Didst perform signs and wonders: Signs point to something beyond the act or the event itself. They are events or objects that reveal something else. Here they point to the power of God that is demonstrated in wonders. Wonders are events that cause people to wonder because they are out of the ordinary; they are miracles. Signs and wonders are near synonyms that often occur together (Exo 7.3; Deut 6.22; Psa 135.9; Dan 4.2). A similar pair of Greek words occurs in the New Testament as “signs and wonders” (Mark 13.22; John 4.48). They may be interpreted together as Good News Translation has done by translating the two words with an adjective and a noun: “amazing miracles.” These are the plagues that God sent upon the people of Egypt. Most versions retain and translate the two words separately.

Against Pharaoh: Pharaoh is not a proper name. It is the transliterated form of the Hebrew word for the title that was used for the ruler over all of Egypt. Many versions retain the title as though it were a proper name. However, other versions do as Good News Translation has done in expressing the meaning or the equivalent of the Egyptian title. Some equivalent titles are “king,” “great lord,” and “ruler of the land.”

The miracles that God performed were actions that were taken against the king, all his servants and all the people of his land. These miracles were a form of punishment; that is, they caused suffering to the king, to those who served him, and to all the other Egyptian people. Good News Translation interprets servants in a more technical sense as being the “officials” of the king (also Contemporary English Version, New International Version). These were the court dignitaries or the “great people” of the king. Against is expressed as “on the head of” in some languages.

They acted insolently against our fathers: Acted insolently refers to the arrogant behavior (so New English Bible, New International Version) of the Egyptians against the Israelites. The original meaning of the Hebrew verb is “to boil” and by extension “to seethe.” In this context it takes on the meaning of acting insolently or arrogantly against someone. Chouraqui translates literally with “they boiled against,” and some languages will use a similar expression. However, most translations express the contextual meaning as Revised Standard Version has done. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “they acted presumptuously toward,” while Good News Translation speaks more concretely of oppression.

Thou didst get thee a name, as it is to this day: Through God’s deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt he “made a name for” himself (New Revised Standard Version, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). He created for himself a reputation as a savior. Good News Translation is a good model to follow: “You won then the fame you still have today.” In spite of the distress of the people in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (see verse 32), God still to this day had that reputation.

This day refers to the day when this prayer was said (see Ezra 9.7). The fame that God gained from delivering his people from Egypt “lives to this day” (Revised English Bible). The translator needs to make it clear that the time reference here is the time of the events that are being recounted in the book of Nehemiah and not the day of the reader or listener today.

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 Hebrew verse 30 begins with the connective conjunction plus a word that is often translated “who” or “which.” This Hebrew expression indicates that the following statements explain the general statement in the previous two verses. It introduces the list of obligations or commitments that follows, and can be translated as “In particular that,” “In consequence” (so Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), or “Namely” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

Obligation 1—No Intermarriage with the Peoples of the Land. This was a pledge that they would not enter into marriage with the peoples of the land (see Ezra 9.1). This is a revision and updating of the command in Deut 7.3 that applies to both men and women. The list of seven nations in Deut 7.1 that no longer exist is replaced by the peoples of the land, thus broadening the prohibition and making it relevant to the contemporary situation. The use of a term like “foreigners” or “foreign population” (Revised English Bible) could be understood to refer to people who had come from foreign nations to live among the Jews. Translators should use an expression that refers to “people of the land” who are not Jews. New Living Translation calls them “pagan people of the land.”

We will not give our daughters … or take their daughters for our sons: Here the first person We dramatically shifts the reference from the third person “they” in the previous verses. Note that Good News Translation shifted to “we” already in verse 28. The verbs give and take reflect the custom that parents give their daughters to go to live with their husbands and they bring daughters from other families to be the wives of their own sons. The Hebrew expression reflects a patriarchal perspective. Good News Translation uses a contemporary English word that is culturally more neutral. Contemporary English Version achieves a similar neutral effect by saying “We won’t let our sons and daughters marry foreigners.” The command is about not entering into such marriages. It is not about ending marriages that were previously contracted.

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 .

There was a command from the king concerning them: The command from the king could refer either to the regulations of King David regarding the singers (see Neh 12.24) or to the provisions made by the Persian king for worship in the Temple (see Ezra 6.1-12). The statement in the following verse that “Pethahiah … was at the king’s hand” obviously refers to the Persian king. It is likely that the reference is to the same king in both this verse and the next verse.

