But Judah said: This verse begins with the Hebrew connective conjunction (see Ezra 1.1). Here it is adversative (so Revised Standard Version), or it signals concurrent action (so Contemporary English Version and New International Version with “Meanwhile”). Although the Jews prayed and took precautions, there was a problem of morale at the same time. Judah said is an example of a figure of speech called metonymy. Judah refers to the people of Judah or the Judeans.

The Jews repeated a slogan or popular song in the form of a four-line lamentation with a 3+2, 3+2 meter. In Hebrew the four lines are literally as follows:

Failing is the strength of the bearers [last word hassabal in Hebrew],
and much rubbish.
And we not are able [last word nukal in Hebrew]
to build on the wall.

There is an internal rhyme at the end of the three-beat lines (hassabal … nukal). The brief statement But Judah said implies that the words that are quoted were cited repeatedly by many people. This may have been as a refrain or song, as is indicated by Good News Translation “The people of Judah had a song they sang.” Contemporary English Version describes their song as “a sorrowful song.” One translation has “The people of Judah murmured.” Some commentators suggest that the workmen sang this as a working song while they worked on the wall. In cultures where the work song is a recognized genre, that is the appropriate form for the translation of this song.

Good News Translation, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, New American Bible, Nouvelle Bible Segond and other versions present the song in the format of poetry. But poetry format alone does not create a poem as can be seen from the rendering of New American Bible:

Slackened in the bearers’ strength,
there is no end to the rubbish;
Never shall we be able
the wall to rebuild.

The restructured poem of Contemporary English Version is perhaps more successful since it creates eight-syllable rhythm in the first and last lines with final syllable rhyme as follows:

So much rubble for us to haul!
Worn out and weary,
will we ever finish this wall?

The following is a translation from an African language, though unfortunately it cannot reveal the long vowels and consonants with its internal and line final rhyming that make it a poem (Deftere Allah):

The strength of the carriers is ending,
rubbish heaps from the ruins are many.
Alone by ourselves we are wearing out,
building the wall is difficult.

The strength of the burden-bearers is failing, and there is much rubbish: Burden-bearers is a compound construction referring to the people who were doing the rebuilding. The rubble that they were moving was heavy and they were becoming weak from the fatigue of the labor. It is not specified what loads they were carrying in this song. However, the poetic parallelism suggests a relationship between the burden-bearers of the first line and the rubbish of the second line (see the comments at verse 17 below). Their strength was “giving out” (New International Version) and there was so much rubble to clear away!

We are not able to work on the wall: In the Hebrew the first person plural pronoun we is in the position of emphasis stressing their inability to complete the work. The pronoun subject may be emphasized in English by saying “we ourselves” (so New American Standard Bible). This should be interpreted as an exclusive first person plural pronoun because the song recounts the plight of the singers (so Deftere Allah). Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version both use a rhetorical question here to express the impossibility of the task.

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Nehemiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This section is introduced by the report received by the provincial authorities. The new event in the account is marked by the Hebrew construction with the connective conjunction and the verb “to be,” which is rendered here by Revised Standard Version as Now (see Neh 1.1).

It was reported to Sanballat and Tobiah and to Geshem the Arab and to the rest of our enemies: It was reported is literally “it was heard.” This is a Persian grammatical construction and is evidence of the Persian influence in the language of this book. The report is given in indirect quotation form; that is, the exact words of the report are not recorded here, nor is it indicated who gave the report to the authorities. The statement in this verse introduces the next event in Nehemiah’s account. For Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem the Arab, see Neh 2.19.

That I had built the wall and that there was no breach left in it: The report indicated the progress made since Neh 4.7 when “the breaches were beginning to be closed.” Now the wall had been rebuilt and all the gaps had been filled in.

Although up to that time I had not set up the doors in the gates: Nehemiah adds his own explanation that only the doors were left to be set up in the gates (see Neh 3.1). Because Nehemiah obviously did not set up the doors himself, Good News Translation changes the pronoun I to “we.” This is acceptable in translation if keeping the first person singular pronoun would be misunderstood. Gates here refer to the openings or “gateways” (Good News Translation) in the wall. This was a critical moment in the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Until the doors had been put in place, the city was still not secure. For this reason those opposed to the fortification of Jerusalem acted at this time to stop the project from being completed.

Regarding the phrase I had not set up, the translator needs to indicate the time relationship of Nehemiah’s narrative very precisely. Nehemiah is recording a history of past events. In that history he says that certain information was given to the authorities at a time that he does not specify. That report recounts what had already taken place and it describes a state at the time of the report, namely, that the wall did not have any breaches in it anymore.

