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 1:5

In Hebrew the words introducing the direct speech are identical with those in verse 2, but with the addition of the opening Now. Such repetition is unnatural in English and Good News Translation therefore drops these words here, and continues the words of the LORD’s message directly from the previous verse. Many translators will wish to follow Good News Translation, but they should nevertheless indicate that a new paragraph begins at this point. The force of the word Now is to show that the argument is moving to a new stage.

Consider how you have fared: The exact sense of the Hebrew is expressed more clearly by such renderings as “Consider your way of life” (Revised English Bible), “Give careful thought to your ways” (New International Version), and “Think carefully about your behavior” (New Jerusalem Bible). The focus of the whole section 1.3-11 is more on the way the people have acted than on their lack of agricultural success. This focus becomes sharper in verses 7-11. The crop failures are a result of the people’s casual attitude toward God, and it is this attitude that God calls upon them to Consider. The command to Consider or think carefully is repeated in 1.7; 2.15, 18. Good News Translation translates the command here as “Don’t you see what is happening to you?” A negative question like this is very natural in English, and leads on easily to the answer given in verse 6. However, in many languages a negative question would be very confusing, and translators would give the correct meaning by staying closer to the form of the Hebrew, and saying, for example, “See [or, Look] what has happened to you,” or better, “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 1:3

The three occurrences in this verse of says the LORD of hosts in Revised Standard Version actually represent three slightly different expressions in Hebrew, each with a slightly different discourse function. The first formula, Thus says the LORD of hosts (in Hebrew koh ʾamar YHWH tsevaʾoth), introduces a paragraph that extends to the end of verse 4. The second formula, says the LORD of hosts (in Hebrew neʾum YHWH tsevaʾoth), reinforces the first formula as an opening marker. The third formula, says the LORD of hosts (in Hebrew ʾamar YHWH tsevaʾoth), marks a climax, as it does also in Zech 4.6; Zech 7.13; Zech 8.14. In many languages, including English, the repetition of quotation formulas is poor style. Good News Translation therefore summarizes the three occurrences in the words “The LORD Almighty told Zechariah to say to the people,” which it has moved to verse 2. Few languages are likely to have quotation formulas with functions similar to the Hebrew ones, but translators should try to find some particle, word or order of words that will convey the functions of the Hebrew expressions. For the translation of LORD of hosts, see the comments on Hag 1.2.

As the paragraph proceeds it becomes clear that the message is addressed to all the people and not just to particular individuals. Good News Translation has made this clear at the beginning with the words “to say to the people.”

Therefore say to them: By the normal rules of pronoun reference in English, them would refer back to “your fathers” in verse 2; but this does not make sense, and the logic of the context means that them must refer to the people whom Zechariah is addressing. Zechariah is told to address the LORD’s message to the people of his own day. These words introduce the second degree quotation. Therefore is not in the Hebrew text, and is not logically necessary. Good News Translation replaces it with “but,” though “and now” would also be a perfectly acceptable link in English.

Thus says the LORD of hosts: This clause begins the second degree quotation (which continues at least to the end of verse 4 and possibly to the end of verse 6), and introduces the third degree quotation. It is a literal translation of the Hebrew. As part of its restructuring of the paragraph, Good News Translation has here “but now I say to you.” “I” refers of course to the LORD, and “you” is plural. Many translators will find it helpful to follow the example of Good News Translation in the way it handles the quotations in this paragraph.

Return to me, says the LORD of hosts, and I will return to you: These words begin the third degree quotation, which also continues to the end of verse 4, and possibly to the end of verse 6. They are quoted in Mal 3.7. The word return had been used often by earlier prophets in encouraging the people to take their religious duties more seriously (see for instance Jer 3.12-14; Hos 6.1; Hos 7.10; Amos 4.6-11). In the present context, when used of human beings, this word refers not just to a more regular observation of religious ritual, but to a basic change of attitude resulting in conduct obedient to the will of God. When used of God, as in the second occurrence in this verse, it refers to God ending the punishment of his disobedient people, and giving them his blessings once again.

In many languages it will not be possible to find a single term to cover both of these meanings. Also, in many languages it will not be possible to use an imperative form Return to me to carry what is really a conditional meaning. In such languages it may be necessary to adjust both the structure and the wording, and say something like “If you will again obey me, then I will again bless you” or “If you come back [or, repent] and worship me again, I will again take care of you.”