And a settled provision for the singers: This refers to the daily portions for their needs (see Neh 12.47). And renders the Hebrew connective conjunction and should be understood as introducing the content of the command, so the phrase could be translated as “even a fixed ration [or, allowance] for the singers.” The Hebrew word translated in Revised Standard Version as provision can also mean “arrangement” and is the basis for the Good News Translation translation. The same Hebrew word occurs in Neh 9.38, where it is translated as “a firm covenant,” meaning a firm mental resolve. Revised English Bible interprets it here to mean “obligatory duty,” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh translates it as “a stipulation,” while New Jerusalem Bible says “regulations.” The clear statement in Neh 12.47 about giving daily provisions to the singers makes Revised Standard Version the preferred interpretation to follow here.

As every day required: The Hebrew says literally “matter of day in its day.” It is clear that this means “day by day” or “on a daily basis,” but it is not clear what it refers to. Revised Standard Version has it refer to the provisions for the singers each day, which is the preferred interpretation. Good News Translation understands it to mean that their activity was regulated “each day” (similarly New International Version, New Living Translation); New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “daily duties,” while Jerusalem Bible says “attendance day by day.”

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 .

When the two companies met together in the Temple, they offered great sacrifices. The text does not indicate who offered the sacrifices or what kind of sacrifices they were (see Ezra 3.2). The people undoubtedly provided the animals that were to be sacrificed, and the priests performed the sacrifices. The sacrifices would have been thank-offerings of which all but the fat was eaten by the people. Revised English Bible considers that collectively “A great sacrifice was celebrated that day,” while Good News Translation interprets the expression in terms of a great number of individual sacrifices (also Bible en français courant, Nouvelle version Segond révisée). Good News Translation is a good model to follow here.

That day: This temporal phrase holds a prominent position in the Hebrew clause, which is literally “they sacrificed that day great sacrifices.” The author is drawing attention to the importance of the event and he highlights the fact that sacrifices were performed that very day as part of the celebration. Bible en français courant and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh therefore bring the time reference forward to the beginning of the sentence: “On that day.” If this is acceptable style in the receptor language, similar highlighting of the temporal phrase should be done by the translator.

And rejoiced, for God had made them rejoice with great joy …: The keynote of the celebration was joy. This is a theme that is repeated several times in the books of Ezra (3.12-13; 6.16, 22) and Nehemiah (8.10) The words joy and rejoice occur five times in this verse. The Hebrew says “they rejoiced because God caused them to rejoice a great rejoicing, and also the women and children rejoiced, and the rejoicing of Jerusalem was heard afar.” The joy was so great that it was heard afar off. It could be heard from far away like the celebration when the foundation of the Temple was completed (Ezra 3.13). The emphasis on the joyful nature of the occasion is heightened by the author’s repeated use of various forms of “rejoice.” The translator should try to achieve the same effect even if it is by using synonyms and equivalent expressions. Good News Translation may be used as a model, but it does not achieve the same emphasis on joyful celebration and it leaves ambiguous the cause of the noise that “could be heard for miles.” “For miles” also may seem to be anachronistic.

This was a family occasion that included women and children (compare Neh 8.2).

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 .

O Lord, let thy ear be attentive …: Nehemiah concludes his prayer with another plea to God to hear the request he has made on behalf of all the people of Jerusalem. This invocation differs from the first one in verses 5-6 above, since here he addresses God with the title Lord and he asks only for his ear to be attentive, making no mention of God’s eyes. He asks that God “listen” to his prayer as God’s servant and to the prayer of God’s servants. These are identified as people who delight to fear thy name. Having confessed that they had been unfaithful in the covenant relationship, Nehemiah now affirms that they have pleasure in being in awe of God. Fearing God’s name does not have the literal meaning here of being fearful, but rather of respecting or revering (so New English Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version) his name. To fear someone’s name is to be in awe of that person. Good News Translation translates this in contemporary English: “who want to honor you.” Bible en français courant renders it “who find their joy in honoring you.” Compare Deut 28.58; Psa 61.5; 86.11; 102.15.

Give success to thy servant today, and grant him mercy in the sight of this man: These two final requests in Nehemiah’s prayer are in the form of a parallelism. The first request is general, the second is specific. He states his requests with great humility, referring to himself in the third person rather than the first person, and then identifying himself as a servant. In the first part of the parallelism, he asks that God will give success to thy servant today. Nehemiah plans to appeal to the king and therefore he requests that God will make him successful or prosperous in his effort. In the second part, he asks that God will grant him mercy in the sight of this man. He asks for “compassion” or “favor” (New American Bible) in the Persian king’s eyes. New English Bible renders it “put it into this man’s heart to show me kindness.”

This man is not identified although the reader will soon know who is meant. It is possible that the connotations of referring to the king in this manner may be slightly pejorative. Some commentators suggest that by saying this man, Nehemiah makes it clear that God to whom he is praying is greater than this earthly ruler. Good News Translation identifies the person as “the emperor.”

The supplication in this verse is made emphatic by the double use of the particle naʾ (see verses 6 and 8 above). It occurs in the plea that God will listen to him, where Good News Translation and New Jerusalem Bible render it as “now.” Darby represents the emphasis by using a verb of insistence: “I beg you.” It occurs again in the first of his two requests for help. Most translations omit it here, but Darby translates “I pray you.”

Now I was cupbearer to the king: This final sentence provides a closing to the chapter that brings the reader back to verse 1, where Nehemiah was introduced as the son of his father. In this closing he is introduced by his profession or his standing in the court of the king.

Now translates the connective conjunction in Hebrew and may be rendered “At the time” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version; similarly Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). At this point in the account Nehemiah uses an emphatic pronoun for I and identifies himself as a cupbearer to the king. This was a position of trust and influence for it gave him access to the king. The cupbearer tasted the food before the king ate and he guarded the royal quarters. One Septuagint manuscript has “eunuch.” This reflects the fact that Persian kings often had eunuchs serve them since they were in contact with the women of the royal household. Eunuchs were men who had been castrated so that they were impotent. But there is no indication in the Hebrew text whether or not Nehemiah was a eunuch. If there is no technical term for cupbearer, translators may use a descriptive expression, for example, “the one who gave drink to the king,” “the king’s drink-bringer” or “the wine-giver to the king.” Some languages may use a particular expression to indicate that this was a position that he held, or that he was chosen for this task.

Some versions present the biographical statement at the end of this chapter as the beginning of the second chapter (so New English Bible). Contemporary English Version restructures this statement to incorporate it as part of verse 1 of the next chapter. It is preferable to retain the traditional presentation following MT, as Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have done. The translator should use an appropriate discourse marker to introduce the final statement so that it does not stand alone out of context. If possible, there should also be an emphatic pronoun to draw attention to Nehemiah as cupbearer to the king.

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 .

Malchijah the son of Rechab was the ruler or the head of the district of Bethhaccherem. Bethhaccherem is literally “house of the vineyard.” Two locations have been claimed for this place. One is three kilometers (two miles) south of Jerusalem and the other is eight kilometers (five miles) west of Jerusalem. The name is sometimes transliterated as one word as in Revised Standard Version, sometimes as two words as in Good News Translation, and sometimes as a three-unit hyphenated word (so New Jerusalem Bible “Beth-ha-Cherem”). Translators should follow the model they have chosen for other such complex names.

Dung Gate: See verse 13 above.

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 .

From that day on: As noted in the previous verse, the Hebrew construction with the connective conjunction and the verb “to be” begins this verse. It is followed by the time phrase From that day on to indicate a new development. King James Version renders the whole expression as “And it came to pass from that time forth” in its archaic English. Translators need to use an appropriate discourse marker in the receptor language.

Half of my servants worked on construction, and half held spears, shields, bows, and coats of mail: From his own servants Nehemiah organized the defense of those building the wall so that they could continue their work. In Hebrew servants is literally “young men.” These were Nehemiah’s own guards who were allotted to him as governor. They are distinguished from his kinsmen and formed a special militia. New Jerusalem Bible calls them his “retainers.” He assigned half of them to work on construction and half of them to protect the workers. It may be stated that he divided his own servants into two groups that were equal in number, one group to build and the other group to be ready to fight and defend the workers.

The defenders were armed with short spears, shields, bows, and coats of mail. In verse 13 only offensive weapons were cited. Here defensive arms are included, namely, shields and coats of mail. Coats of mail are breastplates made of iron. Contemporary English Version says “They wore armor.” In some languages these will be “clothes of metal” while in other cultures where protective armor is not known, a longer description will be required. The shields were made of wickerwork from willow branches or leather stretched over a wooden frame. They were the smaller type of defensive shields sometimes called bucklers and not large warriors’ shields. With the shields they were able to protect themselves in hand-to-hand fighting, and the armor protected them from arrows and spears that were used at a distance.

The leaders stood behind all the house of Judah: The leaders were the supervisors who were keeping watch. New Jerusalem Bible omits this word on the assumption of a duplication in the Hebrew text, but this has no textual basis. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project supports the Hebrew text with an A rating. They stood behind the workers. This expression is interpreted in several different ways. It may mean that they took up positions behind the people (New International Version), that they gave support to the workers (Good News Translation), that they looked after the people (Bible en français courant), or that they directed the work. Revised English Bible translates “and officers supervised all the people of Judah.”

All the house of Judah is a figure of speech used here to refer to all the Jews who were working on the wall. Good News Translation interprets it as a formulaic expression that means “the people,” who then are identified in the next verse.

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 .

You have also set up prophets to proclaim concerning you in Jerusalem: For prophets see Ezra 5.1. The proclamation of the prophets would give religious approval to claims of leadership over the Jews (see 1 Sam 10.17-24). Therefore Sanballat accuses Nehemiah of using prophets to proclaim him king. The Hebrew verb translated in Revised Standard Version as set up is a causative form of the verb “to stand,” but it does not indicate precisely what Nehemiah is accused of doing. It can be understood in two ways: either as set up in Revised Standard Version or as “arranged” in Good News Translation. The Revised Standard Version translation designates the appointment of prophets, while the one in Good News Translation emphasizes giving them a task to do. Like Revised Standard Version, New International Version says that Nehemiah “appointed prophets to make this proclamation … in Jerusalem,” while Traduction œcuménique de la Bible says that he “put prophets in place in Jerusalem.” Similarly to Good News Translation, Bible en français courant renders it that he “designated prophets to proclaim in Jerusalem,” and this is a good model to follow.

There is a king in Judah: The proclamation of the prophets would be very simple. It is literally “A king [is] in Judah!” The reference to Nehemiah would be made clear in the proclamation, according to Sanballat. This proclamation is the dramatic climax of Sanballat’s letter and of his accusation against Nehemiah. The claim that prophets were to proclaim Nehemiah as king may have been true. Haggai and Zechariah had had similar expectations for Zerubbabel. However, Nehemiah would not have initiated or encouraged this kind of activity. These words are translated most often as a proclamation in the form of direct quotation with an exclamation mark to indicate the emphasis of the announcement; for example, New Revised Standard Version has “There is a king in Judah!” Like Good News Translation, however, some versions restructure in the form of indirect quotation. The direct quotation is the more dramatic in this series of accusations and should preferably be used in translation.

It will be reported to the king according to these words: Sanballat does not say that he himself will report this rumor to the king. He only says that the rumor will reach the king (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible) or that the king will surely hear about it (Good News Translation). For reported see verse 1 above. The Hebrew text does not specify who the king is that will hear of these reports, therefore, Good News Translation refers to “His Majesty.” Contemporary English Version is even more explicit in saying “the Persian king,” while Bible en français courant refers to “The emperor.” If it is necessary for the sake of clarity, translators may say explicitly “the king of Persia,” but it is preferable to simply refer to “the king” since this would have been the most natural form of a threat.

So now come: The message in the letter concludes with a dramatic invitation. By using the Hebrew connective conjunction translated So, followed by the adverb now and the second person singular imperative verb come, Sanballat makes an emphatic call to Nehemiah to cooperate with him. In languages where a formal or honorific form of address might be used, the message here calls for a sign of equality. Sanballat addresses Nehemiah with language that should convince him to meet with him (Contemporary English Version “so let’s get together”).

Let us take counsel together: This is a call for reciprocal action, that is, consulting with each other. Some languages will express this with a reciprocal verb suffix. New International Version says “let us confer together.” Some translations allow the reciprocal nature of the action to be more implicit as Good News Translation has done; for example, New English Bible has “let us talk the matter over” and New Jerusalem Bible has “discuss them [the rumors] with us.” This request appeared to be an expression of concern for Nehemiah’s welfare, but in fact it was part of the plot to compromise Nehemiah. Although it is not clear exactly what Sanballat’s plan was, Nehemiah recognized this proposal as a way to harm him and to stop the work on the wall.

The contents of the open letter are recorded in the form of direct quotation, but the information in the report that was circulating among the nations is recorded in indirect quotation with the exception of the proclamation of kingship which is in direct quotation. This represents three levels of quotation: the contents of the letter, the contents of the rumor, and the contents of the proclamation within the rumor. Revised Standard Version retains the direct and indirect quotation as in the Hebrew, using double quotation marks for the first level of direct speech and single quotation marks for the second level of direct speech. Good News Translation retains the direct speech form in quoting the contents of the letter and the indirect speech form for the contents of the rumor. However, it shifts the proclamation within the rumor to indirect quotation, thereby reducing some of the dramatic impact of the proclamation. Translators should use the style of quotation in their own language that most closely reflects the impact of the Hebrew form.

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 .