Revised Standard Version indicates Nehemiah’s personal explanation by setting it off in parentheses. Other versions mark this editorial comment by setting it apart with long dashes (so New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible). Still other versions use a separate sentence to make it clear that Nehemiah is adding his own comment (so Bible en français courant). However, what is most important is that the translator marks the flow of the narrative precisely.

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Nehemiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

In verses 15-21 the gracious acts of God alternate with the rebellious acts of his people. In this verse God’s provisions of manna and water in the wilderness are remembered (Exo 16; 17).

Thou didst give them bread from heaven … and bring forth water for them from the rock: The Hebrew word rendered bread is a normal word for bread made from wheat flour, but here it is used in the generic sense of food, and refers to the manna that God miraculously provided for the Israelites in the desert. He also brought forth water, that is, he caused water to flow out of a rock for them to drink. The parallel between bread from heaven and water … from the rock indicates that heaven here refers to the sky but has the implication of being from God.

For their hunger … for their thirst: Good News Translation makes the meaning clearer by saying “When they were hungry” and “when they were thirsty,” and many translators will do the same. God provided food to satisfy their hunger and water to quench their thirst.

Thou didst tell them to go in to possess the land which thou hadst sworn to give them: Thou didst tell them means “you commanded them” (Contemporary Chinese Bible) or “you ordered them.” The promise of God that they would possess the land is then mentioned. Possess or occupy is used here instead of “conquer” since it is God who overthrew the kings of the land and gave it to the people to live in. God had sworn this, that is, he had bound himself by oath. This oath is the basis for their hope that they will one day be truly independent of foreign rule.

In Hebrew thou hadst sworn is literally “you had lifted your hand.” This was a gesture that was made when giving an oath. Here it is used of God as though he had the physical characteristics of a human being. It refers to making a very solemn promise and not to swearing in the sense of cursing. New English Bible translates “thou hadst solemnly sworn.” New International Version retains the gesture while making explicit its meaning: “you had sworn with uplifted hand.”

There are many poetic features in this prayer. This verse is in two parts, with parallelism in the first part. The first line is about food for their hunger and the second is about water for their thirst. The second part of the verse is about land according to God’s promise. The first two lines are similar and they balance the second part, which is a concluding statement. As observed by Williamson (1985, page 314), the keywords in the second part, which are “take possession,” “the land” and “to give,” are repeated frequently in the prayer. They are important in the theme of returning to the promised land. This theme is more fully developed in verses 22-25 below.

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Nehemiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Obligation 6—Supporting the Temple Personnel. This was a pledge to give the first fruits, best products, and tithes to provide for the needs of the priests, Levites, gatekeepers, and singers who served in the Temple (verses 35-37a).

We obligate ourselves to bring: In Hebrew this is literally “and to bring” since this verse continues the sentence begun in the previous verse. However, Revised Standard Version repeats the verb of obligation to make a complete new sentence. Good News Translation continues with its listing of the various obligations that they will carry out without referring specifically to obligating themselves.

The first fruits of our ground and the first fruits of all fruit of every tree: The bringing of the first fruits was an early practice of the Israelites (see Exo 23.19). When the people had offered the first fruits to God to whom the whole harvest belonged, then they could use the rest of the harvest for themselves. The Law only referred to the first fruits of the ground, that is, grain. Now the principle of bringing first fruits is extended to the first fruits of all fruit of every tree year by year. Good News Translation makes it explicit that the reference is both to the grain that is harvested and the fruit that is borne on the trees. In many traditional cultures it is the practice to offer the first or the “top” or “head” of the new crops to the spirit of the land or to the ancestors. The technical term for this offering may be appropriate here, though care must be taken to ensure that such a term is acceptable to the Christian community and also that the term used here agrees with the term used in Exo 23.19.

House of the LORD: See the comment at Ezra 1.3.

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Nehemiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Zorah was located 27 kilometers (17 miles) west of Jerusalem in the lowlands going down to the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea. It was Samson’s hometown (Jdg 13.2).

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Nehemiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

For is a conjunction introducing the explanation for what has been stated in the preceding verse. Good News Translation expands it to make the meaning clearer: “This was because….” The Ammonites and Moabites were excluded because of how they had treated the Israelites when they were “on their way out of Egypt” as Good News Translation makes explicit. This information will need to be made explicit in many other languages also.

