Verses 2-6 contain a group of short oracles that may to some degree be linked together by the occurrence of the words says the LORD of hosts at the end of verse 6. This formula often marks the end of a paragraph or subparagraph. All four of these oracles are concerned with future blessing for the city of Jerusalem.

For Thus says the LORD of hosts, compare the comments on 7.9. For LORD of hosts, see the notes on Hag 1.2. Good News Translation has no equivalent to this clause, but has run it in with the previous verse. In verses 3, 4, 6, and 9 the parallel clause is also omitted. This gives a better style in English, but it hides the fact that there are several short messages here rather than one longer message. Translators will have to decide whether the frequent repetition of an introductory formula like Thus says the LORD of hosts is acceptable style in their own language or not. If such repetition is acceptable, it is preferable to retain it.

I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great wrath: These words in Hebrew are closely similar to those in 1.14. Zion was the part of Jerusalem where the Temple was located, and Zion here stands for the city as a religious symbol (as it often does elsewhere). Translators will have to decide whether to keep the term Zion (as Revised Standard Version and most other versions do, including Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 2. Edition and Contemporary English Version) or to make the identity of the city plainer by saying “Jerusalem” (as Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1. Edition, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente do). For the meaning of jealous in connection with God, see the comments on 1.14. The two halves of the verse are parallel with each other, and say basically the same thing, though perhaps it is somewhat more emphatic in the second half. The Hebrew words for jealousy and wrath are also used together by Ezekiel, both to speak of judgment on God’s people (Ezek 23.25, where Revised Standard Version has “indignation”) and to speak of God’s care for them (Ezek 36.6). Here Zechariah is speaking of God’s care. Good News Translation expands the first part of the verse so as to make the full meaning clear, and says, “I have longed to help Jerusalem because of my deep love for her people.” In the second part of the verse, Good News Translation makes it clear that God in this context is angry not with his own people but with their enemies (compare Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Good News Translation however, is rather wordy. In some languages it may be more appropriate to say “I have a great love for Jerusalem, and am angry with her enemies.” Contemporary English Version expresses the meaning concisely with “I love Zion so much that her enemies make me angry,” though this involves a change of focus that would be better avoided.

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 .

As noted at verse 11, if another section heading is included, it should be here and not at verse 11. A suitable heading would be “The LORD will restore his people” (compare Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation) or “The LORD will bring his people back home.”

Return to your stronghold: The Hebrew word translated stronghold occurs only here in the Old Testament. Some scholars doubt whether the text is correct, but it makes acceptable sense and there is no need to change it. The same Hebrew root is used in Isa 22.10, where it refers to fortifying the walls of Jerusalem. Here the stronghold, “fortress” (New American Bible, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Contemporary English Version), or “Citadel” (Revised English Bible) is an area fortified as a “place of safety” (Good News Translation), and is generally understood to refer to Jerusalem.

O prisoners of hope: This expression is so short that it sounds obscure in English. In some languages the vocative expression (term of address) O prisoners … will need to come at the beginning of the verse, as in Bible en français courant and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente. The meaning of prisoners of hope is “prisoners in exile who have retained hope in God” or “… who have been hoping that God will free you,” and in many languages the translation will need to be expanded enough to make the meaning clear. Good News Translation has “you exiles who now have hope,” though the Hebrew text does not justify the inclusion of “now.” Revised English Bible “you captives waiting in hope” is perhaps better (compare New Jerusalem Bible). Some translators may prefer to say “you prisoners who have not hoped in vain” (compare Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1. Edition).

