If translators wish to include another section heading, it should not be here but rather before verse 12, as indicated in the comments at the beginning of this section. See also the comment at verse 12. If verses 9-11 are treated as a unit, as the Handbook recommends, then the introductory formula “The LORD says” (Good News Translation) will not be placed here, but at the beginning of verse 12.

As for you also: You here is feminine singular and refers back to Zion in verse 9. The fact that the same figure is addressed here as in verses 9-10 with no marker of a new discourse unit is the reason for linking this verse more closely with verses 9 and 10 than many versions do. The pronoun you is highlighted by an emphatic particle in Hebrew.

Because of the blood of my covenant with you: The Hebrew actually has only “by the blood of your covenant,” but there is general agreement that this is an elliptical expression meaning either “… the blood of your covenant with me” (New American Bible; similarly Revised English Bible) or “… the blood of my covenant with you” (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, New International Version; similarly Good News Translation, New Living Translation). There is no significant difference in meaning between them. There is however uncertainty about what covenant is referred to. Some scholars (such as Mitchell) think of the covenant with Abraham described in Gen 15. Others (such as Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible in their footnotes) think the blood refers to the daily offerings in the Temple. The majority consider the reference is to the Sinai covenant, and point out that the expression “blood of the covenant” occurs at Exo 24.8. This last view seems the most probable, though if translators wish to identify any particular covenant, they should do so only in a footnote as Contemporary English Version does, and not in the text. The relationship between the blood (of the sacrificial animal killed in the covenant ceremony) and the covenant may need to be stated clearly. Good News Translation does this well by saying, “my covenant with you that was sealed by the blood of sacrifices.” Contemporary English Version is also good with “When I made a sacred agreement with you, my people, we sealed it with blood.” To “seal” a covenant means to perform some symbolic action to guarantee that the parties involved will do what they promise. Covenant means generally a contract, agreement, pact, or treaty. In the context of the relationship between God and Israel, God is the one who drew up the covenant and offered it to his people, and the focus is on his promise. An alternative translation model for the first line is as follows:

• When I made an agreement [or, contract] with you, my people, we sealed [or, guaranteed] the agreement with the blood of the animals that you sacrificed.

I will set your captives free: The speaker is still the LORD and he is still addressing Zion. The identity of your captives is generally understood to be Jews who had not yet returned to the Promised Land but were still living in exile. It is not clear why Revised Standard Version translates the Hebrew verb as a future tense. It is in fact a perfect and should be translated as a past tense here, as in King James Version and Revised Version. The fact that the LORD has created the opportunity for the exiles to return home is the basis for the command to them to do so in the following verse.

From the waterless pit: In some versions the Hebrew phrase rendered waterless in Revised Standard Version is omitted (New American Bible, New English Bible). However, there is no manuscript support for this either in Hebrew or in the ancient translations, and the words should be included. A pit or dry well was sometimes used as a place to keep a prisoner, such as Joseph (Gen 37.24) or Jeremiah (Jer 38.6). Here the waterless pit is used as a symbol for the exile of the Jews from the Promised Land, and some translators may decide to make this clear. Good News Translation does this with “the waterless pit of exile,” but in some languages it may be necessary to use a fuller expression like “from their prison, the exile, which was like a waterless pit” (so Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). “Exile” means “being taken to live in foreign countries,” so translators may express this last line as “I have freed your people who are captives from their prison in foreign countries—a prison that is like a waterless pit.”

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 .

Then the LORD said to me: This clause is identical with the opening words of verse 13.

Take once more the implements of a worthless shepherd: The Hebrew word translated once more is the first word of the clause in Hebrew. This had led some scholars such as Petersen to take it with the verb said rather than with the verb take (Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). The Hebrew punctuation is against this; and it is also questionable, because it can prejudice the interpretation of the whole section of verses 4-17 (see the notes below).

Implements is a very general term, and would include clothing, a purse, and such things as the staffs already mentioned in verse 7. Translators should try to find a general term rather than mentioning individual items. Other possibilities in English include “gear” (New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) and “equipment” (Moffatt, New International Version).