They did not meet the children of Israel with bread and water: Unlike the Edomites who sold bread and water to the Israelites (Deut 2.26-29), the Ammonites and Moabites did not allow the Israelites to have any provisions (Deut 23.4). According to Num 21.21-23, it was not the Ammonites or Moabites but rather the Amorites who refused to allow the Israelites to pass peacefully through their territory. In Num 22–24 the Moabites tried to get Balaam to curse the Israelites. Here as in Deut 23.3-4 the Ammonites and Moabites are both blamed for their bad treatment of the Israelites.

Bread and water are the most basic requirements for human beings to survive (see 1 Kgs 18.4). Bread may refer to food in general, just as water may represent drinks in general. Many versions translate the two terms explicitly as Revised Standard Version has done. Others translate “food and water” like Good News Translation (so New American Bible, Revised English Bible) or “food and drink” (Biblia Dios Habla Hoy). This approach is particularly helpful in areas where the staple food is not bread, but rice, yam, sorghum or something else. Bible en français courant uses verbs instead of nouns in its rendering, which is “[anything] to eat or drink.” Translators should use an appropriate equivalent expression in the receptor culture for the act of inhospitality and hostility here.

Hired Balaam against them to curse them: According to Num 22–24, the Moabites were the ones who hired Balaam to curse the Israelites. Balaam is identified in Josh 13.22 as a fortune-teller or a diviner. To curse is to call upon a higher power or authority to bring evil or harm upon someone. As a diviner, Balaam was considered to have special powers that would make his curses effective. The Moabites accordingly hired him to place a curse upon the Israelites; that is, they paid money to Balaam for him to pronounce a curse (so Good News Translation).

Yet our God turned the curse into a blessing means that Balaam was never able to utter a curse against the people of Israel, but only to give a blessing (Deut 23.5). Instead of the curse that Balak wanted Balaam to pronounce, the Spirit of God led him to pronounce a blessing on the people of Israel (Num 24). Instead of calling on God to bring ill fortune upon the Israelites, Balaam invoked God’s help and protection and goodness on behalf of Israel. For comments on the concept of blessing, see Ezra 7.27.

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Nehemiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Nehemiah prefaces his request with two conditions. The first refers to the king’s personal point of view. The second refers to the king’s attitude toward Nehemiah. See Est 5.8, where similar expressions occur.

If it pleases the king is literally “If it is good to the king.” This was a standard expression of courtly etiquette that was used when a subordinate person wanted to make a request of a king.

If your servant has found favor in your sight is literally “if your servant is good in your eyes.” This second formula includes a play on words in relation to the first formula. In the first the adjectival form “good” is used and in this parallel expression a verbal form of the same basic word “good” is used. This double occurrence of “good” stands in marked contrast to the repetition of “bad” in the preceding verses. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible translates the Hebrew fairly literally: “If it seems good to the king and if your servant is agreeable in your eyes” (also Darby). If there are equivalent idiomatic expressions in the receptor language, then the translator should retain this contrasting use of “bad” in verses 2-3 above and “good” in this verse. For your servant, see Ezra 4.11 and Neh 1.6.

You send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers’ sepulchres: Nehemiah asks that the king send him to Judah. Although he is requesting permission to go, he is asking for more than simply being allowed to go (Good News Translation). His wish is that the king will order him to go or cause him to go. In this way he will go with the king’s authority.

Nehemiah does not refer to the name of his city but only to the name of its location Judah. For a comment on Judah, see Ezra 1.2; 2.1.

I may rebuild it: The Hebrew verb here is “build” and does not indicate building the city again or rebuilding it. However, from the information that has been supplied to Nehemiah about the city and from what he has reported to the king, it is clear that he wishes to rebuild the city (see Ezra 1.3, 5; 4.12). Translators should use a verb that is appropriate to rebuilding a city, such as “to reconstruct the city” or “to raise the city up again.” Nehemiah’s request to rebuild the city implies that he is asking for a considerable amount of authority to carry out his wish. This is spelled out in his further requests in verses 7 and 8.

It is important to observe the complexity of Hebrew pronoun reference in Nehemiah’s response to the king. He uses the formal style of language that was suitable for addressing the king. He addresses the king by referring to the king in the third person singular (the king), but he shifts to the second person singular possessive construction when he says your servant, referring to himself in the third person. His request is then addressed to the king in the second person singular while he refers to himself in the first person singular. Translators must use pronoun references that are fitting for a similar setting in the receptor language.

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Nehemiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .