Translation commentary on Malachi 3:4

Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD: Once the priests are carrying out their duties with sincerity and ritual correctness, then the offerings of “the people of Judah and Jerusalem” (Good News Translation) will again be acceptable to the LORD. For comments on Judah and Jerusalem, see the notes on 2.11. The Hebrew word order puts some emphasis on pleasing. The word here translated pleasing is not the same term as occurred in 2.17 and 3.1, where Revised Standard Version has “delight in.” Here the meaning is more like “sweet.” Other renderings include “welcome” (Moffatt, Jerusalem Bible) and “accept/acceptable” (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New Living Translation). This word is also used in the context of sacrifices in Jer 6.20.

As in the days of old and as in former years: These two phrases are parallel with each other and say essentially the same thing. The days of old is used elsewhere both of the period of Moses (Isa 63.11) and that of David (Amos 9.11). In all likelihood Malachi is thinking of the time when the Levites were zealous in their duties (see for instance Num 25.6-13), that is to say primarily the time of Moses. The former years is a vague and general expression without clear reference to any particular period. In some languages it may be more natural to run these two phrases into one and say “in the past” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version), “in former times” (New Living Translation), or “in ancient times” (compare Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 2. Edition).

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 2:8

The silver is mine, and the gold is mine: Coined money was known in the late sixth century B.C., but was not yet in common use. At this time it was still the normal practice to weigh out amounts of precious metal in business transactions (compare Zech 11.12 in Revised Standard Version). Thus in speaking of the “treasures” of the nations (verse 7), it was natural to refer to silver and gold rather than money in the form of coins.

The Hebrew makes separate statements about the silver and the gold, but Good News Translation puts them together into one: “All the silver and gold of the world is mine.” The words “all” and “of the world” are included to make the connection between this verse and the previous one clear: because all the silver and gold belongs to the LORD, he is well able to ensure that the gentiles will offer it in his Temple when he so desires. Thus the new Temple will be no less splendid than the old one (1 Kgs 6.20-22). For a partial fulfillment of this promise, see Ezra 6.8-12. Translators may of course say “silver and gold” or “gold and silver,” whichever is more natural in their language.

Translators may use two clauses, as Revised Standard Version, or one, as Good News Translation, and should choose whichever structure sounds more natural and more rhetorically effective in their language.

The closing words says the LORD of hosts are omitted by Good News Translation, as in verses 4, 6, and 9. See the comments on verse 4. Here they indicate the end of a discourse unit.

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 .

Translation commentary on Zechariah 1:21

And I said: The verb that is usual in English to introduce a question in direct speech is “asked,” as in Good News Translation. If other languages have a term equivalent to “asked” for introducing questions, it would be good to use it here.

What are these coming to do?: Instead of these, Good News Translation uses the pronoun “they” for natural English. In some languages it would be more appropriate to repeat the term used in the previous verse: “workers,” “craftsmen,” or “smiths,” or else to say “these men” as in earlier editions of Good News Translation. The words coming to do suggest that there was something about the appearance of the smiths which indicated to Zechariah that they were ready for work. We cannot say what it was. Since the men were already present, Good News Translation is clearer with a past tense, “What have they come to do?”

When the angel answered, he first of all referred back to the horns which scattered Judah, so that no man raised his head (see verse 19). At the end of the verse he mentions them again as the horns of the nations who lifted up their horns against the land of Judah to scatter it. This repetition of what is basically the same idea sounds clumsy in English, and Good News Translation has therefore stated the idea only once at the end of the verse. In many languages translators will find it more natural to follow this example.

The horns which scattered Judah, so that no man raised his head: The effect that the enemy nations’ action had on the people of Judah is described figuratively. One of the results of the enemy oppression was that the people were scattered. As in verse 19, this is a reference to the dispersion of the Jews in the exile. Another result of the oppression was that no man raised his head. In some languages there may be a figurative expression like this to represent oppression, and if so, translators should consider using it here. Good News Translation expresses this meaning in a different picture, and says, “the nations that completely crushed the land of Judah.” Note that Good News Translation also replaces the symbol of the horns with “the nations.” New English Bible adds “and Jerusalem” after Judah, but there is no adequate reason for this, and Revised English Bible drops the addition.

