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 1:7

In Hebrew this verse is identical with verse 5 except that it does not repeat the word “Now” at the beginning (see the comments on verse 5). As in verse 5, many translators may find it more natural style to omit the clause Thus says the LORD of hosts. Nevertheless, as in verse 5, translators should be aware that the formula indicates the beginning of a new paragraph, as is correctly shown in Revised Standard Version. They should indicate this by the appropriate means in their own language.

Consider how you have fared: Good News Translation translates with a negative question, as in verse 5. In verse 5 the words “what is happening” (Good News Translation) point forward to verse 6; in verse 7 the words “why this has happened” (Good News Translation) point backward to verse 6. This arrangement does not reflect the discourse structure of the Hebrew, and cannot be recommended. In fact the words here in verse 7 also point forward to what follows in verses 8-9. In some languages it will be appropriate to repeat the same words in verses 5 and 7, as the Hebrew does (so also New International Version, Revised English Bible). In others some variation may be better style. At any rate, it seems probable that in a number of languages, a command will sound more natural here than a negative question, as in Good News Translation; for example, “Look at your way of life.”

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 1:5 - 1:6

These verses are probably best regarded as returning to the first degree quotation that began in verse 2 and to the topic of the LORD’s anger with the ancestors. In Hebrew and in Revised Standard Version, verse 5 consists of two rhetorical questions, both of them expecting a negative answer. For rhetorical questions see the notes on Hag 1.4.

Your fathers, where are they? And the prophets, do they live for ever?: For comments on Your fathers, see the notes on verse 2. In the Hebrew the phrases Your fathers and the prophets are put into focus by being placed at the beginning of their clauses. Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version lose this focus, but translators could maintain it by saying “As for your ancestors … And as for the prophets….” Both those who heard the prophetic messages before the exile, and the prophets themselves are dead and gone from the scene of history. But, as the argument runs on in verse 6, events had shown that the words of the prophets were true. Even the very people who had ignored the prophets’ warnings had to admit in the end that the prophets had been right after all. The conclusion hinted at is that the principles on which the LORD deals with his people do not change. So if Zechariah’s hearers ignore an offer like that in verse 3, they too will suffer the LORD’s punishment.

In certain languages it will be possible to keep the rhetorical questions and say, for example, “As for your ancestors, they are no longer here, are they? And even the prophets died long ago, didn’t they?” The two questions could also be combined into one sentence, such as “Neither your ancestors nor the prophets are here now, are they?” Good News Translation has only the single statement “Your ancestors and those prophets are no longer alive.” This is clear, but loses the impact of the rhetorical questions. Contemporary English Version keeps the first sentence as a rhetorical question and uses an emphatic statement for the second one: “Where are your ancestors now? Not even prophets live forever.” This leaves readers to work out for themselves that the ancestors are dead, and is less than ideal. In some languages the second question may be expressed in an idiomatic way, such as “Did the prophets live as long as the hill?”

But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers?: In the Hebrew there is a contrast between the short lives of the prophets and people (verse 5) and the enduring truth of the LORD’s word (verse 6). In Hebrew the phrase my words and my statutes is in an emphatic position. The main clause in the first part of verse 6 is another rhetorical question, literally “Did not my words and my statutes … overtake your fathers?” The answer expected is positive, and Good News Translation has expressed this as a statement: “they disregarded them and suffered the consequences.” However, Good News Translation has taken it out of focus by putting it into the second clause of the sentence. In order to retain the focus of the Hebrew, many translators would need to restructure the whole argument and say something like this: “5 Neither those ancestors of yours nor those prophets are any longer alive, 6 but the commands and warnings which I gave through my servants the prophets proved to be true. Your ancestors ignored them and so were punished.”

The terms my words and my statutes refer generally to the LORD’s requirements as revealed through the Law and the earlier prophets. Good News Translation translates them as “commands and warnings.” Statutes in this context refers to teachings and admonitions (warnings) not to do evil.

The expression my servants the prophets is found frequently elsewhere, especially in 1–2 Kings and Jeremiah. In some languages it may need to be restructured as “the people who served me by speaking my message” or something similar. I commanded my servants the prophets is translated in Good News Translation as “Through my servants the prophets I gave … commands.” In some languages, though, it will be necessary to show that the prophets were God’s instruments or mouthpieces by saying “I caused my servants the prophets to give commands to…” or “I caused those people who served me by speaking my message to give commands to….”

The word overtake in did they not overtake your fathers? is of course used in a figurative sense here. A more natural figure in English would be “did they not catch up with your fathers?” Overtake may be translated idiomatically in some languages as “bring consequences on” or “cause bad effects on.” Good News Translation has both changed the question to a statement (see the comments above) and changed the figure to plain language. However, in “disregarded” and “suffered the consequences,” Good News Translation has chosen surprisingly high-level language. The same meaning could be expressed more simply as in the restructuring suggested above, “Your ancestors ignored them and so were punished,” or translators may say, “Your ancestors ignored these commands and warnings, and so were punished.” In languages that do not use the passive, they may express this as “… so I [the LORD] punished them.”