A worthless shepherd: The term translated worthless occurs often in the book of Proverbs, where it carries the meaning of foolish and deserving moral reproach. Most English versions say “worthless,” but other options are “foolish” (King James Version, Revised Version, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “incompetent” (Jerusalem Bible), and “good-for-nothing” (New Jerusalem Bible).

If this sentence is understood to mean what the words would normally mean, the clear sense is that this is the second time that the prophet is acting as a bad shepherd. This is seen clearly by Mitchell, yet he refuses to accept it, though he can offer no compelling reason. It appears that the majority of scholars come to the text with their minds already made up that the first shepherd is good, and the second bad. Thus they overlook this indication that the writer’s intention was to show both the shepherds as bad. Even Redditt (1995), who does hold the view that both shepherds are bad, fails to make anything of this verse, though it gives good support to his view. Some of the difficulties in interpreting verses 4-14 arise from the presupposition that the first shepherd is a good one, though the text never claims this. Alternative models that build in the recommended interpretation are “Take once more the equipment that a shepherd uses—a worthless shepherd like before” and “Once again act the part of a worthless shepherd, and take the equipment that you must use.”

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 .

The whole land shall be turned into a plain: As the following description makes clear, The whole land here refers not to the entire world as in verse 9, but to the land of Judah. Shall be turned into a plain is literally “shall become like the Arabah” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). The “Arabah” is the Jordan Valley. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh in a footnote claims that the point of the comparison is the low-lying nature of the Jordan Valley, which at 1,200 feet (about 360 meters) below sea level is the lowest point on the surface of the earth. However, most scholars consider that it is the flatness of the Jordan Valley in contrast with the mountains on both sides which is the point of the comparison. This is the basis of expressions like turned into a plain, “made level” (Good News Translation), and “turned into flatlands” (Contemporary English Version).

From Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: Geba was a town at the northern border of Judah before the exile (1 Kgs 15.22; 2 Kgs 23.8), about ten kilometers (six miles) north of Jerusalem. Rimmon cannot be certainly identified, but was a town somewhere in the south (compare Josh 15.32; Josh 19.7; Neh 11.29), about 55 kilometers (35 miles) southwest of Jerusalem, according to Baldwin. The fact that it is qualified by the description south of Jerusalem suggests that it may not have been a very well-known place in the prophet’s own day. Whatever its exact location, there is little doubt that the names of Geba and Rimmon used together like this indicate “from the northern to the southern extremities of the land” or “from one end of the country to the other.” Good News Translation is justified in making this clear by saying “from Geba in the north to Rimmon in the south” (as also Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). In some languages it will be necessary to relate these directions to Jerusalem, as Revised Standard Version does with south of Jerusalem, or for the first sentence translators may say, for example, “The whole of Judah from Geba to the north of Jerusalem as far as Rimmon to the south will become flatlands [or, a plain].”

But Jerusalem shall remain aloft upon its site: The hills around Jerusalem are in present reality higher than the city itself. While they will all be flattened, the city will remain on its hill, at that time towering above the surrounding plain. Jerusalem is about 760 meters (2,500 feet) above sea level. The picture of the city standing higher than the land around fits its status as the central point of the LORD’s rule, and is related to similar ideas in Isa 2.2 and Micah 4.1. Another way to render this is “But Jerusalem will remain standing high above the plain [or, flatlands].”

