inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Mal. 1:4)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the exclusive form (excluding the Lord).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Mal. 1:9)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the inclusive form (including the priests and Israel).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Mal. 2:10)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the inclusive form (“The prophet links himself with his people, and reminds them that as a nation they all owe their status to the activity of God, that is to say in choosing them”).

Translation commentary on Haggai 2:1

In the seventh month, on the twenty-first day of the month: As we have already pointed out, Revised Standard Version and the majority of modern translations take the closing words of 1.15 with the date in 2.1 rather than with the date in 1.15. Good News Translation shows that the year is the same in both dates by saying here, “On the twenty-first day of the seventh month of that same year.” Contemporary English Version says “On the twenty-first day of the next month,” and includes a footnote explaining that it is the seventh month of the same year. However, it seems clearer to state that it was the seventh month, as Revised Standard Version does. The date was October 17, 520 B.C., and was the seventh day of the “feast of booths” (Revised Standard Version) or “Festival of Shelters” (Good News Translation) that began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (Lev 23.34). Because of the festival, a lot of people would have been present in Jerusalem to hear Haggai’s message.

The word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet: These words are identical with the introductory statements in 1.1. See the comments on that verse.

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Haggai. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Zechariah 1:14

In Hebrew this verse has four degrees of direct quotation. It is translated literally in Revised Standard Version and many other English versions, but sounds very unnatural in English. Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version have restructured so as to have only one degree of direct quotation, and this is better English style. In other languages various amounts of restructuring may be necessary. Few languages will naturally use four degrees of direct quotation as the Hebrew does, but two degrees may be acceptable in some. Many translators will find that one degree, as in Good News Translation, is best, while others may prefer not to use direct speech at all, but to turn the entire verse into indirect speech. In cases like this translators need to be very sensitive to the requirements of good style in their own language.

So the angel who talked with me: The link word So is translated as “then” in several versions, such as Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible, and New Living Translation. Since no change of participant is involved, “the angel” or “this angel” will be an adequate translation in most languages, as it will naturally refer to the angel mentioned last.

Said to me, ‘Cry out, Thus says the LORD of hosts: Perhaps Zechariah himself did not hear what the LORD said to the angel, or else could not understand it fully, though he had at least grasped that the LORD’s message was favorable. Here the angel explains and perhaps summarizes the LORD’s words, and orders Zechariah to tell them to the people. Good News Translation simplifies this to “told me to proclaim what the LORD Almighty had said.” For LORD of hosts, see Hag 1.2.

I am exceedingly jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion: In modern spoken English, jealous is normally used in a bad sense meaning wrongfully desiring what belongs to someone else. This meaning is of course out of place with respect to God. When used of him, jealous means justly concerned over that which is rightly his. In this context Jerusalem is the city God had chosen, and his interest in it did not cease when it was captured by the Babylonians (see verse 17). The LORD still cares what happens to the city, and Good News Translation expresses this well with “I have a deep love and concern for Jerusalem.” Contemporary English Version has “I … am very protective of Jerusalem.”

The two names Jerusalem and Zion both refer to the same city, but Zion refers especially to the area that included the Temple. Zion is therefore often used to emphasize the religious importance of Jerusalem as the city where the LORD’s Temple stood. This is why Good News Translation translates it as “Jerusalem, my holy city.” It may also be possible to say “Jerusalem and its Temple district, Zion.” In some languages it may be appropriate to use two names like Jerusalem and Zion to refer to the same place, but in many others this would simply confuse the reader. In such cases it would be better to do the same sort of thing as Good News Translation has done, and explain what the name Zion means. In some languages “my holy city” will be expressed as “my own city Jerusalem” or “Jerusalem, the city that belongs to me.” See also the notes on verse 17.

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Zechariah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Zechariah 4:2

And he said to me, “What do you see?”: In this vision and the next (5.2), the angel questions the prophet in order to encourage him to describe the vision.

I said, “I see, and behold, a lampstand all of gold”: The expression I see, and behold is very unnatural in English, although in a number of other languages it may be good style, and could be expressed as “I am looking and see.” Several modern versions simply say “I see” (Moffatt, New American Bible, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente). Others (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch) have no equivalent, but simply proceed with the description of the vision. For comments on behold, see the notes on 1.8.

