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 .

This verse abounds with problems. The traditional Hebrew text is ambiguous in its grammatical structure, curious in its order of clauses, and perhaps incomplete. A number of changes or omissions have been suggested by various scholars, and some of these have been accepted in some modern versions.

There are three main questions that translators must answer before rendering this verse.
(1) What is the object of the verb take?
(2) Does the word exiles refer to those Jews who had already returned from Babylon, or to those still living there?
(3) How many people are spoken of as coming from Babylon at this time?

We will discuss these questions, and others, as we go through the Revised Standard Version text.

Take from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon: Revised Standard Version is itself grammatically ambiguous at this point. The names Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah could be either the object of the verb take, or else they could be a list of those exiles that the prophet is to take something from. The Revised Standard Version sentence continues in such a way as to give the impression that the first of these alternatives was what the translators intended. There are two objections to this interpretation. The first is that in terms of the whole paragraph, the prophet does nothing further with these men. Rather it is their gifts that are the focus of his actions.

The second objection is that the Hebrew text does not treat the men as the object of the verb take but rather suggests that the prophet should take something from them. The identity of this something is revealed in verse 11 as “silver and gold.” Revised Standard Version is supported only by New American Bible among modern versions in making the men the object of take. This interpretation complicates rather than clarifies the rest of the paragraph, and we do not recommend it to translators. Since verse 11 states what the prophet was to take, it is better to anticipate the explanation in verse 10 with a general term like “gifts,” as in Good News Translation “Take the gifts given by the exiles Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah.” Compare Jerusalem Bible “Take the offerings….” This view is also held by such recent scholars as Petersen, R. L. Smith, and Meyers & Meyers. Some scholars add one letter to one word of the Hebrew text to make this meaning clearer, but this is not necessary. Moffatt, New English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, and Contemporary English Version actually mention the silver and gold at this point, and other translators could consider doing so also; for example, New Jerusalem Bible says “Collect silver and gold from the exiles, from Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah” (similarly New Revised Standard Version). To sum up, then, we answer question (1) above by saying that the object of take is best understood as the gifts brought by the men rather than the men themselves.

The word translated exiles gives rise to question (2) above. The Hebrew word golah is used elsewhere both of the Jews still captive in Babylonia (Jer 29.1; Ezek 1.1) and of those who had returned from captivity to Jerusalem, the former captives (Ezra 4.1; Ezra 9.4). Some scholars such as Mitchell wish to see the second meaning in this passage (compare the Jerusalem Bible footnote), but the clause who have arrived from Babylon seems to support the first meaning, as is seen by other scholars such as Petersen, Meyers & Meyers, and Merrill. The difficulty is that in the Hebrew text this clause does not come at the point where we would expect it, but is added very awkwardly at the end of the verse. This makes the Hebrew structure clumsy, but if we take golah to mean people who had returned from exile some time previously, then we are forced to look for some other interpretation for who have arrived from Babylon. This procedure raises more problems than it solves, as we shall see later. So we answer question (2) by saying that exiles should be understood as those people still living in Babylon who had just arrived from there on a visit to Jerusalem (so also Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente).

The men Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah are not mentioned elsewhere as a group, though the name Tobijah occurs in Ezra 2.60 (where it is spelled “Tobiah” in Revised Standard Version), and Jedaiah occurs also in Ezra 2.36. The name Heldai occurs also in 1 Chr 27.15 and in a different form in verse 14. See the notes there. The Septuagint understood these words not as proper names at all, but as descriptions, but no modern version follows it in this respect.

Go the same day to the house of Josiah, the son of Zephaniah: In both Hebrew and English, a second person imperative verb does not normally have a subject, but the Hebrew does contain an emphatic “you” at this point (compare King James Version and Revised Version “come thou”). This is brought out in Bible de Jérusalem and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible but is missed in the modern English versions with the exception of New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh (“and you, in turn, proceed…”) and New Jerusalem Bible (“you yourself go…”). In simpler language translators could say “you yourself must go….”

The phrase the same day is somewhat awkward as there is no previous reference to any particular day. Good News Translation takes it to refer to the day that Zechariah received the “message” (verse 9), and so translates “go at once.” This awkwardness has led some scholars to consider the command go the same day to the house of to be unnecessary, and it is omitted in whole or in part by Moffatt, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, Contemporary English Version, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch. However, even if the style is rough, the meaning is plain, and translators should not omit anything. Good News Translation is a satisfactory model.

In Hebrew the expression the house of can refer either to a building or to a family. As the text stands, the house of follows the verb go … to and must therefore in this context refer to a building.

Josiah is the only one of the four men whose ancestry is mentioned. Zephaniah his father (or perhaps his grandfather) may have been the priest mentioned in Jer 29.29 who was executed by the Babylonians after the fall of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 25.18-21). There is no indication that Josiah himself was a priest, but if he was, it would be appropriate for him to be selected as a witness to the crowning of the high priest in verse 11.

The mention of Josiah brings us to question (3) in the introduction to this verse, namely, How many people are spoken of as coming from Babylon? As we have said already, the clause who have arrived from Babylon comes in Hebrew at the end of the verse after Josiah, the son of Zephaniah. This makes it possible that Josiah is himself one of the visitors, and Moffatt, New American Bible, New English Bible, and Good News Translation accordingly translate as if all four of the men named had just come from Babylon. This view is also held by R. L. Smith and Meyers & Meyers. Bible de Jérusalem and Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible follow the Septuagint in understanding that it was only Josiah who had arrived from Babylon. But this involves changing the verb from plural to singular, a change that, with the support of Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, we consider to be unnecessary (even though it is found in the ancient Greek and Syriac versions). The position of the clause who have arrived from Babylon would allow Josiah to be included, but the general context does not support this view. The fact that Josiah’s ancestry is stated, whereas that of the other three men is not, suggests that he was better known to Zechariah than they were. The fact that he already had a house in Jerusalem virtually proves that he was not arriving in the city for the first time. We conclude therefore in answer to question (3) that only three men, Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, had just arrived from Babylon. This is the view of Petersen, Merrill, and Redditt (1995). In all likelihood they were lodging at the house of Josiah (as understood by Bible en français courant and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente; compare New American Standard Bible “where they have arrived from Babylon”) and that was why Zechariah was told to go there to meet them.

We sum up the discussion by suggesting the following as a translation base for this verse. It restructures the Hebrew in a more logical order, somewhat after the example of Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch:

• You yourself must go this very day to the home of Josiah the son of Zephaniah. There you will receive a gift from Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah, who have just arrived from the exiles in Babylon.

This verse is a good example of how statements that are basically simple can become very difficult for translators to sort out. Textual problems, perhaps arising from rather poor style on the part of the prophet himself, can complicate even the easiest material. Translators have to become aware of the problems and think them through; yet as far as possible, they must protect their readers from them. Even if translators cannot be completely confident that they have understood a passage in exactly the sense that was originally intended, nevertheless they can be sure that it did originally make sense. And especially in a common language version, it must continue to make sense, a sense that is free from unintentional ambiguities, and that fits the context. In this way the reader who knows nothing of Hebrew grammar or textual problems will at least be able to appreciate the thrust of a whole paragraph without being bothered by the problems in the details.

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 contains the second comparison. The introductory words as and so are parallel with “before those days” and “but now” in verses 10-11. Compare also 7.13 and 8.14-15.

As you have been a byword of cursing among the nations: A byword means a proverb (Revised English Bible) or a standard example. The way God had allowed the Temple to be destroyed and the people of Israel and Judah taken into exile had been used by other nations as an example of what it means to be under God’s curse. Compare Jer 24.9; Jer 25.18. So the clause you have been a byword of cursing among the nations may be translated “In the past foreigners have cursed one another by saying, ‘May the same disasters fall on you that fell on Judah and Israel.’ ” (Good News Translation). Cursing is expressed in certain languages as “saying bad [or, evil] words,” or even “putting evil words on another person.”

O house of Judah and house of Israel: Zechariah addresses those who had returned to Judah as representative of both the northern and southern kingdoms. In many languages it will be helpful to do as Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Bible en français courant, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente have done and move this vocative expression to the beginning of the verse (compare the comment on verse 9): “People of Judah and Israel….”

So will I save you and you shall be a blessing: The prophet promises that the good things that lie ahead will become a proverbial example of what happens when God blesses a nation. Save here must refer not to rescue from exile, as in verse 7, since this had already taken place, but to prosperity among those who had returned. The word blessing is probably a reference to the promise God gave to Abraham (Gen 12.2-3), and you shall be a blessing could be translated “So I will make you prosper.” Blessing here refers to “receiving good things.” You shall be a blessing is expressed in Good News Translation as “then those foreigners will say to one another, ‘May you receive the same blessings that came to Judah and Israel’ ” (see the parallel expression a byword of cursing above). This is very clear in English, but it is rather long, with “Judah and Israel” coming three times in the one verse. New English Bible conveys the ideas more briefly with “You … have been the very symbol of a curse to all the nations; and now … you shall become the symbol of a blessing.” In some languages this may be a more convenient translation model than Good News Translation. Translators will have to decide just how much information needs to be stated in their own languages.

Fear not is the conclusion to the section beginning with “Let your hands be strong” in verse 9. Compare Hag 2.5 and many other places. Good News Translation has “don’t be afraid” (also Contemporary English Version).

But let your hands be strong: The Hebrew contains no word for but, and it is in fact out of place here. As explained in the introduction to this section, let your hands be strong is best regarded as the beginning of a second unit parallel with the one beginning with the same words in verse 9, and should be translated in the same way here as in verse 9. See the notes there. Translators are advised to begin a new paragraph here, and continue it into the following verse, where the reason for fresh courage is stated; for example, “Take courage, because the LORD Almighty says….”

An alternative model for this verse is:

• People of Judah and Israel, in the past foreigners took you as an example of a people God had cursed. But now I will make you prosper. Then those foreigners will say to one another, “May you receive all the good things that came to the people of Judah and Israel.” So, then, you should not be afraid.
Take courage, because….

Or the second half of the verse may be kept parallel with the first half, so as to say:

• Then those foreigners will take you as an example of a people God has blessed. So don’t be afraid.
Take courage, for….

The final words (“Take courage” or something similar) should then begin a new paragraph extending to the end of verse 17.

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 mentioned above, it will probably be helpful to begin a new paragraph with this verse. Verses 6 and 7 go together in content, verse 6 having the form of a first person statement by the LORD, and verse 7 being an expansion of the theme in the third person.

I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph: These statements are parallel with each other and should be taken together. The speaker is the LORD. The house of Judah refers to the descendants of the people of the southern kingdom (Judah) and the house of Joseph refers to the descendants of the people of the northern kingdom (Israel). In exile these northern people accepted the culture of the nation that captured them more than the southerners, but it remained a hope of the prophets that the LORD would restore to the Promised Land people of both the south and the north. The word translated strengthen is a form of the same root translated “mighty men” in verse 5. Good News Translation will be a helpful model for many translators.

I will bring them back because I have compassion on them: The word translated bring them back is a strange form in Hebrew, which seems to be a combination of two verbs, one meaning “to bring back” and the other “to cause to dwell.” The ancient Greek version understood it to be the second of these, but the ancient Syriac, Aramaic and Latin versions understood it to be the first, and in this they are followed by most modern translators. This is interpreted as a promise that the exiles will be brought back to the Promised Land. Bring them back may also be rendered as “bring them all back home” (Good News Translation; similarly Contemporary English Version). To have compassion means to show sympathy and a desire to help.

They shall be as though I had not rejected them: The term translated rejected is not a common term, and occurs most often in the Psalms (Psa 43.2 [Revised Standard Version “cast off”]; 44.9 [Revised Standard Version “cast off”]; 60.1; 88.14 [Revised Standard Version “cast off”]). It is rendered “cast them off” by Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible and New English Bible/ Revised English Bible and “disowned them” by New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh.

For I am the LORD their God and I will answer them: If a literal translation of their God gives the meaning that the people of Judah own God, translators may express this phrase as “the God they serve [or, worship].” The verb answer assumes that the people have prayed for help. The situation here is the opposite of that in 7.13, where the LORD refused to listen to the people’s prayers. In languages where the goal or object of the prayers must be indicated, we may say “I will answer their prayers asking me to help them,” or “When they ask me to help them, I will answer them,” or even “When they pray to me saying, ‘Please help us,’ I will do it.”

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

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication: The expression pour out … a spirit of is a metaphor based on the picture of a spirit as a liquid (compare Ezek 39.29; Joel 2.28). In some languages it will not be possible to maintain this picture, and translators will need to consider alternative approaches. Good News Translation, for instance, uses a somewhat different metaphor: “I will fill … with the spirit of mercy of…” (compare New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Another possibility is “I will inspire … with a spirit of…” (Bible en français courant). If such metaphors are not possible, translators could say “I will give … a spirit of [or, heart/liver of] ….” As a last resort, they could omit the reference to spirit entirely and say “I will make the descendants of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem feel deeply compassionate…” or “… have a willingness to be merciful to others and….”

The house of David again means the families descended from David, and in this context seems to stand for the ruling classes, as in verse 7 and 13.1. The inhabitants of Jerusalem means the rest of the people. The two phrases together then mean “the rulers and people of Jerusalem.”

There is general agreement that a spirit of here represents a human disposition or inclination, as often elsewhere. Compare for instance “the spirit of jealousy” (Num 5.14, 30), “the spirit of wisdom” (Deut 34.9), “a spirit of confusion” (Isa 19.14), and “a spirit of justice” (Isa 28.6).

There is less agreement on the meaning of the terms rendered compassion and supplication. In Hebrew they both derive from the same root. The first term is commonly translated “grace” and is often used of finding favor in the eyes of someone (for instance in Gen 39.4; Exo 33.12; Num 32.5). In this case however, it seems rather to refer to the ability to look upon others with favor. Thus it is rendered in modern versions as compassion (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version), “kindness” (Jerusalem Bible), “pity” (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), and “mercy” (Good News Translation). Supplication (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version) may be addressed to people or to God. Here it probably refers to “prayer” (Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation) to God, which in this context is most likely prayer for forgiveness (compare 2 Chr 6.21; Psa 130.2-4). Translators could therefore express a spirit of compassion and supplication as “a willingness to show kindness to others and to ask pardon from God.” In some languages a longer expression of this kind may be unavoidable.

So that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him: The new attitude of kindness and repentance which the LORD gives to the rulers and people of Jerusalem causes them to change their attitude toward something they have apparently done in the past. What this is, however, is far from clear, and it is also uncertain whether the past is recent or more distant. The first problem is to decide what Hebrew text to translate. The traditional text says literally “they shall look unto me whom they have pierced…” (Revised Version). Since the speaker is the LORD, and “me” can refer only to him, this raises the question of how people could be said to pierce the LORD. Some modern translations, including Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation, and Contemporary English Version, translate a slightly different Hebrew text that yields they look on him whom … (compare John 19.37 and Rev 1.7, where the references to Zech 12.10 are grammatically adjusted to the New Testament context). This clearly makes easier sense, but it has no support among ancient versions, and such weak support in the Hebrew textual tradition that it is not even discussed in Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament or Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. Most modern commentators believe the traditional text (“unto me”) should be followed, despite its difficulty.

Some translators who accept the traditional text try to adjust the structure of the sentence to reduce the difficulty. Thus New International Version has “They will look on me, the one they have pierced…” (compare Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). This rendering gives the sense that the LORD is so closely identified with some human representative that he has sent that an attack on the representative is almost the same as an attack on the LORD himself. Presumably the rendering in New English Bible/ Revised English Bible “… on me, on him whom they have pierced…” intends the same interpretation, but the sentence construction is so awkward that the intention is not fully clear.

Another approach to the structure of the sentence is shown in New Jerusalem Bible, which modifies the punctuation in the traditional Hebrew text to create two sentences: “they will look to me. They will mourn for the one whom they have pierced….”

A third possibility is found in Bible en français courant “They will look to me on account of the one they have pierced….”

A fourth possibility is seen in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh “they shall lament to Me about those who are slain….” This view takes the injured party to be plural (“those who”), and to refer to Jews killed in the siege of Jerusalem described in verses 2-8. It assumes that the subject of they have pierced is the besieging armies. While this is possible, it seems an unlikely interpretation, especially in the light of the singular mourn for him in the next clause. It also gives an unusual meaning to the verb most translators render as look on or “look to.” Furthermore, it seems to rule out the strong tradition in both Jewish and Christian interpretation of seeing in this verse a reference to the sufferings of the Messiah.

There is no ideal solution, and all the possibilities discussed have drawbacks. Probably translators would do best to follow either New Jerusalem Bible or New International Version (see above). It may be noted that the verb translated look on suggests confident expectation and hope (compare Psa 34.5; Jonah 2.4).

The word translated pierced refers to a thrust with a sharp weapon like a sword (compare Num 25.8; 1 Sam 31.4). It does not necessarily mean that the resulting wound is fatal, but in the present context where mourning follows, the death of the person pierced seems to be assumed. Thus Good News Translation “whom they stabbed to death” is probably justified. In some languages the verb pierced or “stabbed” will require the mention of a weapon. In such cases translators may say “the one they have stabbed to death with a sword,” or in some cultures “the one they pierced with a spear,” as in Contemporary English Version. However, translators need to be aware of the temptation to say “with a spear” simply in order to fit in with John 19.34-37. This may in fact be the motivation behind the Contemporary English Version choice. It is noticeable that when translating the same Hebrew verb in 13.3, Contemporary English Version says “with a sword.” See also the notes on 13.3. The historical identity of the person referred to is a question that has been debated at great length. Suggestions include Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (2 Chr 24.20-22), King Josiah (2 Kgs 23.29), Zerubbabel (whose fate is unknown), the High Priest Onias the Third (2 Maccabees 4.34-35), and Simon Maccabeus (1 Maccabees 16.14-17), but none of them is widely accepted. Others link the person pierced with the so-called Good Shepherd of 11.4-14, but this too is not convincing. Yet others see a link with the suffering servant of Isa 52.13–53.12; this can be accepted, but it does not help to identify any individual. Fortunately translators do not need to commit themselves on this point. Indeed they must not, since the Hebrew text does not do so. Any additional information should be in a footnote, as in Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente.

They shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born: The change of attitude on the part of the leaders and people of Jerusalem leads to their mourning over the one they have pierced, and presumably killed. The mourning is a symbol of sorrow, in this case sorrow for the sin of rejecting one who was evidently the LORD’s representative. The bitterness of the mourning is described in two powerful similes. The first is as one mourns for an only child; such mourning is particularly sad because parents would expect children to look after them in their old age, and the loss of an only child would mean the loss of their security (compare Jer 6.26; Amos 8.10). The second simile is as one weeps over a first-born; a firstborn child was often regarded with special affection, and its death would be felt as a particularly sad loss. Thus the mourning over the pierced one is deep and genuine. Some translators may wish to follow the example of Contemporary English Version, and combine the two clauses as follows:

• They will mourn and weep for him, as parents weep over the death of their only child or their first-born.

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 .