From the Gate of Benjamin to the place of the former gate, to the Corner Gate: The rest of the verse is generally agreed to describe the extent of the city of Jerusalem, though some of the details are no longer entirely clear. The Gate of Benjamin (mentioned for instance also in Jer 37.13; Jer 38.7) was more or less at the northeastern extremity of the city wall. Some translators have taken the expression that Revised Standard Version renders the former gate as a proper name: “the First Gate” (Jerusalem Bible, New International Version) or “Old Gate Place” (Contemporary English Version). Either way, it is not certain whether the place of the former gate is related to the Corner Gate so that both phrases refer to a single place, or whether they describe two separate places. Good News Translation takes the first view, and restructures to express it unambiguously: “from the Benjamin Gate to the Corner Gate, where there had been an earlier gate” (also Jerusalem Bible, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh takes the second view, and expresses it clearly with “from the Gate of Benjamin to the site of the Old Gate, down to the Corner Gate” (similarly New Living Translation). Several versions, like Revised Standard Version, are ambiguous. Translators should make a decision, as Good News Translation and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh have, and their rendering should show which decision they have made. Since the extent of the city is being described, it seems slightly more likely that there would be a total of four points of reference rather than five. We therefore favor the decision taken by Good News Translation, though it is impossible to be certain whether this is correct.

The Corner Gate is also mentioned in 2 Kgs 14.13; 2 Chr 26.9 and Jer 31.38. It was probably near the northwestern corner of the city. If so, then a line from the Gate of Benjamin to the Corner Gate would indicate the approximate size of the city from east to west.

From the Tower of Hananel to the king’s wine presses: The Tower of Hananel is mentioned in Neh 3.1 and 12.39. If translators need to be more precise about the relationship underlying the word of, they may assume that Hananel was the person who had the Tower built (Gaide). This tower was part of the fortifications of the wall on the northern side of the city, probably not far from the Benjamin Gate (Meyers & Meyers). Tower may also be rendered as “a strong high building in the wall.” The location of the king’s wine presses is not known, but it was probably at the south end of the city in the vicinity of “the king’s garden” (Neh 3.15; Jer 39.4). Wine presses are places where grapes are squeezed to extract the juice for making wine. In cultures where wine-making is not practiced, translators may need to avoid a specific term like wine presses. They may say, for example, “the place where people squeezed juice from the king’s grapes [or, from the king’s fruit].”

A line from the Tower of Hananel to the king’s wine presses would indicate the approximate size of the city from north to south. Thus the geographical part of the verse is saying that the whole of Jerusalem from its eastern to its western limits, and from its northern to its southern limits, will be raised above the surrounding countryside, and will dominate the whole region.

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 .

So the man who was standing among the myrtle trees answered: These words have the effect of changing speakers from the second angel back to the first one. Because Good News Translation has confused the two angels, it sees no need to repeat these words, which refer back to the similar words in verse 8, and accordingly omits them. Translators are strongly advised not to do this, but to include the words, in some such way as this: “Then the first angel, the one who was among the myrtle trees, said….” For the use of “angel” rather than man here, see the comments on verse 8. For standing among the myrtle trees, see verse 1.8 also.

These are they whom the LORD has sent to patrol the earth: These are they refers grammatically to the horses, but since they speak in the following verse, it seems likely that they have riders who are taken for granted but not mentioned directly (see the comments on verse 8). In many languages it would be helpful to mention them here, and say “These horsemen” (as in Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch) rather than “These horses,” or one may render the whole sentence “These are the people the LORD has sent to patrol the earth.”

Patrol translates a Hebrew word that means literally “to walk about” (compare New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh “to roam”). Several English translations use the word patrol (Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Moffatt, New Living Translation). This is good, as it has the overtones of a military expedition that fit the context well. If translators have a word with similar overtones in their own language, this would probably be a good place to use it. Other ways to express this are “… watch carefully what is happening in the earth” (similarly Contemporary English Version) and “… carefully monitor what is happening in the world.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• So the angel who was among the myrtle trees answered, “These are the horsemen that the LORD has sent out to watch carefully what is happening in the world.”

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 .

This verse begins with an imperative and a vocative, that is, an address to a person by name; these indicate that it opens a new subunit within the words of the LORD that begin in verse 7 and continue to the end of verse 10. Hear now is a rather solemn opening that would lead the reader to expect an important announcement (compare Deut 6.4; Micah 1.2; Micah 3.1, 9; Micah 6.1). The verb Hear in Hebrew is singular, but the command is addressed both to Joshua the high priest and your friends who sit before you. In some languages it will be more natural to use a plural verb because there is more than one subject. In many languages it will also be necessary to put the vocatives at the beginning of the sentence, and the command Hear after them. An alternative approach is to repeat the verb with each subject, as Good News Translation does (“Listen then, Joshua…; and listen, you fellow priests of his”). Another way of expressing this is: “Listen carefully to what I say, Joshua…; and you fellow priests of his must listen too.”

Your friends who sit before you indicates priests of lower rank. It was customary for pupils to sit before their masters when receiving advice or instruction from a senior person. Compare 2 Kgs 4.38; Ezek 8.1; Ezek 14.1; Ezek 20.1; Ezek 33.31; Acts 22.3. In cultures where students or apprentices sit in front of their teachers on a mat or on the floor, translators should maintain the Hebrew expression. A number of modern English versions (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, New Revised Standard Version) use the term “colleagues” and this may be a helpful model. In cultures where seniority is normally indicated, these would of course be “junior colleagues.”

For they are men of good omen: The use of the pronoun they appears to exclude Joshua himself from the men of good omen, though there seems to be no reason why this should be so. Probably it is no more than a slight grammatical awkwardness in the Hebrew. The ancient Syriac version has “you” instead of they, and so includes Joshua. Some modern translations (Moffatt, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, New English Bible, Good News Translation, Beck, New Living Translation, Contemporary English Version, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) follow the Syriac in this. Others rephrase in such a way that their intention is not completely clear (New International Version). There does not seem to be any significant difference of meaning involved, and translators will probably have to make their decision on the basis of good style in their own language.

The Hebrew word translated good omen is used elsewhere in the Old Testament. In Isa 8.18 (Revised Standard Version “portents”), Isaiah and his children are by their very names tokens of God’s impending judgment. In Ezek 12.6; Ezek 24.24, 27, Ezekiel by his actions is a sign to his people of God’s plans. Here the priests are not named, and do not do anything. The meaning seems to be that simply by being priests and carrying out priestly duties (compare verse 7), these men are a good omen that God will again bless his people. The fact that the omen is in this case good arises from the context rather than the basic meaning of the Hebrew word. The restoration of regular Temple worship was an important step forward in the national life of the returned exiles, and was seen as an indication that the coming of the Messiah was not far off. An alternative way to express this clause is “You that are a sign that something good is going to happen” or “You are the guarantee…” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

Behold, I will bring my servant the Branch: This is the good omen of which Joshua and his fellow priests are the symbol. For behold see the comments on 1.8. Since the word bring is rather vague in English, Good News Translation translates it as “reveal” and Jerusalem Bible as “raise.” Other ways to express this clause are “I will cause my … to appear” (compare Bible en français courant, Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente) and “I will send…” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Translators should use a term for bring that fits the context in their own languages. The expression my servant would remind the readers of similar expressions in Isaiah (Isa 42.1; Isa 49.3, 6; Isa 52.13; Isa 53.11).

The Branch is used as a title for the Messiah in such places as Jer 23.5; Jer 33.15, and similar language occurs in Isa 11.1. This figure was associated with the family of King David. Several scholars (Driver, Mitchell, Cashdan, Thomas, Stuhlmueller [1968], Meyers & Meyers) insist that Branch is not an accurate translation of the meaning of the Hebrew word, and that “Shoot” would be better. However, most modern English versions (New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) retain the word Branch. This may be because it has become part of the vocabulary of theologians and hymn writers; or it may be because the word “Shoot” also has other meanings in English. Translators should choose a term that will not carry a wrong meaning in their languages. They may also need to make it clearer that the Branch is a human being. They may need to say something like “I will bring my servant, a man who is called the Branch.” The context here does not identify who Zechariah meant by the Branch and translators should not try to do so. They should however understand that the term indicated a person who would be both king and Messiah, and may include such information in a footnote.

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 came to me: Compare 4.8, which is identical in Hebrew, and 7.4 and 8.18, which add “of hosts.” As in 4.8, Good News Translation makes this a separate sentence, and this may also be better style in other languages.

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 .