A lampstand all of gold: This much is clear, but unfortunately the rest of the description is difficult to follow, and different scholars have put forward different views about the design of the lampstand. The first possibility is that expressed for instance by Cashdan. He says that Zechariah’s lampstand is a seven-branched one like that described in Exo 25.31-40 and 37.17-24 as part of the tabernacle furnishing. This kind of lampstand (called a menorah) is still in use among Jews today. However, it does not seem to fit Zechariah’s description in which the central stem of the lampstand supports a bowl rather than a lampholder. If the lampstand were of the seven-branched type but with a bowl instead of a lampholder in the middle, then there would be only six lamps instead of the seven mentioned.

This problem has given rise to a second theory that pictures a stand with seven branches each supporting a lampholder, but with a bowl “on an arm extending backward from the top of the shaft.” This is unconvincing because such an arm would be a most unusual feature, yet it is not mentioned in Zechariah’s description.
A third view is that the central stem of the lampstand supported the bowl, and the seven lampholders were on arms extending in different directions in a circle around the bowl (Mitchell, Mason). This raises no logical problems, but fails to convince because no such ancient lampstand has ever been found.

A fourth interpretation pictures the bowl as standing on top of the stem of the stand, and as having a wide rim on which seven small lamps rested. Ancient lamps usually had a lip at one end to hold the wick; the lamps in Zechariah’s vision each had seven lips. Therefore they could each hold seven wicks and would thus give a powerful light. Ancient lamps with seven lips have indeed been found by archaeologists. This view is held by Delcor, Baldwin, Amsler, Petersen, Meyers & Meyers, and Redditt (1995), and is also found in the footnote of Jerusalem Bible. It underlies the translation in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation as well as Jerusalem Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch. This view seems to make the best sense of the text and we recommend that translators adopt it.

Lampstand may also be rendered as “lampholder,” “a support on which lamps are placed,” or even “a pole that has lamps on top of it.”

With a bowl on the top of it: According to the fourth view given above, the bowl stood on top of the stem of the lampstand. It is not clear whether the bowl held oil to fuel the lamps, or as suggested in the Jerusalem Bible footnote, water to extinguish falling pieces of wick. It seems more likely that it was for oil; Good News Translation says “a bowl for the oil.”

And seven lamps on it: We take these to be seven small lamps resting on the broad rim of the bowl. Thus it refers here to the bowl rather than to the lampstand, as in Jerusalem Bible.

With seven lips on each of the lamps: Each lip is a place for a wick. One end of the wick dipped into the oil, and the other end carried the flame. Good News Translation avoids the word lips, which is used here in a figurative sense, and expresses the meaning in plain language as “places for seven wicks.” The word translated lips in Revised Standard Version may be understood to mean “pipes” (Moffatt, New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh; compare New American Bible, New International Version, Bible en français courant, Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente). However, if we take it in this way, we would be forced to picture the lampstand as a whole according to the second or third of the theories discussed above, with pipes running from the bowl to each lamp. Adding pipes to such designs makes them seem even less probable.

We may further note that the Hebrew actually says “seven and seven lips/pipes.” Of interpreters who take the meaning to be “pipes,” some take there to be a total of seven plus seven, or fourteen pipes (Cashdan). Others have considered the possibility that it may mean seven times seven, or forty-nine pipes (Driver, Mason), an arrangement which Merrill considers an “almost unimaginable spaghetti-like configuration.” This appears to us to be another reason for translating as lips rather than “pipes.” Seven lips to each lamp is quite reasonable; seven pipes is not!

Which are on the top of it repeats information from earlier in the verse. Here it probably refers again to the bowl rather than to the lampstand. In many languages it is very awkward to repeat this clause, and since it contains no new information it can be omitted, as in New American Bible, Good News Translation, New International Version, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente.

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Zechariah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Zechariah 6:13

It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD: This repeats the thought of the closing words of verse 12, but with emphasis upon the pronoun he. Good News Translation represents this emphasis by saying “He is the one who….” New American Bible says “Yes, he shall build…” and New Jerusalem Bible has “Yes, he is the one who….” Moffatt follows the Septuagint in omitting this clause, but there is no need to do so.

And shall bear royal honor: In the Hebrew the emphatic pronoun “he” is again included, but Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation both fail to show any equivalent. Jerusalem Bible shows the emphasis best by repeating “It is he who…” (similarly Bible de Jérusalem, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Revised English Bible). The verb translated bear in Revised Standard Version is used elsewhere of wearing distinctive clothing (such as the priestly ephod in 1 Sam 2.28; 1 Sam 14.3; 1 Sam 22.18). Some versions take it here to mean wearing distinctive royal garments and translate accordingly. For instance, Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible have “wear the royal insignia.” Other versions take the expression in a more general sense and say things like “assume royal dignity” (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible), “assume majesty” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) and “receive the honor due a king” (Good News Translation American and Australian editions; “receive the honour due to a king” in British editions). The expression royal honor translates a single Hebrew word that is often used of a king (1 Chr 29.25 [Revised Standard Version “majesty”]; Psa 45.3 [Revised Standard Version “glory”]; Jer 22.18 [Revised Standard Version “majesty”]; Dan 11.21 [Revised Standard Version “majesty”]).