Today I declare that I will restore to you double: The word today is emphasized in Hebrew. The speaker (I) is still the LORD. The word translated restore is a form of the same Hebrew root translated Return at the beginning of the verse. New American Bible uses “return” both times in English, but this is not very natural. In some languages it may be possible to keep this wordplay, but in many it will be lost. I will restore to you double sounds incomplete in English, where we would expect something added to explain what is doubled. This expression is often compared with the thought of Isa 40.2, where Jerusalem receives double punishment for her sins. Here by contrast she is promised a double blessing for all her suffering, probably meaning that the population of Jerusalem will be doubled. Many translators will find it helpful to follow the example of Good News Translation: “I will repay you twice over with blessing for all you have suffered.” However, in some languages translators will need to make the notion of a doubling of the population clear; for example, “I will make you twice as populous [or, double your population] because of all the things you have suffered” or “I will give you twice as many people to make up for how you have suffered.” Gaide compares the thought of this passage with that of Hos 2.15, where the people of Israel are offered “a door of hope” after their experience of trouble. See also Isa 61.7.

An alternative translation model for this verse keeping the poetic structure is:

• Return, you prisoners in foreign lands,
who have been hoping that God will free you.
Because today I will give you twice as many people [or, I will bless you greatly],
because of all the things you have suffered.

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 .

For lo, I am raising up in the land a shepherd: The occurrence of the Hebrew word translated For links this sentence closely with what has gone before. For lo, see the comments on verse 6. Here some English versions render it as “now” (Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version). The phrase I am raising up is religious jargon in English, though it is unfortunately used in several modern versions. More modern alternatives are “I am about to install” (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible), “I am setting … over” (Moffatt), “I’m going to appoint” (Beck), and “I am about to put … in charge.” The Hebrew verb form is a participle, indicating action that is already in process (as in Moffatt) or on the point of being started (as in New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, Beck, Contemporary English Version). The past tense in Good News Translation “I have put … in charge” is not justified.

In the land refers to the Holy Land, not to the world as a whole (compare the notes on verse 6).

A shepherd who does not care for the perishing: The rest of the verse consists of a description of the new shepherd, and lists four things he does not do that he ought to do, and two things he does that he ought not to do. The description may well be ironic. The thoughts are similar to those of Jer 23.1-2 and Ezek 34.1-4, but the vocabulary is by no means identical. In fact, some of the Hebrew terms used here are uncertain in meaning. The word translated perishing is a form of the same verb found once in verse 8 and twice in verse 9, where Revised Standard Version renders it “destroyed.” The Hebrew root may mean “lost in the sense of dying” or “lost in the sense of missing.” Several English versions keep the ambiguity by translating simply “lost,” though two of these (New English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) indicate in the context that they intend to say “lost in the sense of missing.” Other versions are less ambiguous: Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version perishing clearly understand “lost in the sense of dying,” as do Good News Translation, New Living Translation, Bible en français courant, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente. Others make their intentions clear by translating “missing” (Moffatt, Revised English Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente) or “strays” (Contemporary English Version). Both options make sense in the context. As we will show in the following notes, “missing” would make this clause and the next parallel in meaning, and perishing would set this clause and the three following ones in an order of actions that are less and less severe. Both views yield an attractive structure and it is hard to choose one over the other. Translators may choose according to what fits best with the thought patterns of their own language.

The choice that the translator makes between “lost in the sense of dying” and “lost in the sense of missing” affects the way that the verb care for is translated. The meaning of Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version is that the shepherd does not care for the sheep that are dying in the sense of “taking care of” or “tending.” Compare Good News Translation “he does not help the sheep that are threatened by destruction.” If the sheep are regarded as “lost in the sense of missing,” then the shepherd does not care in the sense of “caring about” them or going to look for them (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Compare Revised English Bible “who will neither care about any that are gone missing.” Probably the same sense is intended by Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible “will not bother about the lost.” In most other languages “care [for]” in the sense of “tend” and “care [about]” in the sense of “bother” will be completely different words, and translators will be obliged to choose one or other meaning and express it unambiguously.

Or seek the wandering: Seek means “look for” (Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation) or “search for” (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible). As the Revised Standard Version footnote makes clear, the traditional Hebrew text has a word that normally means “the youth” or “the young man,” where Revised Standard Version has the wandering. Some versions assume that here the Hebrew word refers to young sheep, and render “the young” (New International Version, Beck, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation). But the Hebrew word is masculine, whereas the sheep are consistently referred to as feminine, and moreover, this word is used elsewhere only of people. Some scholars read the same Hebrew consonants with different vowels, while others, like Revised Standard Version, prefer to follow the ancient versions at this point. Either way, they end up with a meaning like wandering (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version) or “stray[s]” (New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible). This certainly fits the context better, and is recommended to translators.