Some scholars have suggested taking the text as “you” instead of your fathers here. There is no manuscript support for this change, however. No major English translation has adopted it, and translators should not do so.

So they repented and said: The second half of verse 6 in Hebrew consists mainly of a direct quotation of the words of the ancestors. Good News Translation has changed to indirect speech since this is more natural in this context in English, but as mentioned above, in certain languages it will be necessary to maintain direct speech. So indicates that it was as a result of their being punished that the ancestors repented. Good News Translation “Then” does not fit the context as well. Revised Standard Version and Contemporary English Version are better with So (compare New Living Translation “As a result”). The word here translated repented is the same word in Hebrew as that translated “return” in verses 3 and 4. By using the same word at several points in the paragraph, Zechariah helps to bind it together as a unit. However, because the word has different senses in each of its occurrences, it is usually impossible to keep this kind of connection in another language. Most translators will need to follow the example of Good News Translation and use a different word in each context.

Said is a very flat and colorless word, and here Good News Translation has been able to include something of the attitude as well as the act by translating “acknowledged.” “Acknowledged” suggests a degree of reluctance on the part of the people. This fits very well with the context in which the people are obliged to say that they had been wrong after all. Another word in English that would carry much the same sense in this context is “admitted.” A translation will gain in emotional impact if translators can use words like this from time to time and avoid constant repetition of a dull word like “said.” In languages that must use direct speech here, translators may say, for example, “So, they repented and admitted their guilt saying….”

As the LORD of hosts purposed to deal with us for our ways and deeds, so has he dealt with us: For the LORD of hosts, see the comments on Hag 1.2. Purposed to deal with us is expressed in more natural language in Good News Translation as “as I had determined to do,” that is, according to the principles that the prophets had told the people in advance. Purposed will sometimes be rendered idiomatically as “set my heart to do.” Deal with and dealt with in this context suggests punishment and Good News Translation has brought this out. The people were “punished” (Good News Translation) for our ways and deeds. Good News Translation expresses this in natural English by “as they deserved,” but in certain languages translators may follow the model of Revised Standard Version and say, for example, “The LORD Almighty punished us according to our evil lives and deeds.”

The order of the clauses at the end of the verse is different in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. Revised Standard Version follows the Hebrew in saying As the LORD of hosts purposed … so has he dealt with us. Although this is clear, it is not a very natural order for modern English. Accordingly, Good News Translation has reversed the order to say, “I … punished them … as I had determined to do.” The relationship of comparison between the two clauses is the same either way. Translators should use whichever order is more natural in their own language. Other ways to express the end of the verse are “As the LORD Almighty said he would, so he punished us for our sins” and “LORD, All-Powerful, we have sinned against you and you punished us as you said.”

An alternative translation model for verses 5-6 is:

• 5 As for your ancestors, they are no longer here [or, alive], are they? And those prophets died long ago, didn’t they? 6 I used my servants the prophets to give commands to your ancestors and to instruct them to stop their evil ways. But they ignored these commands and warnings, and so I punished them. Then they repented [or, changed their hearts around] and said, “The LORD, the All-Powerful One, has punished us according to our evil lives and deeds, just as he planned to do.”

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 3:4

And the angel said to those who were standing before him: The angel is of course the angel of the LORD, as in verse 1. Those who were standing before him are lesser angels who have not been mentioned before. Several modern versions make their status clear by using the word “attendants” (Moffatt, Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh; compare New English Bible/ Revised English Bible “those in attendance on him”), and translators should follow these examples. Good News Translation goes further, and by using the expression “heavenly attendants” makes it clear that they were angels rather than human beings. Contemporary English Version is rather misleading when it says “some of the people,” and should not be followed in this. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch goes to the opposite extreme and actually uses the word “angels.” In other languages translators will need to decide for themselves whether this is necessary. Alternative translation models for “heavenly attendants” are “those angels who served him” or “those heavenly messengers who served him [or, accompanied him],” as in Bible en français courant and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente.

Remove the filthy garments from him: Remove here means “take off” (Moffatt, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Revised English Bible, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) rather than “take away” (Good News Translation).

And to him he said: This is the first time the angel addresses Joshua directly. Good News Translation, New International Version, and Contemporary English Version use a more natural word order and include the priest’s name: “Then he said to Joshua” (similarly Revised English Bible, New Living Translation, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente).

Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you: The Hebrew word translated Behold is not the common term used in 1.8, 18; 2.1, 9. It is an imperative form of a verb meaning “to see” and carries somewhat more emphasis than the usual term. Accordingly, it would be better not to omit it as Good News Translation has. Other modern versions use “Look” (Jerusalem Bible) or “See” (Moffatt, New American Bible, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Beck, New Living Translation). Perhaps the most natural rendering of the clause is in New English Bible/ Revised English Bible: “See how I have taken away….”

Your iniquity: It was actually the dirty clothes that had been taken away. The angel’s comment here makes it clear that the clothes were a symbol of sin.