These have come to terrify them, to cast down … the nations: The main focus of the angel’s reply is on the activity of the workmen. They are agents who carry out the LORD’s punishment against the nations, that is, the enemies who oppressed his people (see verse 15). Terrify means to “make very afraid.” In certain languages this clause with terrify may be translated “These men have come to make the hearts of … fall,” “… to make the souls of … flee and their bile stir up,” or “… to make their hearts turn to water.” Cast down means “overthrow” (Good News Translation), “crush” (Contemporary English Version), or “destroy” (New Living Translation).

The horns of the nations who lifted up their horns against the land of Judah to scatter it: As mentioned above, this essentially repeats the information given in the earlier part of the verse. In this repetition, however, the information is given in a way that would sound extremely clumsy in most languages. The notion of horns … who lifted up their horns is odd and confusing, and translators will do well not to retain it (so Good News Translation).

A helpful restructuring of the whole verse can be based on Bible en français courant and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente:

• I asked, “What have they come to do?”
He replied, “These blacksmiths have come to terrify and overthrow the powerful nations who attacked the land of Judah, scattering its inhabitants, and crushing all resistance.”

Another possibility is:

• I asked, “What have they come to do?”
The LORD replied, “These horns stand for the nations that have scattered and oppressed the people of Judah. The blacksmiths [or, workmen] have come to terrify those nations and destroy their power.”

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 4:12

And a second time I said to him: It appears that the prophet adds a second question before the angel has an opportunity to answer the first one. Since Zechariah remains the speaker, these introductory words are an interruption in the flow of the speech that may be awkward in some languages. Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version omit them and continue straight on with the second question (similarly New Living Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente), and translators may do the same if this would result in a better style in their own language. Most translations, however, keep the quotation formula, which can be expressed as “And I also asked him.” The question that follows raises various problems, both in terms of the words used and in terms of its relation to the description in verses 2-3.

What are these two branches of the olive trees: For What are…? Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version render “what is the meaning of…?” (compare verses 4, 11). The Hebrew word here translated branches elsewhere always has the meaning “grains of wheat growing at the top of the stalk.” Scholars think that here it must mean “the extreme ends of fruit-laden boughs,” so New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh translates it as “the two tops of the olive trees.” Since English has no special term for this particular part of a tree, several translations use a more general term like branches (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) and translators with a similar problem may do the same. These branches have not been mentioned before and we must assume that they are simply prominent boughs, probably one on each tree.

Which are beside the two golden pipes from which the oil is poured out: These pipes have not been mentioned before either, and it is not certain where they were. The most probable interpretation is that they connected the trees to the bowl of verse 2, and supplied olive oil as fuel for the lamps. Of course, oil does not pour from an olive tree in everyday life: the olives have to be gathered and pressed to get the oil. But in a vision such details may be omitted. The tree was the ultimate source of the oil, and that is what the vision shows.

The word translated oil is the normal word for “gold,” and this causes a problem for interpreters. Some commentators assume that the “gold” stands for the color of the oil by a figure of speech called metonymy. Others assume that some words have been lost from the Hebrew, and that there was originally a reference to the golden bowl of verse 2. Others have suggested that the Hebrew word, though the same word for gold, is actually from a different root, and means “oil.” Whatever the truth may be, English versions generally render it as oil (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Good News Translation), “golden oil” (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, New International Version, New Living Translation, Bible en français courant), or even “golden olive oil” (Contemporary English Version), and this is what we recommend that other translators should do. Contemporary English Version offers a helpful model for this verse:

• And what is the meaning of the two branches from which golden olive oil flows through the two gold pipes?

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 7:5

Say to all the people of the land and the priests: The message is not addressed directly to the visitors who had asked the question in verse 3, but they are probably to be included among those addressed.

In Revised Standard Version this is followed by a second degree quotation, but Good News Translation restructures it as indirect speech: “Tell the people of the land and the priests that….” See the comments above in the introduction to this paragraph.

When you fasted and mourned … was it for me that you fasted?: Although this sentence has the form of a question, the context clearly expects a negative answer. The overall effect is therefore that of a negative statement. Good News Translation has restructured it as a negative statement: “when they fasted and mourned … it was not in honor of me” (similarly Bible en français courant). Many translators will find it helpful to do the same. Contemporary English Version restructures, but keeps a question: “you have gone without eating … But did you really do it for me?” This is also an acceptable model.

In the fifth month and in the seventh: The fast in the fifth month commemorated the destruction of Solomon’s Temple by the Babylonians (see the comments on verse 3). The fast in the seventh month, not mentioned in verse 3, commemorated the murder of Gedaliah, the man appointed as governor of Judah by the Babylonians after the capture of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 25.25; Jer 41.1-3). This information may be added in a footnote, as in Bible en français courant and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente.

For these seventy years: This is a round figure. The exact time was two or three years less, but translators should keep to the round figure.

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 9:1

This verse contains a variety of problems for the translator involving both text and interpretation. The first is to decide how to break up the string of words into smaller units. The first three words of the Hebrew (massaʾ devar YHWH) occur together not only here, but also in 12.1 and Mal 1.1, and nowhere else in the Old Testament. In terms of the discourse structure, it seems best to treat these words as an introductory formula in all three places, though it is not certain whether it consists of one phrase or two. Unfortunately Revised Standard Version (with a large number of other modern versions) separates only the first word massaʾ both here and at 12.1, and treats it alone as a heading. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh (with the support of the Septuagint) treats the three words together as a formula and translates “A pronouncement: The word of the LORD,” and this is a clearer reflection of the discourse function of the formula. However, it does create a problem in that the following clause is then left with no clear subject. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh solves this problem by continuing with “He will reside in the land of Hadrach and Damascus,” where “He” is the LORD.

Other versions both ancient and modern take the three Hebrew words together as one phrase, and interpret it as the subject of the following clause. For instance, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente has “This message from the LORD concerns the region of Hadrach and the city of Damascus” (compare Vulgate). This solution is good provided that the translator can use a similar expression at least at Zech 12.1, and thus preserve the discourse connection between 9.1 and 12.1, as Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente does. Contemporary English Version is similar, but has a colon at the end of this introductory statement (“This is a message from the LORD:”). Translators are advised to follow this interpretation. Although the most desirable choice would be to translate massaʾ devar YHWH the same way in all three places where it occurs, the different grammatical contexts may make this impossible. Translators should at least try to make the three places similar enough that readers can recognize that there is a link between them.

An Oracle: This means an authoritative message from God. The word of the LORD is often rendered as “the LORD’s message” (Good News Translation; similarly Contemporary English Version, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). Good News Translation has a separate sentence with a colon (“This is the LORD’s message:”), and the message that follows begins on a new line (similarly Contemporary English Version).

Is against the land of Hadrach: It is doubtful whether the Hebrew preposition translated against in Revised Standard Version and some other versions really carries this meaning. The Hebrew word usually means “in,” and is so translated by Revised English Bible. If against were the meaning intended, it is likely that another preposition which carries this meaning more clearly would have been used. The use of against here is particularly unfortunate because it conveys the impression that this paragraph is solely a message of judgment, which it is not. Although the word against does not occur in Good News Translation, Good News Translation shows that it shares the same interpretation by saying that the LORD “has decreed punishment for the land of Hadrach.” The verdict of Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project is that a more neutral interpretation is desirable, and we agree with this, especially in the light of the second part of the verse. Translations such as Jerusalem Bible “Yahweh has passed through the land of Hadrach” and New English Bible “He has come to…” are based on changes to the Hebrew text which are unnecessary, and have been abandoned by New Jerusalem Bible and Revised English Bible. The land of Hadrach is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, and its exact location is unknown. Archeological evidence suggests that it was somewhere in the same general area as the city of Damascus, that is, to the north of Israel.

And will rest upon Damascus: The Hebrew word translated rest upon is actually a noun, and is rendered as such in Jerusalem Bible “Damascus is his dwelling place.” It does not suggest a hostile encounter between the LORD and the city, and this helps to confirm that the LORD is not hostile to Hadrach in the previous phrase. The Hebrew word may indicate a temporary rather than a permanent stay, and this idea is shown in New American Bible “Damascus is its resting place” and Revised English Bible “it alights on Damascus.” Possible alternative translation models for the first part of the verse are: “A declaration of the LORD’s message: He will stay in the land of Hadrach and the city of Damascus” and “This is a message from the LORD:….”

For to the LORD belong the cities of Aram, even as all the tribes of Israel: This clause also contains problems both of text and of interpretation. Revised Standard Version, as its footnote indicates, makes two changes to the Hebrew text to get its rendering. For the cities of Aram, the Hebrew text actually has words that mean either “the eye of Adam” or “the eye of man,” since the Hebrew word ʾadam may be either the name of an individual or a common noun meaning “man” (Revised Standard Version footnote) or “humankind” (New Revised Standard Version footnote). Revised Standard Version takes the text as cities instead of “eye”; and it renders Aram (that is, Syria) instead of “Adam.” The difference between the letters “d” and “r” in Hebrew is very small. Revised Standard Version makes good sense with the overall message that Syria belongs to the LORD just as much as Israel does. However, there is no support for its changes in manuscripts or in ancient versions, and this rendering does not fit well with against in the earlier part of the verse. New Revised Standard Version retains only one of the two changes to the Hebrew (“Aram” for “Adam”). New Revised Standard Version and Revised English Bible keep the Hebrew word “eye,” but interpret it figuratively to mean “the capital of Aram,” that is, Damascus (so Good News Translation). Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project reject both proposed changes, and discourse considerations support this, as the word “eye” occurs again at the end of the paragraph in verse 8.

Even if translators retain the Hebrew word for “eye” here however, they still have to decide how to interpret the whole clause in which it occurs, literally “to the LORD the eye of Adam/mankind.” This is often taken to mean that “all people will look to the LORD” (Revised Version text, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Living Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 2. Edition, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project). However, it could also mean that the LORD looks on all mankind (Revised Version footnote, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1. Edition). This meaning is paralleled by the idea of the LORD looking at his people in verse 8, and is probably the best option, though the interpretation that has people looking to the LORD offers both an acceptable sense in the immediate context and a reasonable balance to verse 8. So there are two possible translations: “for the LORD has his eye on humankind” or “for people everywhere look to the LORD.”

The words even as do not correspond to anything in the Hebrew, but almost all translations supply them or something similar. New Jerusalem Bible has “… belongs to Yahweh no less than all the tribes of Israel.” Bible en français courant has “… not only on the tribes of Israel but also all human beings.”

In the light of the above discussions, translation models for this verse are:

• A declaration of the LORD’s message: The LORD will stay in the land of Hadrach and in Damascus. Indeed, he has his eye on all mankind as on all the tribes of Israel.

• An announcement of the LORD’s message: The LORD will stay in the land of Hadrach and in the city of Damascus. Indeed, people everywhere, not just all the tribes of Israel, look to him.

The first possibility seems somewhat preferable.

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 11:5

Those who buy them slay them; that is to say, the merchants who buy the sheep kill them for their meat. It is not clear who these buyers represent symbolically.

And go unpunished: This phrase in English is used in many modern versions (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation, New International Version, Contemporary English Version). It conveys the hint that those who kill the sheep ought to be punished. This idea is expressed also in the phrase “with impunity” (New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). However, it is not so clear that the Hebrew has the same overtones. Among ancient versions the Septuagint and the Vulgate both seem to understand the words to mean “and they suffered no remorse.” Some versions are more neutral in their wording: “and incur no guilt” (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible). Compare the Revised Standard Version translation of the same verb in Jer 50.7, where it has “We are not guilty.” On the whole it seems better not to suggest that those who killed the sheep ought to have been punished. Translators may say “without remorse,” “without compunction,” or “without feeling any regret.”

Those who sell them say, ‘Blessed be the LORD, I have become rich’: Those who sell them are other merchants, but again it is not clear who they represent symbolically. Good News Translation treats the buyers and the sellers as a single group, “Their owners,” but this is an oversimplification that is not helpful. Blessed be the LORD is a formula for thanking the LORD, and may be rendered “Thanks to the LORD,” “I give thanks to the LORD,” or even “Praise the LORD.”

I have become rich refers to the profit made in selling the sheep.

And their own shepherds have no pity on them: With a further example of the carelessness frequent in the book of Zechariah, the prophet does not make entirely clear who their refers to. In Hebrew a flock of sheep is regarded as feminine because most of the animals in it are ewes (females). Thus the pronoun suffixes translated them four times in this verse are feminine in Hebrew. However, the Hebrew suffix translated their is masculine. By the strict application of the rules of pronoun reference, the masculine suffix must refer back to the people who buy and sell the sheep, and it is taken this way by Delcor. However, since the sense of the passage seems to require that it should be the sheep who have shepherds, most scholars assume that there is a textual error, and read the suffix as feminine. There is only one letter different between the masculine and feminine suffixes (-hem as against -hen), and a few Hebrew manuscripts actually have a feminine at this point. But in fact the Hebrew text as it stands with the masculine suffix can make perfectly good sense. In the light of verses 7 and 12, it is clear that the shepherds are hired by those who buy and sell the sheep (the “traffickers” in Revised Standard Version at verse 11). Translators are therefore recommended to translate as follows: “the shepherds they hire have no pity on the sheep” or “the people they hire to look after the sheep have no pity [on the sheep].”

There is no mention of shepherds other than the prophet himself up to this point, but the text seems to assume that the flock had other shepherds before the prophet was appointed. Verse 8 may be taken to indicate that he was one of several shepherds. These other shepherds did not develop affection for the animals that people who look after animals often show, but had no pity on them; that is to say, they did not care that the animals would be slaughtered. Presumably the prophet himself is not included among those who have no pity. It is possible, as the Revised Version margin indicates, to take the Hebrew as “their shepherd” (singular), and indeed the verb translated have … pity is singular. But this would make an already difficult verse even more complex, and it is noteworthy that the ancient versions have both the noun and the verb in the plural.

A possible alternative model for this verse is:

• Those people who buy the sheep kill them and feel no regret. As for those who sell them, each one says, “I give thanks to the LORD that I have become rich.” Even the people the buyers and sellers [or, dealers] hire to look after the sheep have no pity on them.

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

Translation commentary on Zechariah 13:8

In Hebrew the verse begins with a word rendered in King James Version and Revised Version as “And it shall come to pass.” In Revised Standard Version and most modern versions, it has no equivalent in English, because a literal translation sounds so stilted. The word does however have the discourse function of marking the beginning of a new subparagraph, and translators should be aware of this even if they do not mark it in setting out their translation. In this new subparagraph the focus moves from the shepherd (probably a symbol for a ruler) to the people as a whole.

In the whole land refers to the territory occupied by the LORD’s people, without saying exactly what or where. At the least it would include Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

Says the LORD is a Hebrew noun phrase as in verse 7, and again it functions at the discourse level to reinforce the opening of a new subunit. For stylistic reasons, namely to avoid repetition that is rather clumsy in English, Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version omit it. Translators may include or omit it according to the stylistic requirements of their own language, but they should be aware of its function.

Two thirds shall be cut off and perish: Two thirds means “two thirds of the people” (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible). The Hebrew expression is literally “mouth of two,” and elsewhere the phrase carries the sense of a double portion (Deut 21.17; 2 Kgs 2.9). Here those killed will be double the number of those who survive. In some languages there are set expressions to refer to fractions, such as “two in three” or “from three, two.” Be cut off may perhaps refer to going into exile, but this verb is a common Hebrew metaphor for dying and probably carries that meaning here. In many languages it may be replaced by a local metaphor. For instance in English, several versions say “be struck down” (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, New International Version). Perish is merely a higher level word with the same meaning as “die.” Good News Translation runs the two ideas of be cut off and perish together and renders them by the single term “die.” This is clear and simple, but it loses the poetic impact and rhetorical effect of the Hebrew. Translators are advised to retain two verbs if possible.

And one third shall be left alive: This statement says the same as the previous one, but from a different point of view, and is in a sense redundant. Good News Translation absorbs it into the following verse, but this again sacrifices some of the rhetorical effect of the Hebrew, and is not recommended. The general idea behind this verse is probably suggested by the action of Ezekiel in dividing the hair he cut from his head and beard into three parts (Ezek 5.1-4, 12), though the notion of a remnant that survives God’s punishment is common in the prophets who lived and wrote before the exile. See for instance Isa 1.8-9; Amos 3.12; Micah 5.7-8; 7.18.

Possible translation models for the verse are:

• The LORD says that in the whole land, two people out of every three will be struck down and die, and only one will survive.

• The LORD says, “In the whole land most of the people will be struck down and will die, and only a few will remain alive.”

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 .