Or heal the maimed: Maimed is a rather high-level word used only in Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version. Better known words are “injured” (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Living Translation), “hurt” (Moffatt, Good News Translation), and “wounded” (Jerusalem Bible). In English “injured” tends to refer to the result of an accident, whereas “wounded” tends to refer to what has been caused by deliberate intent on someone’s part. There is no reason to suppose that the Hebrew points to any cause other than accident.

Or nourish the sound: Nourish means “feed” (Good News Translation, New International Version, Contemporary English Version). The Hebrew word rendered sound means literally “standing.” Of available versions, only Beck translates literally “those that can still stand.” The ancient Greek version took this word with the positive sense of “standing well,” that is, “being whole or healthy.” Many modern versions follow this understanding and render “healthy” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New International Version, New Living Translation, Contemporary English Version, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) or sound (Revised Standard Version, Moffatt). A few analyze the Hebrew word as coming from a different root, and render “swollen” (Bible de Jérusalem, New Jerusalem Bible), while a few others propose changing the Hebrew text to a word that means “sickly” (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible) or “frail” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). The advantage of this proposal is that it makes this clause parallel with the previous one; its drawback is that the Hebrew makes good sense without any change. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project see no need to make a change, and translators are advised not to follow versions that do so. So “feed the healthy sheep” is a good model (compare Good News Translation).

But devours the flesh of the fat ones: At this point the prophet turns from the ways in which the shepherd failed in his duties to the ways in which he abused his privileges. Far from protecting the sheep, he ate them, and the best ones at that. Good News Translation expresses the meaning more simply with “he eats the meat of the fattest sheep.”

Tearing off even their hoofs: Some interpreters think this means that the shepherd was so greedy that he would eat even the hoofs of the sheep. This seems rather improbable. It is more likely to be a picture of savagery, of wanton cruelty to the animals. It is not clear how New English Bible and Revised English Bible arrive at their rendering “throw away their/the broken bones.” Although this makes sense, it does not make better sense than the traditional understanding, and we recommend that translators should not follow it.

An alternative translation model for this verse (maintaining the close link with the previous verse) is:

• Because look, I am going to install a shepherd in the land. He will not take care of the sheep that are dying, or search for those who are straying, or tend the injured, or feed the healthy. Instead, he will eat the meat of the fattest sheep, and even tear off their hoofs.

If translators wish to follow a different interpretation, as discussed above, an alternative model is:

• Because see, I am about to appoint in the land a shepherd who will not care about sheep that get lost or look for those who stray. He will not tend those who are injured or feed those who are ill. Instead, he will eat the meat of the best sheep, and even tear off their hoofs.

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 it shall be inhabited: In many languages this will need to be expressed in the active voice, as indeed it is in Hebrew. The subject is indefinite, so in many languages translators could say, “People will live in it” (that is, in Jerusalem). A few versions such as New American Bible and Jerusalem Bible take these words with verse 10, but there is no need to do this.

For there shall be no more curse: The Hebrew word underlying curse is cherem. There is no completely equivalent term in English, because the concept is not part of western culture. In the ancient Near Eastern world-view, people or things could be consigned to destruction as an act of devotion to a deity. Compare the alternative rendering in the Revised Standard Version footnote “ban of utter destruction.” The classic example is the destruction of Jericho and all its inhabitants except Rahab’s family (Josh 6). This type of action is what the prophet has in mind here. Jeremiah had spoken of the LORD putting such a curse or “ban” (Jerusalem Bible) on Jerusalem and Judah (Jer 25.8-9, where Revised Standard Version has “utterly destroy”), and this was regarded as having been carried out when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians. Zechariah is saying that no such thing will be possible again when the LORD is king.

