Translation commentary on Zechariah 3:10

In that day refers to the time when the people’s sins are taken away. So Good News Translation has “When that day comes.” The phrase In that day often serves to mark the beginning of a new subunit, and in the present case it may well be marking the last unit within the direct speech of the LORD that covers verses 7-10.

Says the LORD of hosts: In many languages it will be good style to put these words at the end of the verse, as New International Version does. There they would mark both the end of the speech by the angel of the LORD (verse 6), and also the end of this particular vision.

Every one of you will invite his neighbor under his vine and under his fig tree: The Hebrew word translated neighbor has a wider meaning than the English term suggests. It is not just people living nearby, but any other members of the community. Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente has “you will invite one another as guests.” The vine and the fig tree were commonly used as symbols of peace and prosperity, as in 1 Kgs 4.25; 2 Kgs 18.31; Micah 4.4. Since this will not be understood by many modern readers, it may be necessary to include some explanation of the meaning. Good News Translation has done this by saying, “each of you will invite his neighbor to come and enjoy peace and security, surrounded by your vineyards and fig trees.” Contemporary English Version has “each of you will live at peace and entertain your friends in your own vineyard and under your own fig trees.” These are good examples to follow. In areas where vines and figs are not known, translators may need to make a more general statement. They could say something like “… sitting among your farms and gardens.” It is not advisable to substitute the names of particular local crops such as rice, yams, mangoes, and bananas, which were not grown in ancient Israel. A nonfigurative way of expressing the last part of the verse is “each of you will invite your neighbor into your home to share your peace and prosperity” (New Living Translation).

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

Translation commentary on Zechariah 6:11

Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown: Translators should be careful not to make the words Take from them sound as if the men named in verse 10 were unwilling to give. This could be avoided in English by saying “accept from them,” or as Good News Translation says, “the silver and gold they have given.”

The word translated crown has given rise to much discussion. In Hebrew it has a form that is apparently plural, so it is translated as “crowns” in King James Version, Revised Version, and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh. The difficulty with this is that the traditional text speaks of only one person being crowned, so that only one crown is needed.

Ancient crowns were commonly made of circular-shaped pieces of metal, often more than one of these being used. The mention of both silver and gold here has made some scholars think that the crown in this case consisted of two circular-shaped pieces, one of silver and one of gold, and that this accounts for the plural form of the word. However, in verse 14 the same Hebrew word is used and is followed by a singular verb. The Septuagint translated it as plural in verse 11 and singular in verse 14, but the ancient Syriac translated it as singular in both places. Although the Hebrew word has an ending that is normally a plural marker, it is possible that in this case it is not a plural but an unusual and old-fashioned singular. The same word occurs in Job 31.36, where it must be singular, and so on balance, translators are advised to treat it as singular both here and in verse 14.

And set it upon the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest: Many scholars have considered it unlikely that Zechariah would speak of crowning the high priest rather than the civil governor. Accordingly, some have said that the word crown should be regarded as plural, and the name of the civil governor, Zerubbabel, added to the text. Others have preferred to treat crown as singular and to substitute Zerubbabel’s name for that of Joshua, and this is what Moffatt has done in his translation. Although from a historical point of view, it may seem more likely that Zechariah would speak of crowning Zerubbabel, nevertheless both the Hebrew text and the ancient versions name only Joshua, and translators should retain this name. If, like Redditt (1995), they believe that Zerubbabel was originally intended, then they could mention this possibility in a footnote, as do Jerusalem Bible and New English Bible. For Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, see the notes on Hag 1.1.

It is possible to combine verses 10 and 11 as follows:

• Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah have returned from Babylonia. You yourself must go at once to the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah, and they will give you silver and gold. Make a crown, then put it on the head of the high priest Joshua, the son of Jehozadak.

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 8:14

For thus says the LORD of hosts: This continues the sentence begun with the command “Let your hands be strong” in the previous verse, and translators should make this clear. For introduces the reason why the people were to do this, just as it did in verses 10 and 12. This time the reason is in the form of a promise from the LORD of hosts. Although the words thus says the LORD of hosts are the same as the formula in verses 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9, they are not merely introductory this time. Rather, they are part of the argument of the passage. On this occasion therefore, they should not be omitted. Good News Translation does not omit them, but Good News Translation is nevertheless not a good model because it overlooks the word For and thus misses the close connection with the end of the previous verse.