At the time at which Zechariah was prophesying, the most obvious way in which people could show a change in their attitude toward the LORD was by helping to rebuild the Temple (compare Hag 1.4-8). However, the language Zechariah uses here does not mention the Temple by name, and could be applied to the behavior of the people more generally; that is to say, it tells them to repent and obey the LORD.

An alternative translation model for verses 2-3 is:

• The LORD who is all-powerful told Zechariah to say to the people, “I, who am the LORD, was very angry with your ancestors. But now I say to you, ‘If you repent and worship me again, I will take care of you [or, help 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 3:2

And the LORD said to Satan: The context here seems to require the speaker to be the angel of the LORD (compare verses 1 and 3) rather than the LORD himself. The ancient Syriac translation actually has “the angel of the LORD” here, and is followed by many modern versions such as New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible. The fact that the direct speech which follows refers to the LORD in the third person gives some support to this possibility and translators may well choose to accept it. In terms of the context, Satan and Joshua were standing directly in front of the angel, so it seems more likely that the angel was the speaker. However, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommend following the Hebrew text (as Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, New Living Translation, Contemporary English Version, and Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente have done).

The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!: In some languages the vocative (address form) O Satan may have to come at the beginning of the quotation; for example, “O Satan, may the LORD rebuke you…” or “Satan, I ask the LORD to….” It will also be possible to bring out the element of censure by translating “The angel of the LORD reprimanded [or, censured] Satan, saying, ‘O Satan….’ ” In giving the rebuke, the angel of the LORD is acting as a counsel for the defense. The repetition shows the force of the rebuke. The second utterance is reinforced by the description of the LORD as the one who has chosen Jerusalem (compare 1.17; 2.12). As in 2.12, Good News Translation here expands this by saying, “the LORD, who loves Jerusalem” (similarly Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Bible en français courant and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente keep the verb “choose,” as does Contemporary English Version, and this is to be preferred. The effect of this rebuke is to silence Satan, the accuser, before he has a chance to say anything. In some languages it may be helpful to make this clear by saying something like “Silence, Satan!” or “Satan, keep quiet!” at the beginning (as in Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Another possibility is found in Bible en français courant and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, which say, “May the LORD reduce you to silence!”

Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?: This is a rhetorical question, whose purpose is to make an emphatic statement. Many translators will find it helpful to express this in statement form, for example, “The LORD rescued this man as someone snatches a stick from the fire” (similarly Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). The demonstrative this is slightly ambiguous. It may possibly refer to Jerusalem, but most commentaries and translations understand it to refer to Joshua. Several versions make this interpretation clear by saying “this man” (Moffatt, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New International Version, Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente), and translators are recommended to do the same. It is also possible to mention Joshua by name, as do Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente.

The phrase a brand plucked from the fire is similar to that in Amos 4.11. Here it refers to Joshua as a representative of the remnant who had returned to Jerusalem from exile (Ezra 2.1-2). The exile is likened to a fire from which the remnant has been rescued, as a half-burnt log may be snatched from a blaze. The description is aptly applied to Joshua, for his grandfather Seraiah had been executed by the Babylonians (2 Kgs 25.18-21), and his father Jehozadak had been carried into exile (1 Chr 6.14-15). It was against all natural expectations that Joshua had been able to return to Jerusalem and resume his priestly duties. In dealing with this metaphor, the translator may need to make the basis of the comparison clearer and say, “The LORD rescued this man as someone snatches a stick from a fire.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The angel of the LORD [or, The LORD] reprimanded Satan, saying, “Satan, I ask the LORD to rebuke [or, silence] you! May the LORD who has chosen [or, loves] Jerusalem condemn you. The LORD rescued this man as someone snatches a stick from the fire.”

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 6:2 - 6:3

The first chariot had red horses or, as Good News Translation says, “The first chariot was pulled by red horses.” As in 1.8, “brown” is probably a better translation than red in English (see the notes there). In some languages it may be grammatically necessary to state whether each chariot had two horses or more than two. Translators may assume they had two, since this was the usual number. This may be incorporated into the first verse (see the comment above).

The second black horses: This is a short way of saying “the second chariot had black horses.” The noun chariot and the verb had need not be repeated in English in this and the two following clauses, but will need to be repeated in some languages. The color term black did not occur in the description of the horses in 1.8, but its meaning is not in dispute here.

The third white horses: White was also the third color listed in 1.8.

And the fourth chariot dappled gray horses: The Hebrew word here translated dappled is not the same word as that rendered “dappled” in Good News Translation in 1.8. However, both Hebrew words seem to have much the same meaning, and several versions ancient and modern translate them both with the same term (Septuagint, Vulgate, New English Bible, Good News Translation). In other languages translators may well do the same. As in 1.8, we recommend that if technical terms for the colors of horses are not available or not well known, then translators should use a simple term like “gray.” In 1.8 we also suggested that if there is no term for “gray,” translators could mention the colors from which gray is made up, namely black and white. That solution is less desirable here, however, since black and white have already been mentioned separately. Perhaps some expression like “spotted” (New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) could be used, though in English “spotted” applies more readily to dogs or birds than to horses.

The real problem here is the meaning of ʾamutsim, the last word in Hebrew, which as the Revised Standard Version footnote shows, is uncertain. We would expect another color word at this point, and indeed ʾamutsim may be used in verse 7 as parallel with the color words in verse 6. However, elsewhere this Hebrew root carries the meaning “strong.” The difficulty is an ancient one: the Septuagint translates with another word meaning much the same as dappled, the Vulgate translates as “strong,” and the Syriac omits ʾamutsim. All three of these solutions can also be found among modern versions. The Septuagint approach is represented in Revised Standard Version and New Living Translation dappled gray, NJV “spotted–dappled,” and Contemporary English Version “spotted gray” (similarly Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente). The Vulgate approach is found in New Jerusalem Bible “vigorous, piebald,” New American Bible “spotted … strong,” and New International Version “dappled … powerful” (similarly Bible de Jérusalem, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). The Syriac approach is followed in Moffatt, New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, and Good News Translation. No solution is fully satisfactory, but as Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament notes, the least unsatisfactory is the second, especially if the meaning “strong” is applied to all the horses and not just those on the fourth chariot. This view is supported by Meyers & Meyers. Such a solution is found in New American Bible “all of them strong horses” and New International Version “all of them powerful” (similarly Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

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 8:6

Thus says the LORD of hosts has no equivalent in Good News Translation. See the comments on verse 2. The rest of the verse is somewhat more difficult than those before it. In Hebrew the sentence has the form of a rhetorical question, a question that does not expect an answer, but is really a way of making an emphatic statement. Revised Standard Version keeps the question form as do most modern versions, but in many languages it may be better to follow the example of Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, and Contemporary English Version and turn it into a statement.

If it is marvelous: The Hebrew does not state what the it refers to, but most commentators take it to refer to the promises in the three previous oracles. Some translators may need to make this clear and say “If these promises seem…” or “These promises may seem….” Marvelous has the sense of “too marvelous to believe,” and Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version express this more briefly with “This may seem impossible.”

In the sight of the remnant of this people in these days: Again Good News Translation simplifies to “to those of the nation who are now left,” that is to say, to the people who were living at the same time as Zechariah. Contemporary English Version translates this expression as “for my people who are left.”

In these days is a phrase that is usually translated “in those days” (as in verse 23), and that in Hebrew usually refers to the future. Some translators take it that way here (New English Bible, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh; compare Bible en français courant). The meaning of this interpretation is that when the promises of the previous verses are fulfilled, it will seem too wonderful to believe, even for the people who see it happen. Other translators, however, including Moffatt, Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, think that the context requires the words to refer to the present. Thus Revised Standard Version translates in these days rather than “in those days,” and Good News Translation has simply “now.” On this interpretation the oracle is a challenge to those who heard it. They might find the picture of happiness in the previous verses too good to be true, but that did not mean it was beyond the LORD’s power to bring it about.

The second interpretation seems more probable, and is the one recommended to translators.

Should it also be marvelous in my sight: This is the main clause of the sentence, and is put as a statement in Good News Translation “but it’s not impossible for me” (similarly Contemporary English Version). Another possibility is “But I will make it happen.”

Says the LORD of hosts has no equivalent in Good News Translation. It is not the same expression in Hebrew as that used at the beginning of verses 2, 3, 4, and 6. The words used here tend to come more often at the end of an oracle, and their use at this point may suggest that the prophet intended to make a bigger break at the end of this oracle than at the end of any of the previous three. If this is so, the effect is to link the four oracles of verses 2-6 together. Even if this is true for the Hebrew, it will be impossible to show it in translation in many languages. In some languages the effect might be maintained by beginning a new paragraph with verse 7 if translators have not done so at verses 3, 4, and 6. In other languages there may be ways of marking a break that is less important than a new paragraph, but more important than just a new sentence. If so, such a marker may be appropriate here. Good News Translation links verse 6 with verses 7-8 in a single paragraph, but this does not really reflect the structure of the Hebrew, and we advise translators not to copy it.

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 .