Some modern versions, such as Moffatt, Bible de Jérusalem, and Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, transpose this verse to follow verse 12 because both verses speak of a plague. There is no support for this change in the textual tradition, and discourse analysis does not suggest it. Translators should avoid it.

A plague like this plague: These words refer back to verse 12, and state that the same kind of epidemic that hit the enemy army will also affect their transport animals and other animals. If it is possible to use the same term for a plague affecting animals as that for one affecting people, then translators should do so. However, in some languages a different term may be necessary. Good News Translation uses the general term “A terrible disease,” as in verse 12.

Shall fall on: This metaphor is not in the Hebrew and translators need not try to retain it. Other modern versions use words like “strike” (New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation) and “afflict” (New Jerusalem Bible).

The horses, the mules, the camels, the asses, and whatever beasts may be in those camps: The horses were the animals used in battle to pull chariots or to carry cavalry soldiers. Mules are animals of mixed breed, the offspring of a horse of either sex and a donkey of the opposite sex. They are excellent pack animals. Camels are animals that can endure long periods in dry areas. Asses, or in modern language “donkeys,” are the most common beasts of burden (compare 9.9; Ezra 2.66-67; Neh 7.68-69).

Beasts is a term that refers to animals in general, but in a military context like this, it may refer to animals like sheep and goats that could be killed to feed the army. All the animals belonging to the enemy army will suffer the same kind of fate as that described for the human enemy in verse 12. Those camps, though not mentioned before, must refer to the places where the forces that had come to attack Jerusalem had set up their quarters. In those camps may also be expressed as “in the places where the enemy soldiers had set up their tents.”

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 .

And I am very angry with the nations that are at ease: The terms used for the LORD’s anger here are the same as in verse 2. See the comments there. Here the LORD’s anger is directed against gentile nations that are at ease. The single Hebrew word translated are at ease usually refers to a careless and selfish ease based on a false sense of security (see especially Psa 123.4; Isa 37.29, where Revised Standard Version has “arrogance”; Amos 6.1). That is the meaning in this context, and it is brought out in other versions by such terms as “arrogant nations” (Moffatt, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), “proud nations” (Jerusalem Bible), and “complacent nations” (New American Bible). It could be expressed more fully by saying “the proud nations that relax in peace and quiet,” “the proud nations that live without any problems/troubles,” or “the proud people of the other countries that enjoy their ease” (compare New English Bible/ Revised English Bible).

The reason for the LORD’s anger against the nations is stated very briefly in Hebrew. It is actually rather complex and will need to be expanded in many languages. Revised Standard Version translates literally while I was angry but a little they furthered the disaster. The meaning is this: In the days before the exile, the LORD was angry with his own people because of their idolatry. He planned to punish them moderately, and to use heathen nations to do so. However, these heathen nations (primarily the Assyrians and Babylonians) grew proud of their own strength and attacked the LORD’s people with a ferocity that was beyond measure. They in turn therefore merit the punishment of God for their excessive cruelty (see Isa 10.5-7, 12). Translators should supply enough of this background to ensure that their readers will understand who is being spoken of in each part of the sentence. In order to achieve this, Good News Translation expands to say “I was holding back my anger against my people” and “those nations made the sufferings of my people worse.” However, Good News Translation‘s wording is not clear enough. The sufferings caused by the nations were worse than what? As it stands, Good News Translation probably means “worse than they were before.” But the meaning should be “worse than the LORD intended.” Alternative ways to restructure the sentence for clarity are “I was only moderately angry with my people, but the nations I used to punish them acted too severely” and “I intended to punish my people only in moderation [or, a little], but the nations I used to do so [or, to punish them] brought them to complete disaster.” In some languages speakers cannot talk about nations doing things; it is people who are the initiators of actions. In such cases, in this context it will be necessary to say, for example, “while I was holding back my anger against my own people, the people of those countries….”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• And I am very angry with those proud people in the other nations who lead lives that are free of problems [or, troubles]. For while I intended to punish my people only a little, the people of those nations that I used to punish my people completely ruined them.

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 .

And there are two olive trees by it: Olive trees were and are very common in the Holy Land. Their fruit can be crushed to produce oil, which was used both as fuel for lamps, and for other purposes. The presence of olive trees near the lampstand suggests that they represent a source of fuel (compare verse 12). Once again, the word it is ambiguous. It may refer to the lampstand or to the bowl. The direct mention of the bowl in the second half of the verse suggests that it in the first half refers to the bowl. But the bowl as the functional part stands for the lampstand as a whole, so there is no real difference in meaning. For comments on olive trees, see the notes on Hag 2.19. There is no reason to suppose, as some commentators have done, that the olive trees were made of gold.

One on the right of the bowl and the other on its left: In some languages it may be better style to follow the example of Good News Translation and say “one on each side of it.” Or else translators could follow the model of Contemporary English Version for the whole verse: “One olive tree is on the right side and another on the left of the oil container.”

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 .

And the crown shall be in the temple of the LORD: For a discussion of the problems surrounding the word crown, see the comments on verse 11. We recommend that it should be translated as singular. Once the symbolic crowning had been carried out, the crown was not to be left in use, but was to be set aside in the temple.

