Translation commentary on Malachi 3:3

He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: The pronoun he continues to refer to “the messenger of the covenant” in verse 1. Now he is compared to a refiner and purifier rather than to a fire. Several commentators note that refiners would sit over their work (J. M. P. Smith; Verhoef), so that the verb is an appropriate part of the simile. Others see the sitting as carrying overtones of a legal tribunal where the judge sits (Deissler; compare Good News Translation), but this picture does not arise naturally from a description of metalworking. While the word refiner is a technical term in the craft of smelting, the word purifier has religious overtones. The combination of terms here helps to point to the meaning of the simile as explained at the end of the verse. In many languages it will be helpful to restructure this clause and say, “he will be like a silversmith who sits to refine and purify silver.” In many languages, though, it may be difficult to distinguish between the refining and purifying processes. In such cases, translators may say something like “He will come to judge like a person who uses fire to purify silver.” Similar pictures are found for instance in Psa 12.6; Isa 1.25 and 48.10. On silver see the following notes.

He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver: The verb here translated purify is the same word in Hebrew as in the previous clause, whereas the verb here translated refine is not. Thus the English text of Revised Standard Version has a chiastic structure more marked than the Hebrew. It is interesting to see that the Septuagint has also strengthened the chiasmus by saying “silver and gold” in the previous clause to balance the gold and silver in this one. No modern version follows the Septuagint in this. Several however do the opposite and drop the silver from the previous clause (Moffatt, Bible de Jérusalem, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible/Revised English Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1. Edition), but there is no textual basis for this and translators are advised not to do it.

The sons of Levi are of course the descendants of Levi, that is the priests (compare 2.4, 8). The sequence gold and silver reflects the Hebrew word order. Translators should feel free to say “silver and gold” if this is the natural word order in their language. Again, in some languages it will be difficult to distinguish between “refining” and “purifying.” A possible alternative model for this clause is “As a metalworker purifies [or, uses fire to purify] gold and silver [or, silver and gold], so the messenger will purify the descendants of Levi.”

Till they present right offerings to the LORD: The word till in English normally indicates a time relationship, which is rather misleading here. There is no such word in the Hebrew. This clause is either the purpose (Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Living Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) or more probably the result (Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible/Revised English Bible, New International Version, Beck, Contemporary English Version, Bible en français courant, Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente) of the actions in the two previous clauses. It would be clearer to say “Then they will present…” or “In this way they will present….” Right offerings probably means “offerings made in the ritually correct way” (J. M. P. Smith, Deissler, Vuilleumier, Verhoef); a similar expression occurs in Psa 4.5 and 51.19. This option is well expressed in Jerusalem Bible: “they will make the offering to Yahweh as it should be made” (similarly Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). Other possibilities are “they will bring to the LORD the right kind of offerings” (similarly Good News Translation; New American Bible, Contemporary English Version) and “… make the offering to Yahweh with uprightness” (New Jerusalem Bible). In fact, the order of words in Hebrew puts the focus on the people who give the offerings, rather than on the offerings themselves, a focus that most versions miss. It is captured well in New International Version: “the LORD will have men who will bring offerings…” (similarly Moffatt, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant).

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The messenger will come to judge like a person who purifies silver. As a metalworker purifies [or, uses fire to purify] gold and silver, the messenger will purify the descendants of Levi. Then the LORD will have people [or, priests] who bring the proper offerings to him.

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

Translation commentary on Haggai 2:7

I will shake all nations: These words continue the theme of the previous verse. The picture shifts from an earthquake to the area of politics, so Good News Translation translates shake as “overthrow,” which is a possible interpretation. But the image should be kept, if possible, leaving readers to imagine the effects of a nation being “shaken” by an almighty God. In some languages shake or “overthrow” will be rendered as “destroy the power of.” Nations refers to gentile nations.

So that the treasures of all nations shall come in: As a result of this upheaval, the treasures belonging to the gentiles will come in, that is to Jerusalem. Although this passage has Messianic overtones of a general kind, the personal reference found in King James Version “the desire of all nations shall come” cannot be supported by the Hebrew. It is in fact based on a mistranslation in the Vulgate. The verb in Hebrew is plural, which indicates that the singular noun that is its subject should either be taken as having a collective meaning or else should be read with different vowels as a plural passive participle meaning “what is desired.” This latter interpretation is supported by the Septuagint. Revised Standard Version translates the subject as treasures (as do Good News Translation, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible/Revised English Bible, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation). The same thought is found in Isa 60.5. In languages that prefer a personal subject, this clause may be expressed as “all the [gentile] nations will bring their treasures here,” meaning of course to Jerusalem. It is also possible to maintain the LORD as the subject, and say, “I will bring in the treasures of all the nations.” Treasures may also be rendered as “riches” (Bible en français courant), “expensive possessions,” or “precious things.”

And I will fill this house with splendor: As a result of the arrival of the treasures of all the nations, the Temple will be filled with splendor. The word translated splendor (compare New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible) is “wealth” in Good News Translation. Many modern versions have “glory” (New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation). It could thus be a reference to 1 Kgs 8.10-11, where Solomon’s Temple was filled with the glory of the LORD at its dedication. However, most modern commentators take the context here in Haggai to show that material wealth is intended. This is supported both by the reference to treasures in the earlier part of the verse, and by the mention of “silver” and “gold” in the next verse.

For the closing words, says the LORD of hosts, see the comments on verse 4. Here the clause marks the climax of the discourse unit, and translators should indicate this if the resources of their language allow them to do so.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• I will destroy the power of [or, shake] all the nations, and they will bring their expensive possessions here, so that the Temple [or, my house] will be filled with precious things.

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 1:20

Then the LORD showed me: The LORD has not been mentioned in the narrative framework of the visions since verse 13, but his presence is assumed (compare 2.6; 3.2; 4.8; 6.9).

Four smiths: The Hebrew word for smiths is a general one meaning “craftsmen” (New International Version), but in this context it is generally taken to mean smiths (Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) or “blacksmiths” (Moffatt, New American Bible, New Living Translation, Contemporary English Version). These were craftsmen who dealt especially with making things out of heated metal such as iron, and Good News Translation tries to make this clearer by translating “workers with hammers.” This Hebrew word had already been used in Isa 54.16 and Ezek 21.31 (21.36 in the Hebrew text; Revised Standard Version has “skilful”) as a picture of the LORD’s agents of destruction. The present context may refer back to these earlier passages, and uses the same sort of picture.

The smith was a respected craftsman in the society of Zechariah’s day, as he produced important tools and weapons. In areas where such a craftsman is not familiar, it will be helpful to the reader to give some idea what he did. If the mention of “hammers” (Good News Translation) is not clear enough, translators could say “men who made iron [or, metal] tools.”

The number four is the same as the number of the horns. As the following verse shows, the purpose of this is to show that the LORD has the right number of workers to punish the enemies of his people.

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 4:10 - 4:11

For the relationship of this verse to the previous two verses, see the discussion above.

For whoever has despised the day of small things shall rejoice: Versions both ancient and modern take the first clause as a question, “Who has despised the day of small things?” (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible; similarly King James Version, Revised Version, Bible de Jérusalem, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Beck, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). This view can be supported by the grammar of the Hebrew: the verb translated despised is singular while that translated shall rejoice is plural. However, if the clause is a question, it is a rhetorical one, and is in effect the equivalent of a strong statement, so the overall meaning of the verse is much the same either way. Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version interpret the clause in a similar way to Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version. New Living Translation, Bible en français courant, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente go further and turn the clause into a command not to despise the small beginnings of the work on the Temple. The day of small things means a time when little progress is apparent for God’s people, especially in the rebuilding of the Temple. Good News Translation makes the first clause a separate sentence, but frames it as a statement rather than a question. Translators may also express this as “They are disappointed because very little building has been done.” People who despise such a time are easily discouraged, and discourage others. Haggai also had to contend with such people (Hag 2.3). The message given here through Zechariah is that perseverance is needed. Any large project has a small beginning but can be completed by constant effort. In the case of the Temple, it would be completed under Zerubbabel’s leadership (compare verse 9) and would make even those who are discouraged rejoice.

And shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel: The two Hebrew words translated plummet in Revised Standard Version have been interpreted in various ways. Literally, they are “the stone, the tin.” Many interpreters take them to refer to a weight (of stone or metal or both) on the end of a string or rope. This device, which Revised Standard Version calls a plummet, was (and still is) used in building work to check that walls are straight and true. It is often referred to as a “plumb line” (New International Version). If people see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel, this means that the building of the Temple is going ahead. Good News Translation accepts this interpretation and translates “they will see Zerubbabel continuing to build the Temple” (similarly Moffatt, New American Bible, New International Version, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente).

However, the word whose meaning is given above as “tin” may come from a different root, meaning “to separate.” That was the understanding of the ancient Syriac translation, and is followed by New English Bible and Revised English Bible with “the stone called Separation.” This suggests that the Temple is a symbol of the way the people who worshiped there were different from other nations, and were set apart for the service of God (compare Lev 20.26).

It is also possible to hold this interpretation and apply the separation to the stone itself. This view is found in the renderings “the stone of distinction” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) and “the chosen stone” (Bible de Jérusalem, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible; similarly Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). A translation like this links this stone with “the top stone” of verse 7, and indeed Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch and Contemporary English Version use the same term in both verses. This gives better links through the paragraph as a whole; but if this is what Zechariah intended, then it is strange that he did not use the same term in both places himself.

The translation plummet makes good sense in the context, and on the whole we recommend it to translators. Those who accept this interpretation may well wish to follow the example of Good News Translation and explain that the plummet being in the hand of Zerubbabel means that he will be continuing work on the reconstruction of the Temple.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• They [The people] are disappointed because very little building has yet been done. But when they see Zerubbabel continuing to build the Temple, they will be very happy.

As suggested in the introductory comments on this chapter, we regard verse 10b as a continuation of the conversation between Zechariah and the angel recorded in verses 2-5.

These seven are the eyes of the LORD, which range through the whole earth: With these words the angel answers the prophet’s question asked in verse 4. So we understand These seven as referring to the seven lamps of verse 2. This understanding is made clear in Good News Translation, which says, “The seven lamps are…” (see also Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). The angel explains them as standing for, or representing (Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) the eyes of the LORD, which range through the whole earth. This means that the LORD is keeping a close watch on events all over the world (compare 2 Chr 16.9; Pro 15.3). The idea of the LORD having seven eyes is not to be taken literally. The number seven stands for completeness, as often in Scripture. If the LORD is pictured as having seven eyes, it means that he sees everything that happens on earth (Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch) and nothing can escape his notice. Contemporary English Version has “they see everything on this earth.”

What are these two olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand?: As in verse 4, the question concerns the meaning of the trees, as is expressed more clearly in Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente. As verse 3 stated, the trees were one on each side of the lampstand. Good News Translation could possibly be taken to mean that there were two trees on each side, and translators should be careful to avoid giving this impression. An alternative way to express the question is “What do these two olive trees, one on each side of the lampstand, mean?” or “What about the olive trees on each side of the lampstand? What do they represent?” (Contemporary English Version). For lampstand see the notes on verse 2.

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 7:4

This verse is similar to 4.8 and 6.9, with the difference that the title for God here is the longer one LORD of hosts. For this expression, see the comments on Hag 1.2.

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 8:23

Thus says the LORD of hosts begins the final subparagraph. Good News Translation has no equivalent. Translators should try to mark this point as the beginning of a new subunit in some way. They will have to decide whether to do so by repeating the introductory formula (for example, “The LORD Almighty says”) or by some other means that is stylistically more appropriate in their own language.

In those days is the same phrase in Hebrew as that translated “in these days” in verse 6. Here it clearly refers to the indefinite future, the time when the promises of verses 20-22 will be fulfilled (compare “On that day” in Hag 2.23).

Ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew: As in verses 17 and 20, Revised Standard Version translates a text that omits one word, the relative pronoun, from the traditional Hebrew text. In its translation Revised Standard Version is following the Septuagint, again without acknowledgment. Most modern versions do the same (Moffatt, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Revised English Bible, New Revised Standard Version, New Living Translation, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente). This causes a problem however, in that it leaves unexplained the repetition in the Hebrew of the verb take hold. Most modern versions simply ignore this repetition. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh repeats the verb in English, but this just sounds clumsy. New International Version tries to bring out something of the effect of the repetition by saying “take firm hold.” The only available version that tries to translate the traditional text is New English Bible, which has “when ten men from nations of every language pluck up courage, they shall pluck the robe of a Jew.” This maintains the repetition of the verb in English, but gives the verb very different meanings in its two occurrences, and must be regarded as rather doubtful. Literally, the Hebrew says, “those who take hold will be ten men from every gentile language group; they will take hold of the robe of a Jew.” These elements of meaning could be kept more naturally in English by reordering to say, “There will be ten men who take hold of the robe of a Jew. They will all come from different foreign language groups, and will say.” Ten here is probably a round figure indicating a large number (compare Gen 31.7; Lev 26.26; 1 Sam 1.8.). So the statement should not be understood to refer just to one Jew and ten foreigners. Rather, it is a general statement that for every Jew there will be ten foreigners.

The nations of every tongue is very unnatural English. As indicated above, this means “different foreign language groups.” Good News Translation says merely “foreigners,” but this is not sufficient. New American Bible brings out the point better with “men of every nationality, speaking different tongues.” The prophet is emphasizing that people from many different nations will come to seek the God of Israel (compare 8.20, 22). He is not saying that every person involved spoke several languages!

To take hold of the robe of a Jew was not a gesture that expressed hostility (as it does in 14.13), but rather great urgency (compare 1 Sam 15.27; Matt 9.20). Good News Translation says only “will come to one Jew,” but this is not adequate. If the modern reader will not understand the meaning of take hold of the robe, translators could say “will come and plead with.” It would also be possible to translate both the form and the meaning, and say, “will come and grab the robe of a Jew and plead with him.” The word translated robe in Revised Standard Version refers to “the edge of his garment” (New American Bible; see Hag 2.12). Other possible translations are “the sleeve” (Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible), “the hem of one … robe” (New Living Translation), and “a corner of his cloak” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). The word “Jew” is unusual in the Old Testament outside the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. It occurs also in Jer 34.9. Because the term Jew is unusual in the Old Testament, translators may consider using the term they have used in the New Testament, if it is different from their normal term for the inhabitants of Judah in the Old Testament.

Let us go with you: Compare verse 21. In Hebrew, you is plural. The foreigners may be addressing one Jew, but they speak about the Jews as a nation. Good News Translation “We want to share in your destiny” is not a very helpful example for translators. It is both high-level English and an unjustified expansion of the Hebrew.

We have heard that God is with you: The gentiles use the general name God rather than the personal name translated as “the LORD.” For the thought of this verse, compare Isa 7.14; Isa 45.14; Hag 1.13. You is again plural in Hebrew.

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 11:4

Thus said the LORD my God: The words are closely similar to the formula “Thus says the LORD [of hosts]” used often elsewhere as a higher level discourse marker (compare Hag 1.2, 7; Hag 2.11; Zech 7.9; Zech 8.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 19, 20, 23). They indicate here that a new section is beginning. The expression, the LORD my God (rather than “the LORD of hosts,” which occurs here in the Septuagint but is not followed by modern translators), is unusual, but does not affect the status of the whole clause as a discourse marker. In some languages it may not be possible to attach a possessive to the word God, and in such cases translators may have to say “the LORD, the God I worship [or, serve].” In extreme cases it may be necessary to omit the possessive and simply say “the LORD God,” but this should be avoided if possible (compare 14.5). The direct quotation of the LORD’s words extends to the end of verse 6.

Become shepherd of the flock doomed to slaughter: Some translators focus on the activity of the shepherd rather than his status, and instead of Become shepherd of the flock, say “Pasture the sheep” (Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible), “Pasture the flock” (New International Version), “Fatten the flock” (New English Bible), or “Tend the sheep” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). In some languages it may be more appropriate to say “You must become a shepherd….” Good News Translation builds in a hint about the interpretation of the whole passage by saying, “Act the part of the shepherd….” This may be difficult to translate in many languages, and in any case it is not certain that the addition is legitimate. Probably a majority of scholars would not object to it. There is no “correct” answer, and translators have to make their own decisions. The word shepherd is a keyword throughout this section, and it is also a common metaphor both for leaders and for the LORD himself (compare Psa 23; Jer 23.1-4; Ezek 34).

The flock doomed to slaughter: In this clause we encounter the problem that words sometimes mean more than they say literally. The English word doomed carries negative overtones, and may suggest that the sheep are to be slaughtered as a punishment which they have deserved. There is no proof that the Hebrew (literally “the flock of the slaughter” as in King James Version) has this sense, and most other modern English versions avoid it. Many simply assume that the flock was being raised for meat and translators are advised to follow this view. Sample renderings include “the sheep bred for slaughter” (Jerusalem Bible); “the sheep for slaughter” (New Jerusalem Bible); “the flock for slaughter” (New English Bible); “the sheep meant for slaughter” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh); “a flock of sheep that are going to be butchered” (Good News Translation). A few versions use expressions capable of a more sinister interpretation, but not demanding it: “the flock marked for slaughter” (New International Version) and “the flock destined for slaughter” (Revised English Bible). Or translators may say something like “the animals that they plan to slaughter.” Compare a similar expression in Jer 12.3.

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 13:7

Awake, O sword, against my shepherd: In Hebrew the vocative form rendered O sword is the first word, but translators should place this wherever it is most natural in their own language. A similar address to a sword is found in Jer 47.6. In languages where such an address to an object is difficult to understand, it may help to follow the example of Good News Translation and put “The LORD Almighty says” at the beginning of the verse to introduce the rest as a direct quotation. Good News Translation also uses the present-day form “Wake up” in place of the rather old-fashioned Awake (similarly Contemporary English Version). In some languages it will be helpful to restructure slightly; for example, “The LORD Almighty says, ‘My sword, wake up! Attack my shepherd!’ ”

The Hebrew word used for my shepherd is the same as in 11.17, and it should be translated in the same way. However, it is not clear whether the same person is referred to. Some scholars such as Driver, Delcor, Chary, Mitchell, and Mason, who wish to transpose verses 7-9 to follow 11.17, generally assume that it is, and understand verses 7-9 to be speaking of punishment on the “worthless shepherd” of 11.17. Other scholars such as Baldwin, Gaide, Lacocque, Meyers & Meyers, and Merrill, who keep verses 7-9 in their traditional position, point out that there is nothing in the present context to indicate that the shepherd is bad. They are more inclined to see a link with a ruler or with “him whom they have pierced” in 12.10, that is, with someone unjustly persecuted. They draw a parallel with Isa 53.10, where in some mysterious way it was “the will of the LORD” for his servant to be persecuted. Translators do not have to make a decision on this matter, but they should be aware of the options proposed by others.

Against the man who stands next to me: This is the same person as my shepherd. The Hebrew word translated who stands next to me occurs elsewhere only in Leviticus (Leviticus 6.2; Leviticus 18.20; Leviticus 19.11, 15, 17; Leviticus 24.19; Leviticus 25.14, 15, 17), where it is usually translated “neighbor.” It indicates a close relationship, and when the LORD refers to his shepherd in this way, it is surely positive rather than negative. This is reflected in such renderings as “my associate” (New American Bible), “my companion” (Jerusalem Bible), “my partner” (New Living Translation), “who is close to me” (New International Version), and even “my … friend” (Contemporary English Version). Some scholars interpret this as a reference to the high priest, and Moffatt rather provocatively renders it as “my high priest.” Translators should not follow this example. The Good News Translation rendering “the shepherd who works for me” seems too brief to do justice to the Hebrew phrases for my shepherd and the man who stands next to me. Perhaps “the shepherd, the one who is my companion,” would be better.

Says the LORD of hosts represents the Hebrew noun phrase neʾum YHWH tsevaʾot, which, in addition to its meaning as a marker of direct speech, also functions as a discourse marker. In this case it reinforces the combination of vocative noun plus imperative verb, which marks the start of a new paragraph at verse 7. In some languages it may be convenient to place it at the beginning of the verse to indicate that this paragraph is direct speech by the LORD (see the comment above, and compare Good News Translation).

Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered: The Hebrew verb translated Strike is a masculine imperative, whereas the word above translated Awake is feminine, agreeing with the feminine noun for sword. Some scholars such as Lacocque assume this second command is still addressed to the sword and see the masculine form here as a grammatical error. Others such as Driver accept the masculine form and draw the conclusion that the command is addressed to “the unnamed foe.” A few manuscripts of the ancient Greek translation have a first person verb here, “I will strike,” and this is the form found both in Moffatt (compare Jerusalem Bible) and in the quotations of this verse in Matt 26.31 and Mark 14.27. However, we cannot alter the Hebrew text on the basis of quotations in the Greek New Testament, and translators should accept the masculine imperative (see the next paragraph for a discussion of its meaning). The Good News Translation rendering “Kill” goes too far, and should not be copied. In some languages “Stab the shepherd” will be more meaningful.

The Revised Standard Version rendering that the sheep may be scattered suggests that the scattering of the sheep is the purpose behind the striking of the shepherd (compare New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). However, the Hebrew does not suggest purpose, but rather consequence. With their shepherd out of action, the sheep will inevitably be scattered. This is expressed clearly with “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered” (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, New International Version), and is definitely preferable. In a construction of this kind, the imperative form of the verb (“Strike”) is conditional in meaning, and could be paraphrased “If someone strikes the shepherd, the sheep will be scattered.” It may be suggested that such an interpretation offers an explanation of the masculine form of the imperative in Hebrew. It is not addressed to the (feminine) sword, and neither is it an error. It is a poetic substitute for a conditional clause, and is thus addressed to no one in particular. In such an unmarked setting, it is natural to use the masculine form.

I will turn my hand against the little ones: There are two questions to be settled in the interpretation of this clause. (1) Does the expression translated turn my hand have the sense of opposition or of protection? (2) Who are the little ones? In answering the first question, we should note that occurrences of the word hand with the preposition here translated against consistently indicate hostile action. (This is the same Hebrew preposition translated against in the case of the shepherd at the beginning of this verse.) Some scholars refer to Isa 1.25 as a possible exception, but the context there is at best doubtful, and refers to discipline rather than protection. The conclusion is therefore that the Revised Standard Version rendering is correct and hostile action is intended. So Good News Translation has “I will attack….” Contemporary English Version “I will destroy…” is too strong.

In answering the second question, the majority of scholars assume that the little ones refers to the young lambs of the flock. Comparisons can be made with Jer 49.20 and 50.45. New English Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh however translate this phrase as “the shepherd boys.” It is not clear what the basis for this translation is, and there is no advantage in introducing additional characters into the picture who then play no further part. Revised English Bible has dropped this interpretation, and renders “the lambs.” The conclusion is that this is most likely to be correct. Both “the lambs” here and the sheep in the previous clause represent “my people” (Good News Translation).

A possible translation model for the second half of the verse is as follows:

• If the shepherd is attacked, the sheep will be scattered. I will even set myself against the young lambs.

In languages without a passive voice, the first sentence could become:

• If someone strikes the shepherd, the sheep will scatter [or, run in all directions].

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 .