And I will clothe you with rich apparel: Instead of the filthy garments, Joshua is to be given rich apparel. The Hebrew word used here occurs elsewhere only in Isa 3.22, where it is translated “festal robes” in Revised Standard Version. Here Moffatt and Jerusalem Bible render “robes of state.” Good News Translation “new clothes” hardly sounds grand enough. Perhaps “splendid clothes” would be more appropriate, as in Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente. New English Bible and Revised English Bible use “fine vestments.” The word “vestment” is linked with priestly functions in English, but is not a common language term. If such a word is available in other languages, it could be appropriate here provided that it is well known. Translators may also say “I will have them put fine [or, beautiful] priestly clothes on you.”

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 6:5

And the angel answered me: In English the word answered gives the impression that the question of verse 4 is resolved in the same terms in which it was asked; but if the Revised Standard Version translation is correct, this is not the case. In languages that can make such distinctions, “responded” in English would be better (compare New American Bible), or even “explained” (Contemporary English Version).

These are going forth to the four winds of heaven: The word to is not in the Hebrew text. The following words the four winds of heaven can be taken either as referring to directions (Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, Jerusalem Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1. Edition) or else as a fuller way of expressing These (“These are the four winds” in Good News Translation; other versions are similar). The second possibility makes these words more directly an answer to the prophet’s question, but it complicates the interpretation, and this must be considered a drawback. The expression the four winds (with or without the addition of of heaven) usually stands for the four main points of the compass (1 Chr. 9.24 [Revised Standard Version “four sides”]; Ezek 37.9; Ezek 42.20 [Revised Standard Version “four sides”]; Dan 8.8; Zech 2.6). Moreover, verse 6 goes on to speak of the directions in which the horses departed, and this supports the Revised Standard Version interpretation here. Another possible translation model is “These chariots are going out in four directions,” or even “These four chariots are going out, each in a different direction.” Some versions translate four winds as “four spirits” (New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version footnote), but this seems less probable and is not recommended.

After presenting themselves before the LORD of all the earth: The phrase presenting themselves is literally “standing before” (King James Version, Revised Version, Jerusalem Bible; compare New International Version). Other renderings are “being reviewed by” (New American Bible) and “attending” (New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible). This is a case where a literal translation “standing before” may carry the correct meaning in many languages.

The LORD of all the earth in Hebrew is the same expression as that translated “the Lord of the whole earth” in 4.14. The word “Lord” does not represent the divine name and the use of capital letters (LORD) in Revised Standard Version here is therefore an error. This error also occurs in New Revised Standard Version. Curiously enough the same error occurs in New American Bible both here and in 4.14. See the comment on “Lord” in 4.14.

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 8:8

And I will bring them to dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: This is very old-fashioned English. Modern versions express the meaning more naturally as “I will bring them back to live in Jerusalem” (New International Version; similarly New Revised Standard Version, New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, Good News Translation, New Living Translation, Contemporary English Version). The prophet is here promising an end to the shortage of people in the city (compare verses 4-5).

They shall be my people and I will be their God: These words echo several other parts of the Old Testament, for instance Lev 26.12; Jer 7.23; Jer 11.4; Jer 24.7; Ezek 11.20; Ezek 36.28; Ezek 37.23, 27. They give the sense that the covenant relationship between the LORD and his people will be restored, so that the people will have a new opportunity to enjoy the fellowship with God that God always wanted them to have. Their God in some languages will be expressed as “the God they worship.”

In faithfulness and in righteousness: These terms would remind the readers of Hos 2.19-20. They make clear that the basis of the intimate relationship between the LORD and his people is an ethical one. The Hebrew does not indicate whether in faithfulness and in righteousness applies to the people, to the LORD, or to both parties. Good News Translation takes this phrase as applying only to the LORD, and translates it as “ruling over them faithfully and justly” (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New Living Translation, Bible en français courant, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch taking the same view). However, other versions seem to apply the phrase to both parties (Moffatt, New American Bible, New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Bible de Jérusalem, Jerusalem Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), though all are somewhat ambiguous. Only Knox clearly includes both parties, expressing this meaning in clear but stilted English as “in troth and loyalty either to other bound.”

It is also possible that we are here dealing with a chiasmus (A-B-B-A structure). If this is so, then in the sequence “people-God-faithfulness-righteousness,” faithfulness is the quality that God displays, and righteousness the quality that the people display (Baldwin). This suggestion is an attractive one, and if translators accept it, a possible translation base is “they will be my righteous people and I will be their faithful God.”

Both faithfulness and righteousness are difficult ideas to translate in many languages. The essential feature of faithfulness is reliability, adherence to truthfulness and to a person’s obligations. This term is translated as “truth” by New English Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, and as “loyally” by Moffatt (compare Bible en français courant). Righteousness as a human quality means basically showing moral integrity by acting justly in dealings with other people. It is translated “justly” in Good News Translation (compare “justice” in New American Bible, New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, Contemporary English Version, Bible en français courant, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente; “integrity” in Jerusalem Bible; and “sincerity” in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

A possible alternative model for the last half of the verse, attributing faithfulness to God and righteousness to human beings is the following:

• They will be my people and I will be their God. I will be faithful to them and they will deal justly with each other.

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 .