And shall sit and rule upon his throne: The emphatic pronoun is not repeated with this clause. The order of the verbs is somewhat confusing. Basically upon his throne goes with sit. Sitting on a throne is a symbolic action whose meaning is explained by rule. Several modern versions restructure the sentence to make the meaning clearer. Jerusalem Bible, for instance, says “sit on his throne as ruler,” and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “sit on his throne and rule.” It is also possible that the whole expression means “ascend to the throne and rule.” Good News Translation does not mention the symbolic action of sitting on the throne at all, but simply gives its meaning with “he will rule his people.” This avoids any possibility of misunderstanding, but the idea of a special seat for a person in authority is known in many cultures and so it would be good for translators to keep the symbolic action if at all possible.

And there shall be a priest by his throne: There are two problems here. The first concerns the meaning of the Hebrew word translated by, and the second concerns the antecedent of his (that is, who this pronoun refers back to). The Hebrew word here translated by usually means “upon” (as in the previous clause). If it is translated “upon” here, then his throne would mean “his own throne,” that is the priest’s throne (so Hebrew Old Testament Text Project and Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament). Thus there would be two thrones, and power would somehow be shared between the ruler and the priest. This possibility is accepted by Traduction œcuménique de la Bible. The Hebrew phrase equivalent to by his throne was translated in the Septuagint as “at his right hand.” This could mean either that the Septuagint translators had before them a Hebrew text somewhat different from ours, or at least that they considered the preposition to be capable of having other meanings as well as “upon.” Several modern versions (Moffatt, Bible de Jérusalem, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 2. Edition) follow the Septuagint fully, while others (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, Contemporary English Version, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1. Edition, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente) seem to use its rendering to support the idea that the preposition can mean by: “A priest will stand by his throne” (Good News Translation). In this case his must refer to the ruler mentioned in the previous clause. Meyers & Meyers point out that the Hebrew word twice translated throne is the normal word for a chair, and takes on the meaning of throne only in royal contexts. Thus it is possible that in the second occurrence it does not hint at royal status. However, it seems a little unlikely that the word would be used twice so close together with significantly different meanings.

A further possibility is found in King James Version, Revised Version, New American Standard Bible, New King James Version , and New International Version. These versions take the clause to mean “he will be a priest on his throne” and to refer to the ruler of the previous clause. Thus this person would be both king and priest, as is shown by the capital letter on “He” in New American Standard Bible and New King James Version . The objection to this interpretation is that it does not fit at all with the following clause, which definitely speaks of two people.

As so often in the book of Zechariah, there is no ideal solution to the problem. On the whole we recommend that translators should follow the decision of Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, and translate by his throne, with his referring to the ruler. This decision takes note of the Septuagint, but avoids both a major change in the Hebrew text, and a major clash of meaning with the following clause.

And peaceful understanding shall be between them both: This expression is not very natural in English, and is improved in modern versions, such as New English Bible “concord shall prevail between them,” Revised English Bible “there will be harmony between them,” and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh “harmonious understanding shall prevail between them.” Good News Translation restructures it as “they will work together in peace and harmony.” Contemporary English Version has simply “and the two of them will be good friends,” but this is too weak to be a good model. Some scholars have taken this clause as an indication that a disagreement had arisen between Zerubbabel and Joshua, and that Zechariah is urging them to cooperate better. We cannot tell if there is any historical truth in this view, but in any case, translators should render the clause as a statement and not as a command.

A possible model for this verse is:

• Yes, he is the one who will build the LORD’s [or, my] Temple, and it is he who will sit on his throne and rule. There will be a priest beside his throne and the two will work together closely [or, harmoniously].

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Zechariah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Zechariah 8:16 - 8:17

Verses 16-17 do not have a close structural link with verses 9-15, though they are part of the same oracle. In the light of the LORD’s purpose to bless his people again, they sum up the response that the LORD requires from the people. This response is expressed in terms that are strongly ethical in content (compare 7.9-10). As in 7.9-10, these demands take the form of four imperatives, two positive (verse 16) and two negative (verse 17). There is also a chiastic structure (general … particular … particular … general, A-B-B-A) covering the two verses, which commentators do not seem to have noticed.

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Zechariah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .