledge of the person named Habakkuk here, some wording of this verse as is found in New American Bible is appropriate: “In Judea there was a prophet, Habakkuk.” If we assume knowledge of this Habakkuk, he can simply be introduced here as Revised Standard Version has done. Since the Greek text we are following (Theodotion) seems to think of this person as the canonical prophet, this Handbook will work on that assumption. For a comment on the translation of prophet, see Bar 1.15-18.

The sudden shift occurs when the locale of the narrative suddenly moves to Judea, and the narrator introduces a new and completely unexpected character. Some device should be found to alert the reader that the story is now going to move, and describe something happening to someone else somewhere else, at the same time that Daniel is in the pit with the lions. English has a useful word, “Meanwhile” (Contemporary English Version), or the phrase “In the meantime” could be used. “At that time” in Good News Translation could be improved by saying “At that same time.” Another possibility is “While this was going on.”

Revised Standard Version and Contemporary English Version use the Greek form of the word for Judea. Good News Translation uses the Hebrew form “Judah,” which is used elsewhere in the Old Testament. Good News Translation “in the land of Judah” is explanatory. It would not be building in too much information to say that Habakkuk was “far away in the land of Judah.” This is information the original audience would have known, and therefore the modern audience is entitled to know.

He had boiled pottage is literally “he stewed a stew.” Pottage is something cooked in a pot, so Contemporary English Version has “had made a pot of stew.” Exactly what this dish was is not specified, but it was something boiled and probably contained vegetables and meat.

Had broken bread into a bowl: The Greek word translated bowl can refer to any kind of container of whatever material that is basin shaped and can be used to hold stuff. The author does not say that the stew is in this vessel with the bread, as Good News Translation and some others make it to be. New Jerusalem Bible translates it as “basket,” so that it is clear that the bread is in one container and the stew in another. This makes good sense, and this Handbook suggests this interpretation be followed. The stew and bread were separate, and those eating the meal would dip the bread into the stew. Contemporary English Version follows this interpretation by translating the first half of this verse as follows: “Meanwhile, far away in Judea, the prophet Habakkuk had made a pot of stew and put some pieces of bread into a bowl.” Compare Gen 25.34; Ruth 2.14; Hag 2.12; Mark 14.20; John 13.26.

Was going into the field to take it to the reapers: The author does not tell us why Habakkuk is doing this. Among translations, only New English Bible seems to address this as a problem. It reads “he was on the way to his field, carrying it to the reapers.” The reapers (Good News Translation “the workers who were out in the fields harvesting grain”) were then Habakkuk’s hired workers, and he was bringing them their lunch. This is not a problem that has to be answered in a translation, but if one wants to deal with it, New English Bible‘s suggestion is worth following. This seems more likely than a simple act of kindness shown to some hardworking men. There is nothing casual about it. Habakkuk has gone to the trouble of cooking a meal; this involves fire, fuel, a supply of food to be cut up and cooked, and time.

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.

If integrated into the book of Daniel: 14.34.

But the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk: The prophet is on his way to the field, carrying food, when an angel speaks to him. Good News Translation‘s structure is good for verses 33-34: “ … He was carrying … when an angel of the Lord spoke to him….” This same structure is followed by Contemporary English Version, New American Bible, New English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and Moore. The angel of the Lord may also be rendered “a messenger from the Lord” or even “one of God’s messengers” (see the comments on TYM 26).

Take the dinner: The Greek word for dinner refers to the midday meal; see the comments on “mealtime” at Sus 13. All that matters here is that it is “food,” as in Good News Translation‘s translation.

To Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions’ den: Good News Translation rearranges these phrases with “to Daniel, who is in Babylon in a pit of lions.” The most important detail here is that Daniel get the food, so he is mentioned first; then Habakkuk is told where Daniel is, “in Babylon in a pit of lions.” The pit of lions is new information to Habakkuk; “the pit of lions” would sound like it was something he already knew about. Translators should study Good News Translation‘s model. For Babylon see the comments on Bar 1.1.

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.

If integrated into the book of Daniel: 14.35.

Sir renders the Greek word that is often translated “Lord.” It is a title of respect. What would you say to an angel?

I have never seen Babylon: Good News Translation has “I have never been to Babylon” (similarly Contemporary English Version).

I know nothing about the den is literally “I do not know the pit.” This means either “I’ve never heard of, don’t know anything about a pit of lions” (apparently how Revised Standard Version takes it) or “I don’t know where the pit of lions is” (so Good News Translation; similarly Contemporary English Version). It’s the translator’s choice.

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.