English versions struggle to express clearly the concept of such religiously motivated destruction. Revised Standard Version curse is inadequate and New Revised Standard Version has expanded the whole clause to “never again shall it be doomed to destruction,” which is clearer. New Jerusalem Bible has “The curse of destruction will be lifted,” and Revised English Bible has “never again will a ban for her destruction be laid on her.” Good News Translation “no longer threatened by destruction” is clear, but oversimplified. New Living Translation has “never again to be cursed and destroyed.” Probably New Revised Standard Version is the best of these options as it combines intelligible language with overtones of religious sanction. Some translators may wish to include an explanatory footnote.

Jerusalem shall dwell in security: The expression translated dwell in security means not just physical safety, though that is included, but also God’s protection and blessing. Similar expressions are found for instance in Lev 26.5; Ezek 28.26; Ezek 34.25, 28. The Hebrew verb translated dwell here is the same as that translated inhabited earlier in the verse. This repetition has led some versions to restructure this verse in such a way as to express the meaning only once. Thus Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “Her inhabitants will live in security, and no destruction will threaten them again” (similarly Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). Another possible translation model is “People will be able to live safely in Jerusalem, and no one will again doom them to be destroyed.”

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 they answered: They refers grammatically to the horses in Hebrew, since no riders have been mentioned. This means either that the horses are talking horses, or else that they have riders whose presence has been taken for granted. The latter seems far more probable, and if the riders have not been mentioned directly in translation in verse 10, then they should be mentioned here. Translators could say “the riders” or “the horsemen” (see verse 10); as noted above, however, it is best to introduce the riders at verse 8, then in subsequent verses to refer to them as “they” or “them.” The word answered is translated “reported” in Good News Translation. In English this is a good choice of word to maintain the military atmosphere created by the word “patrol” in verse 10. Curiously, of major English versions only New Jerusalem Bible and New Living Translation use both the military terms “patrol” in verse 10 and “report” in verse 11.

The angel of the LORD who was standing among the myrtle trees: The clause who was standing among the myrtle trees indicates that the figure mentioned in verses 8 and 10 is in mind. This is the first time he is called the angel of the LORD. Translators could indicate clearly which angel is meant by saying “Then the horsemen reported to the first angel” or “… to the first angel, the one among the myrtle trees.” It is not adequate to say just “to the angel,” as Good News Translation does.

We have patrolled the earth: The Hebrew uses the same terms as it used in describing the horsemen’s task in verse 10. This repetition helps to show how the passage hangs together and also keeps up its military tone. In many languages it would be good to use similar repetition. Another way of saying this is “We have just returned from carefully checking [or, monitoring] what is happening all over the world.”

The words “[we] have found” (Good News Translation) or “have discovered” (Contemporary English Version) are the equivalent of behold in Revised Standard Version. These are examples of avoiding old-fashioned language and expressing its meaning in the usage of today.

All the earth remains at rest: This is the main substance of the riders’ report. Good News Translation translates it as “the whole world lies helpless and subdued.” There are two main questions that arise from this statement:
(1) What historical period does it refer to?
(2) Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

On the first question, some scholars (for example Mitchell) have argued that to speak of the world being at rest in 519 B.C. does not make sense. They therefore say that this report must refer to an earlier period before the overthrow of Babylon in 539 B.C. However, there seems to be some uncertainty about whether Darius had finally crushed the rebellions in his empire by February 519 or not. The majority of modern commentators hold that he had, or at least that he had come near enough to success that the world could indeed be described as “subdued” (Good News Translation).

Translators do not have to decide the historical issue, but their understanding of it may influence their answer to the second question. The words remains at rest in normal English convey the sense that this is a good and desirable state. Most modern English translations seem to carry the same sense. However, translators should note that this does not fit the context at all well.