The content of the LORD’s promise is a comparison between the past and the present, with the two parts of the comparison introduced by as … (in this verse) and “so…” (verse 15; compare Jer 31.28). The first part consists of three clauses. The order in which they are presented in Revised Standard Version is rather complicated, with the second clause when your fathers provoked me to wrath separating the other two clauses, which are actually more closely linked in sense, so the second clause will be discussed first.

When your fathers provoked me to wrath: Good News Translation reorders to put this second clause first, and in this way makes it possible to present the flow of thought in a simpler manner. New International Version and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh achieve the same aim by putting the second clause last. The clause is expressed in modern terms in Good News Translation as “When your ancestors made me angry.”

The first and third clauses, As I purposed to do evil to you … and I did not relent, are brought together in Good News Translation, and also put into current English as “I planned disaster for them and did not change my mind.” Good News Translation adds “but carried out my plans,” which is the same thought as the negative “did not change my mind” expressed positively. It may not be necessary to state this in other languages. Contemporary English Version restructures in a similar way.

The verse concludes with says the LORD of hosts. This is the same wording in Hebrew as in 7.13, but not the same as in 8.11. Here it seems to mark the climax of the first part of the comparison before the transition to the second part in the next verse. Good News Translation omits the words here, and in other languages translators will have to decide whether the style will be better with or without them. See the comments on verse 11.

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 10:7

Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior: Ephraim is another way of referring to the descendants of the exiles from the northern kingdom (compare 9.10), and speaks of the same people as those called “the house of Joseph” in verse 6. “People of Israel” (Good News Translation) is a good alternative model. The word here rendered mighty warrior is the same in Hebrew as that rendered “mighty men” in verse 5. New Revised Standard Version uses “warriors” in both places and Good News Translation “soldiers,” and there is some advantage in consistency, as it helps to link the whole section together.

Their hearts shall be glad as with wine: This clause does not state that the returned exiles would drink too much, but that they would be as happy as if they had! Hearts may need to be translated as “livers” or some other body part in some languages, but in other languages it may be necessary just to say “they.”

Their children shall see it and rejoice: It is not entirely clear what the children will see. Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible and Contemporary English Version seem to take it that the children will see their parents’ happiness, and will come to share it. Good News Translation, on the other hand, takes the verb see to refer back to the strengthening of the people in verses 6-7a, and says that “Their descendants will remember this victory.” New English Bible and Revised English Bible avoid the question by staying close to the Hebrew and saying only that the children will see, with no object expressed. It is probably better to decide what they will see, and make that clear in the translation. Both of the interpretations above are acceptable, but perhaps the view that the children will see their parents’ joy fits the context better. A possible model is the following: “When their children see how happy their parents are, they will also be happy.”

Their hearts shall exult in the LORD: Again hearts may need to be replaced by some other body part, or by a pronoun. Exult in the LORD or “rejoice in the LORD” (New International Version, Revised English Bible, New Living Translation) may not be very clear, and may need to be expanded. Good News Translation, for instance, says that they will “be glad because of what the LORD has done” (similarly Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). Other possibilities are “they will be full of happiness because of the LORD” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), “thanks to the LORD, their hearts will be full of joy” (Bible en français courant), and “they will be filled with joy and will praise the LORD” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1. Edition).

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 12:11

On that day opens a new subparagraph covering verses 11-14.

The mourning in Jerusalem will be as great refers to the sorrow over the one pierced, as described in verse 10. In some languages mourning in this clause needs to be translated with a verbal expression; for example, “the people of Jerusalem will mourn as much as…” or “… will cry as bitterly as….”

As the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo: This clause constitutes a third comparison, again emphasizing the intensity of the mourning. The point of the comparison, however, is not entirely clear. The Hebrew is literally “as the mourning of Hadadrimmon…” (King James Version, Revised Version). As so often where a phrase including “of” is concerned, the relationship between the nouns it links is ambiguous. The traditional interpretation takes Hadad-rimmon as a place name, though it is a name that occurs nowhere else. Jerome identified it with a village near Jezreel in the plain of Megiddo. If this is correct, the mourning is probably related to the death in battle of Josiah, the last good king of Judah, in 609 B.C. at Megiddo (2 Kgs 23.28-30). From the longer account in 2 Chr 35.20-27, we know that there was some sort of regular commemorative mourning for Josiah even after the exile. Thus this verse could be referring to a practice still current in the writer’s own day. Translators who regard Hadad-rimmon as a place name should make it clear by translating “mourning at Hadad-rimmon” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Beck).

In more recent times, scholars have suggested that Hadad-rimmon is the name of a Canaanite god, a composite name incorporating the Syrian (“Hadad”) and Assyrian (“Rimmon”) names of a god of storm and rain (compare the Good News Translation footnote). There is some evidence of ritual mourning for such a god in connection with the annual cycle of vegetation, and there may be references to this practice in Jer 6.26; Amos 8.10 (compare Ezek 8.14). Most modern translations seem to prefer this view. Translators who regard Hadad-rimmon as the name of a god should make it clear by translating mourning for Hadad-rimmon (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible) or “mourning over Hadad-rimmon” (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible).

Neither view can be proved or disproved, but in the context a reference back to the tragic death of Josiah seems more likely than a reference to a pagan ritual, and we would tentatively recommend that translators take Hadad-rimmon as a place name.

The plain of Megiddo is a fertile agricultural area in the north of Israel, also known as the valley of Jezreel (Jdg 6.33; Hos 1.5) and as the plain of Esdraelon (Judith 1.8; 3.9; 4.6; 7.3). Megiddo is a town at the southwestern edge of the plain. A plain is a flat area and may be translated here as “flat lands [or, flat place] near Megiddo.”

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 Malachi 1:2 - 1:3

“I have loved you,” says the LORD: Here as in 1.6; 3.7 and 3.13, the Assertion element of the dispute is introduced by a quotation formula. In 1.6 and 3.7, it is the longer formula “says the LORD of hosts,” but here and in 3.13 it is only the shorter form says the LORD. Translators should be careful to maintain the distinction. In some languages it will be necessary to put the verb of speaking before the direct quotation, especially at the beginning of the section. Good News Translation makes it clear who the LORD is addressing by adding “[says] to his people.” Contemporary English Version uses direct speech without an introductory formula: “Israel, I, the LORD, have loved you.” Other languages may have a preference for indirect rather than direct speech, but in a book like Malachi which uses dialogue extensively, direct speech should be preserved if at all possible. In languages in which indirect speech is unavoidable, translators could say, for example, “The LORD says that he has loved you.”

The word translated loved is a broad general term appropriate to a covenant relationship. Translators should avoid words that have strong sexual overtones. You is plural and refers to the whole nation. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1. Edition makes this clear by saying “I love you Israelites,” while Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 2. Edition says “I love you, you people of Israel.”

This sentence constitutes the prophet’s opening Assertion in his dispute with the people. Good News Translation expresses it very emphatically by saying “I have always loved you.” In some languages it may be more natural to express this with a present tense “I love you.” Translators should avoid giving readers the impression that the LORD used to love the people but does not love them anymore.

But you say, “How hast thou loved us?”: There is a strong contrast between the LORD’s Assertion and the people’s Objection, so if translators have a choice of terms for But, they should choose one that conveys the contrast forcefully; one such example is “On the contrary.” You is of course again plural.

The formula you say is used to introduce the Objection element in each dispute. See also 1.6, 7; 2.14 (Revised Standard Version “you ask”), 17; 3.7, 8, 13. In all these places, what follows is a question and translators may prefer to render it as “you ask.” The form How hast thou…? gives an old-fashioned feeling to the Revised Standard Version. This is not in the Hebrew, where the second person singular is normal use when one person is addressed. New Revised Standard Version uses the current English form “How have you…?” as do Good News Translation and most other modern English versions. In languages that make a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural, us should be translated as exclusive.

Good News Translation and many other versions expand the question as befits the context to “How have you shown your love for us?” (similarly Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible/Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version). The people’s doubt arises from their lack of prosperity and political power.

“Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” says the LORD: This sentence begins the Response. It has the form of a negative rhetorical question, and is framed in such a way as to show that the expected answer is “yes.” Thus it has the force of a statement, “You know that Esau was Jacob’s brother,” and so it will be translated that way in a number of languages. The prophet was aware that he could rely on his audience’s knowledge of the history of their ancestors (Gen 25.19-26). Esau and Jacob were in fact twin brothers, and some languages may require this to be stated. Good News Translation restructures the question as a statement: “Esau and Jacob were brothers” (compare New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation), and in cultures where readers are not so familiar with the Old Testament, translators may choose to follow this example. In Hebrew there is no verb in the clause, and Good News Translation has used a past tense “were” rather than the present tense is. A similar change may be necessary in other languages to avoid giving the impression that Esau and Jacob were still alive in Malachi’s own day. The words translated says the LORD are not the same in Hebrew as the words translated in the same way earlier in the verse. The expression that occurs here is not found anywhere else in the book of Malachi. Its discourse function is probably to help mark the beginning of the Response element of the dispute. It is helpful to begin a new paragraph at this point, as do Good News Translation, New International Version, Beck, New Living Translation, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente.

Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau: Although the names Jacob and Esau are the same as in the previous sentence, they now stand both for the individuals and for the nations descended from them, as is made clear in verse 4. Good News Translation shows this by saying, “Jacob and his descendants … Esau and his descendants.” The descendants of Esau are the Edomites, that is, the people of Edom.

The main problem in translating this sentence lies in the verbs loved and hated. Most English versions use these words, and run the risk of representing the LORD as acting in an arbitrary and unpredictable way. Although the words are used in other contexts of ordinary human emotions, the important feature here is that they are used together to give a sharp contrast, and carry the meaning “I have loved Jacob [and his descendants] more than Esau [and his descendants].” Compare the description of Leah as “hated” in Gen 29.31, when the previous verse has made it clear that she was simply less loved than Rachel. (Compare also the parallel passages in Luke 14.26 and Matt 10.37, the first of which says “hate” and the second “loves … more than.”) This sentence is expressed in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh as “I have accepted Jacob and have rejected Esau,” and in Contemporary English Version as “I chose Jacob instead of Esau.” Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente expresses this meaning more blandly as “I chose Jacob and not Esau.” In languages where the use of hated is likely to be misunderstood by readers, we recommend that translators should express the meaning in some way similar to New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version, or Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente. Paul quotes this sentence in Rom 9.13.

Translators should note that in Hebrew there is a stylistic feature called a chiasmus, in which the order of elements within the two clauses is reversed to give an A-B-B-A pattern. The Hebrew order is “I-have-loved (A) Jacob (B), but Esau (B) I-have-hated (A).”

In many languages such a change of order would simply be confusing, but in others it may be retained and may produce a strong rhetorical effect. Translators must consider the stylistic patterns of their own language in deciding whether or not to retain the chiasmus.

I have laid waste his hill country: Laid waste is an old-fashioned expression, which is replaced in New Revised Standard Version by “I have made his hill country a desolation.” Other terms used for “desolation” are “wilderness” (Jerusalem Bible), “desert” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Living Translation), and “wasteland” (New International Version, Beck). Translation models for this clause are “I have devastated the mountainous region occupied by the descendants of Esau, the Edomites” (Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) and “I have caused the … to become a barren wasteland.”

And left his heritage to jackals of the desert: The phrase his heritage refers to the land occupied by the Edomites, and Good News Translation translates it simply as “the land.” Translators should avoid any term for heritage that means that the Edomites literally inherited that land. They could say, for instance, “ancestral land.” Jackals are animals similar to foxes, wolves, or wild dogs. The phrase jackals of the desert shows that these animals live in inhospitable places. The fact that these creatures have taken over the Edomite land indicates the extent to which the land has been ruined (compare Jer 9.11; 10.22; 49.33; 51.37). The phrase is similar in structure to the expressions “the birds of the air and the fish of the sea” in Zeph 1.3. Just as there the descriptive phrases “of the air” and “of the sea” may be redundant in some languages, so here the phrase of the desert may be left out if necessary (as in Good News Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Contemporary English Version has a restructuring of the last two clauses that may be a helpful model to some translators: “I turned Esau’s hill country into a barren desert where jackals roam.” In languages where it is necessary to state the sex of the jackals, translators should note that the Hebrew form is feminine. In cultures where jackals or even wolves are unknown, translators may use a general term; for example, “wild animals.” New English Bible and Revised English Bible do not mention jackals at all. Their renderings are based on the ancient Greek translation, but there is no need to follow this, as the Hebrew makes perfectly good sense.