As a reminder to Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Josiah the son of Zephaniah: Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible are alone among modern English versions in using the expression reminder to. (Contemporary English Version uses “reminder” but not in combination with “to.”) All other available versions use the word “memorial.” If the crown were a reminder to the men named, its purpose would be to prevent them from forgetting the coronation ceremony they had witnessed. If it were a “memorial,” its purpose would be to inform other people of the circumstances of its use and of the generosity of its donors. This seems a much more probable purpose, and so we recommend that the word should be translated as “memorial.” In some languages it will be necessary to state this information in more detail; for example, “This crown shall remain in the Temple of the LORD. When people see it they will remember….” For the idea of placing a memorial before the LORD, see Num 31.54.

The names of the men present some problems, as they did in verse 10. In Hebrew the first name has the form “Helem” (Revised Standard Version footnote) as against Heldai in verse 10. The ancient Syriac translation has the form “Heldai” in both places, and modern versions all do the same. Quite apart from textual evidence, it would be valid in terms of translation principles to use the same form of the name in both places, especially for such a little known figure. A footnote such as those in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation is useful to explain the situation.

The names of Tobijah and Jedaiah are as in 6.10, and cause no problems. The last name, Josiah, as the Revised Standard Version footnote shows, has the form “Hen” in Hebrew. This could perhaps be explained as a nickname, but the Hebrew word transliterated in the Revised Standard Version footnote as Hen also means “grace, kindness,” so that the whole phrase could be translated “as a memorial to … the kindness of the son of Zephaniah.” Since it is obvious that the same person as in verse 10 is intended, it is again valid in terms of translation principles to use the same form as occurred before, namely, Josiah.

Modern versions are divided in their approach. New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New American Standard Bible, and New King James Version follow King James Version and Revised Version in putting “Hen” in the text, most adding an explanation in a footnote. Moffatt, Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation, and Contemporary English Version put Josiah in the text and the last five mention the form “Hen” in a footnote. New American Bible translates hen as a word rather than a name, but strangely applies it to all four men (“in favor of Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah, and the son of Zephaniah”). Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente translate hen but apply it only to the son of Zephaniah, as do Hebrew Old Testament Text Project and Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch also includes the name Josiah for clarity, and this seems the best solution. The following restructuring, based on Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, is recommended as a translation model:

• The crown will be kept in my Temple as a memorial to Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah, and to the hospitality [or, generosity] of Josiah the son of Zephaniah.

In languages that do not have the passive voice, the following is a possible model:

• You must keep this crown in my Temple as a memorial to Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah, and to the hospitality [or, generosity] of Josiah the son of Zephaniah.

This refers back to the fact mentioned in verse 10 that the other men stayed at the home of Josiah.

An alternative translation model is:

• You shall keep the crown in my Temple. When people see it they will remember Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, and how kind Josiah the son of Zephaniah was.

The whole of verses 10-14 are in the form of instructions to Zechariah. The text does not state whether he actually carried out these instructions. Presumably we are to understand that he did, but it is also possible that simply recording them was sufficient to preserve their symbolic meaning. If this section were part of a longer narrative, it might be necessary to make clear that the instructions were carried out (compare the notes on Hag 2.12). However since it is not, the question may be left open, and translators should not attempt to give it any answer.

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 .

And the word of the LORD of hosts came to me, saying: See the comments on 7.4, and compare 4.8; 6.9. Contemporary English Version has “The LORD All-Powerful told me to say,” and some translators may find this model helpful.

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 .

I will bring them home from the land of Egypt, and gather them from Assyria: These two clauses are clearly parallel and in some languages it may be easier to run them together and say, “I will gather them and bring them home from Egypt and Assyria.” Compare Good News Translation, though there is no justification for putting “From Egypt and Assyria” in focus at the beginning of the clause, as Good News Translation does.

These two place names, Egypt and Assyria, have given rise to considerable discussion. In point of historical fact, there were large Jewish communities in both countries. But there is widespread agreement that the names also have a symbolic meaning. Egypt and Assyria stand for nations that are the oppressors of the people of God—both ancient (Egypt) and more recent (Assyria), both in the south (Egypt) and in the north (Assyria). Although Assyria as such ceased to be a world power after the fall of its capital Nineveh to the Babylonians and Medes in 612 B.C., the name continued to be used, both in the Old Testament and in secular writers, to denote the power that controlled Mesopotamia, whether it was the Babylonians, the Persians, or the Greeks. The point being made here is that the LORD is well able to rescue his people from any country of exile and from any oppressing nation. We may note that Assyria and Egypt are mentioned in the opposite order at the end of verse 11, forming a neat literary pattern. The two countries are also mentioned together in Isa 11.11, 16; Isa 27.13; Hos 11.11.

I will bring them to the land of Gilead and to Lebanon: Gilead and Lebanon are of course real places, but they too carry a symbolic meaning. Gilead is on the east bank of the Jordan River and was one of the first areas occupied by Israel (Num 21.21-35; Num 32.1-42). Lebanon to the north of the Promised Land never belonged to the Israelites. The mention of these two places promises that when the people return from exile, they will possess not just the areas they occupied before, but also other areas, even some which they had never held before. Both Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version make it clear that God “will settle” his people in these two regions. Good News Translation has “I will settle them in Gilead and Lebanon also,” and Contemporary English Version has “I will … then let them settle as far as Gilead and Lebanon.”

Till there is no room for them: The people will have become so numerous that there will be too many of them for the land. This is why they will need extra territory in Gilead and Lebanon. Good News Translation expresses this from a positive rather than a negative point of view, saying, “the whole land will be filled with people.” Some versions take this last clause to refer to Gilead and Lebanon in particular, and say “even that will not be large enough for them” (Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible), “even there they will run out of space” (Bible en français courant), or “even there they will not have enough room” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 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 .