Good News Translation has used the words “helpless and subdued,” which give exactly the opposite sense, namely, that the stillness (or rest) is caused by a superior, oppressive power. This would be appropriate if Darius had virtually completed his victories over his enemies by February 519 B.C. It also fits with the following verses. The complaint in verse 12 is that the LORD’s people are still suffering injustice and this would hardly be the case if the worldwide stillness really had brought genuine peace and justice.

Furthermore, in verse 15 the LORD proclaims his anger against “the nations that are at ease” (Revised Standard Version). Although the Hebrew word for “at ease” is not the same word as that used for rest here, it is a word that usually refers to a lazy and self-indulgent ease, one that deserves the LORD’s punishment. This strengthens the view that verse 11 speaks of a similar situation.

Translators will need to think carefully about all the overtones of the words they use here. Good News Translation is the only modern English version which clearly conveys the sense that the rest is a bad thing, but this fits the context very well, and translators are recommended to follow the example of Good News Translation. In many languages it will be possible to find terms which convey the sense that the stillness is oppressive rather than good. If such terms cannot be found, then it may be possible to add some adjective or adverb that will state the situation directly. For example, translators could say “people all over the world have been subdued and are helpless,” “people all over the world have been completely defeated and are helpless,” or, in languages that do not use the passive, “the emperor has conquered people all over the world and they are helpless.”

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 syntax of this verse is somewhat awkward in Hebrew and even more awkward in Revised Standard Version. Modern translations make various attempts to resolve the difficulties. Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible and New English Bible/ Revised English Bible reorder the text; for example, Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible put verse 8 in the middle of verse 9. There is no textual support for such changes, and the differences between the four versions show how subjective this approach is. New American Bible, Good News Translation, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Living Translation, and Contemporary English Version split the verse into two sentences, and this is a more helpful example. Indeed, the structure of the Hebrew suggests that a new subunit within the paragraph begins in the middle of the verse. The words For behold at the beginning of the verse link the first part more closely with the previous verse. The Hebrew word that opens the second part hinneni (literally “behold me”) often marks the start of a new unit, but unfortunately this is not shown in Revised Standard Version or New Revised Standard Version. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente attempt to represent the force of hinneni by saying “I myself will engrave….” This is some help, but misses the discourse function of the word. New English Bible and Revised English Bible seem to recognize a new unit, but they distort it by moving the text around. The formula translated says the LORD of hosts in Revised Standard Version probably has the function here of reinforcing the indication of a new subunit.

It may be useful to list the statements made in this verse and their relationships to each other before discussing them individually:
(1) I have set a stone before Joshua.
(2) It is one stone with seven facets.
(3) I will engrave an inscription on it.
(4) I will remove the guilt of the land in a single day.
(5) The LORD of hosts says all this.

The fifth statement is (at the level of information) a repetition of the statement in verse 7 and that in verse 10. Its presence in verse 9 makes an already complex verse even more complex, and in many languages it will be better to omit it. Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version are the only available English versions that do so. If it is included, as it should be in certain languages, it will probably be simplest to translate it as a separate sentence. This is best placed in the middle of the verse before the third statement, but if necessary it may be placed at the end of the verse.

The first and second statements both describe a stone, and so have some link with each other. The third statement, which begins a new subunit, says what will happen to the stone. The fourth statement does not mention the stone, and it is not clear what relationship there is between the inscription on the stone and the removal of sin. But the way the statements are linked in Hebrew suggests that there is some connection. If statements (3) and (4) are combined into one sentence as in New American Bible, Good News Translation, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Living Translation, Contemporary English Version, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, it suggests that there is a close connection between the inscription on the stone and the removal of sin. However, there is no way of knowing exactly what this connection was.

Taking all these factors into account, we suggest splitting the verse into two or three sentences. The following may be suitable translation models:

• For see, I am setting a precious stone in front of Joshua, a single stone with seven facets. On it I myself will engrave an inscription, says the LORD Almighty, and in one day I will take away the sin of this land.

• Look now, I am putting before Joshua a precious stone, a single stone that has seven facets. See, I myself will cut an inscription on it, and I will remove the sins of the people of this land in a single day. This is what the LORD Almighty says.