In point of historical fact, the people of Edom were pushed out of their traditional homeland by invading Nabataean Arabs, probably between 500 B.C. and 450 B.C. It is striking that the prophet does not rely solely on events from the distant past to prove the reality of the LORD’s love for his people. Rather he chooses an event from his own days to show that the LORD’s love is still valid in his hearers’ lifetimes.

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 Malachi 3:6

Good News Translation has a section heading at this point, but this Handbook recommends that it should be placed at verse 7 instead. (This is the only point at which we depart from Wendland’s analysis.) Versions that close the paragraph at the end of verse 6 include Revised Version, New American Standard Bible, and La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée; and several scholars support this view, including Driver, J. M. P. Smith, and Cashdan. The content of a section heading is discussed in the introductory notes on 3.7-12.

For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed: Although this verse is short, it is nevertheless open to more than one interpretation. First of all, the occurrence of the Hebrew conjunction ki (translated For in Revised Standard Version) is one of the main reasons for believing that this verse is linked more closely with verse 5 than with verse 7. This conjunction normally indicates a close link with what has gone before. As Driver notes, “this verse must give the reason for vv 2-5.” Other scholars such as Verhoef claim that in this verse ki functions as an adverb rather than a conjunction, and means “Truly.”

Second, the Hebrew does not contain anything equivalent to the Revised Standard Version therefore. The conjunction is the usual word for “and.” It can indeed mean therefore in certain contexts, but probably does not have that meaning here.

The two halves of the verse are closely parallel in structure in the Hebrew, literally:
For I LORD not I-change
and-you [plural] sons-of Jacob not you-cease.

The parallelism of structure indicates that the two halves should be interpreted as having parallel clause construction and meaning. The first half may be interpreted either as Revised Standard Version I the LORD do not change, or as “I am the LORD I have not changed” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh; similarly King James Version, Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation). Likewise the second half may be interpreted either as Revised Standard Version you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed or as “you are the children of Jacob—you have not ceased to be” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh; others are similar). The parallelism of structure strongly suggests the New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh interpretations are to be preferred. The statement “you are the children of Jacob” means that the people of Malachi’s generation shared the character of their ancestor Jacob in being cheats. This both fits what has been said in verses 2-5 and forms a basis for what is to follow in verses 7-8. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch makes the information about Jacob clearer by saying, “You are always the true sons of your ancestor Jacob.” Translators could also say “You still cheat like your ancestor Jacob.”

One other problem is the meaning of the Hebrew word translated consumed in Revised Standard Version. The New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh rendering “ceased to be” catches the ambiguity: the verb may mean “cease” in the sense of “cease to exist” (that is, “be destroyed or consumed)” or “cease” in the sense of “cease to be/do what you have already been/done.” Among ancient versions the Vulgate represents the first interpretation and the Septuagint the second. Revised Standard Version follows the Vulgate tradition of interpretation and this is why it adds therefore as the link between the two clauses. The meaning of Revised Standard Version is that because of the LORD’s unchanging mercy his people have not been destroyed, despite all their sins. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh follows the Septuagint tradition of interpretation, and simply translates the Hebrew conjunction literally as “and.”

In the light of the discourse considerations that link verse 6 with the previous verses, the New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh interpretation seems best. It adds nothing to the Hebrew textually, it respects both the discourse structure of the paragraph and the grammatical structure of the sentence, and it produces a meaning fully in keeping with the context. So this Handbook advises translators to accept the interpretation found in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh.

However, the ambiguity of the New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh wording “you have not ceased to be” cannot be recommended. The parallelism of the whole sentence strongly suggests that the meaning is “you have not ceased to be children of Jacob” (New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible; similarly Moffatt, New American Bible, New English Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). This rendering gives an ironic contrast between the two halves of the verse, and picks up the ironic tone seen in the first person statements in verse 1. The other possible meaning “you … are not destroyed” (New International Version; similarly Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Beck, New Living Translation) has no particular relevance either to this paragraph or the following one.

An alternative translation model for the whole verse is:

• For I am the LORD, I have not changed. And you are the children of Jacob, you have not changed either!

In the context of the whole paragraph 2.17–3.6, the LORD is asserting that despite the popular opinions about him in 2.17, he has not ceased to distinguish between right and wrong, and to support the right. And in like manner, as shown by their behavior described in verse 5, the people have not ceased to be cheats and swindlers as their ancestor Jacob was. If translators accept this interpretation, they may wish to add a footnote referring to this aspect of Jacob’s character.

In some languages it may be helpful to place the quotation formula found in verse 5 in Hebrew at the end of verse 6, that is at the end of the paragraph. It may also be helpful to add a footnote with an alternative rendering, especially if translators accept the advice of this Handbook, but some influential version in their area is based on the same interpretation as Revised Standard Version.

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 2:10 - 2:11

The twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius corresponds to December 18, 520 B.C. In the Jewish lunar calendar, though not in our modern calendar, this was exactly three months after the work on the Temple was renewed (1.15). The ninth month was later given the name Kislev (compare Zech 7.1). We may note that between the time of Haggai’s previous message (2.1) and the time of this one, Zechariah had begun his prophetic ministry with a call to the people to repent (Zech 1.1-6). In this instance, the date is given in the order day-month-year, but there is no reason to believe that the variation in the order of elements is significant. Translators should use whatever order of elements is most natural in their language. For comments on month and Darius, see the notes on 1.1.

The word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet: This part of verse 10 is broadly similar to the statements in 1.1 and 2.1. However, there are two small points to be noted. First of all the Good News Translation preposition “to” (rather than “through” as in 1.1 and 2.1) reflects a slight difference in the Hebrew wording here. The same distinction in English is made in New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible/Revised English Bible, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, and New Living Translation, but not in Revised Standard Version or even the very literal Revised Version. If translators can readily keep the distinction in their own languages, then they should do so; but if a distinction would sound forced and unnatural, it need not be made. In other languages, a distinction is made in Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, but not in Bible en français courant. Some languages use the equivalent of the preposition “on” in this context; for example, “came on Haggai.” However, many translators will wish to follow Good News Translation.

The second point to note is that Good News Translation here says “the LORD Almighty,” whereas the Hebrew text has only the LORD. However, verse 11 in Hebrew begins by repeating Thus says the LORD of hosts. Because this repetition sounds clumsy in English, Good News Translation has incorporated the second occurrence into its translation of verse 10. Translators may follow this example, but if they do, it would probably be better to run verses 10 and 11 together and number them 10-11. For LORD of hosts, see the comments on 1.2.

Because of the way Good News Translation has handled verse 10, it is able to begin verse 11 with a new sentence: “He said….” Contemporary English Version ties the verses together as follows: “10 … the LORD God All-Powerful told the prophet Haggai 11 to ask the priests….” Either model is possible. However, translators should remember that these quotation formulas carry information at the discourse level. Even if they do not repeat the formulas at every occurrence, the discourse function of these formulas should be preserved if at all possible. In the present context, the combination in verse 10 of the date and the word of the LORD came is a high level marker of the beginning of the third message of the book. In verse 11 the second formula Thus says the LORD of hosts (compare 1.2, 5, 7) marks the beginning of a unit at the next lower level. In this case it marks the beginning of the paragraph revealing what the LORD said. In translation it is quite possible to retain something equivalent to both formulas, as is done in New English Bible/Revised English Bible, Bible en français courant, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch. Translators should also note that Thus says the LORD of hosts introduces a second degree quotation, which leads in the next verse to a third degree quotation. In languages in which such embedded quotations are unusual or confusing, it may be necessary to turn one or more of them into indirect speech, as a number of modern versions do.

Ask the priests to decide this question: The content of the LORD’s message to Haggai is a command. It was one of the functions of the priests to give “a ruling” (Good News Translation, New English Bible/Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) when questions arose about the interpretation of the Law, or about ritual purity (Lev 10.10-11; Deut 17.8-12; compare Zech 7.2-3; Mal 2.7). For priests see 1.1. Ask the priests to decide this question may also be expressed as “ask the priests for their opinion on the following matter” (Contemporary English Version), “Ask the priests this question about the law” (New Living Translation), or even “Ask the priests to instruct you” (Beck).

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 .