Behold: See the comments on 1.8.

Upon the stone which I have set before Joshua: As suggested above, it will be better in many languages to make this a separate sentence, rather than a subordinate clause as in Revised Standard Version. There has been considerable discussion among scholars about what kind of stone is meant. Earlier commentators often thought of it as the foundation stone of the Temple that was being rebuilt, or else as the headstone at the top of the building. For various reasons this view is no longer widely accepted, though it still finds favor with Merrill. Modern interpreters generally take the view that the stone is a precious stone, a jewel like those set in the shoulder straps and the breastpiece of the clothing of the high priest Aaron, as described in Exo 28.9-12, 15-21. This view is presented most persuasively by Petersen, and it certainly seems to fit better with the context of this chapter which is dealing with the commissioning of Joshua the high priest. If translators accept this view, they will need to translate the word stone as “precious stone” or “jewel.”

Upon a single stone with seven facets: The word translated facets in Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Good News Translation and New Living Translation is literally “eyes” (as in New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Some scholars understand these “eyes” to be carvings of eyes which represent the LORD’s watchful care for his people (compare 4.10). The Hebrew word for eye, however, is also used of the sparkle of a metal or jewel (Ezek 1.4, 7, 16, 22, 27; Ezek 8.2; Ezek 10.9), and it could carry that meaning here. Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation assume that it does so, and translate facets. The English word facets is a technical term referring to the surfaces of a jewel which reflect the light and so make the jewel sparkle. In using this term, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Good News Translation, and New Living Translation show that they regard the single stone as a jewel rather than a building stone. In English facets may also be expressed as “sides” (Contemporary English Version) or “faces.”

The Hebrew word for eye can also mean fountain or spring, and some scholars have tried to find that meaning here. A stone with seven springs could be development of the idea of the rock from which water sprang for Moses (Exo 17.6; compare Num 20.11). However, the introduction of a completely new picture at this point seems an unnecessary complication, and on the whole we recommend the understanding in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation.

I will engrave its inscription: The Hebrew contains a word that is omitted in Revised Standard Version. It is the word hinneni mentioned above, which brings the following clause into prominent focus. This may be represented by some expression like “See, I myself….” The stones that were attached to Aaron’s priestly robes were engraved with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel (Exo 28.9-11). It is not stated here what inscription was to be engraved upon the stone … set before Joshua. Some scholars have suggested that it would be the name of the Messiah (compare Moffatt) and others that it could be the motto “Holy to the LORD.” This motto was engraved on the gold plate attached to Aaron’s turban (Exo 28.36; Exo 39.30; compare Zech 14.20). It can also be written with seven letters in Hebrew and would thus fit the context well here. However, translators do not need to state what the inscription was. In some languages the phrase engrave its inscription will be expressed as “write some words on it” or “cut some words into it.” And the first part of the verse may say “I am placing in front of Joshua a single stone that has seven faces/eyes/sides. See, I myself will write some words on this stone.” In New English Bible/ Revised English Bible this clause is translated “I will reveal its meaning to you.” This interpretation depends on changing the Hebrew vowels slightly. Such a change is not necessary and cannot be recommended (compare Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project).

Says the LORD of hosts: See the introductory comments to this verse.

I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day: As pointed out above, it is not clear what the connection is between this statement and those that come before it. The repetition of the word single suggests that there is some connection. This may have been clear to Zechariah’s original readers but it is no longer clear to us. We can point out that Aaron’s turban with its inscribed gold plate was somehow connected with the acceptance of the Israelite offerings (Exo 28.38), but we cannot give more detail than that.

The word remove is rendered in New English Bible as “wipe away.” If there is some figurative expression in other languages which would be appropriate in the context of removing sin, translators may be able to use it. Some translators may need to follow the example of Contemporary English Version, which drops the figure and says “forgive.” In some languages the guilt of this land may have to be expressed as “the sin of all the people in the land.” In a single day conveys a sense of both speed and completeness (compare Isa 9.14; Isa 10.17; Isa 47.9).

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 .