But: in some languages a rather strong contrastive conjunction like this will be required, because there is a contrast between the other “wise men” and Daniel. Moffatt, An American Translation, and Anchor Bible have “However.”

Give interpretations: literally “interpret interpretations,” where the verb and the noun have the same root. This is a common type of construction in Aramaic as in Hebrew, but it should not be imitated in other languages unless it is natural.

Solve problems: although the construction is a bit different from that in verse 12, the same Aramaic words are involved. They speak literally of “untying knots” but are intended in a figurative sense.

You shall be clothed: the three things offered to Daniel are the same as the rewards that would have been given to the other wise men in verse 7, if they had succeeded in explaining the mystery. But once again the passive construction will have to be made active in many languages.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René & Ellington, John. A Handbook on Daniel. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

A stone: the stone in question had to be quite large, since it had to cover the opening through which a person could enter the pit.

Was brought and laid: these passive forms may be made active by using agents such as “they” (indefinite), or “some men,” or “the king’s servants,” as in the earlier references of this kind.

The mouth of the den: this would be like a kind of door or opening to the place where the lions were kept. It is this reference that makes experts believe that the den was actually a kind of cave or hole.

The king sealed it with his own signet: it was common practice to put some clay at the place where the stone met the edge of the entrance to the cave or pit. Then an image would be placed in the fresh clay, using a personal seal. In this case it was the seal of the king himself and those of his noblemen. It is not necessary that this entire process be described in the translation, but the reader should at least be made aware that this was a means of guaranteeing that the stone was not moved. If necessary the details of the procedure can be explained in a footnote.

That nothing might be changed concerning Daniel: or “in order that no one might be able to change Daniel’s situation.” Some consider that the Good News Translation rendering goes too far, but this is clearly the point of sealing the pit. Compare Revised English Bible. The seal of the officials would effectively prevent the king and his close associates from coming in secret to rescue Daniel. But the king’s seal would perhaps also deter the enemies of Daniel from coming in secret to make sure that he was dead, in case the lions did not kill him.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René & Ellington, John. A Handbook on Daniel. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Commentators are divided on the status of verses 21-22. Some consider it to be a later addition to the text, but it is extremely well attested by the manuscript evidence, and it is essential to the explanation that follows. The problem is that there is an implied question raised in verse 19 (“I desired to know the truth concerning the fourth beast”), but the answer does not come until verse 23. The second implied question (“concerning the ten horns,” in verse 20) is answered first. The structure of verses 19-23 may therefore be diagrammed as follows:

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René & Ellington, John. A Handbook on Daniel. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Cunning: the corresponding Hebrew term usually has a positive sense of “wisdom” or “intelligence,” but in this context it can only have a negative meaning, since it is used for destructive purposes. Knox speaks of “crafty scheming.”

He shall make deceit prosper: or “he will make treachery succeed.” Although technically a causative form, most English versions drop the causative idea. The meaning is simply that he will be very effective in the use of deceit.

Under his hand: literally “in his hand.” Stylistically there may be an intentional contrast with the expression that follows, “in his heart.” The expression really adds nothing to the meaning of the text and is therefore dropped in many versions.

In his own mind he shall magnify himself: literally “and in his heart he will grow big.” That is, his own evaluation of his importance will be highly exaggerated. This may be expressed in a wide variety of ways in other languages. In those languages that use the word for “heart” as the seat of intelligence (as in Hebrew), it may be possible to preserve the use of this term. Some will say, for example, “his heart will swell up” or, changing the image, “his head will become big.”

Without warning: literally, “in security.” This word may be taken to mean (1) that the evil king acts without fear of resistance, or (2) that the people destroyed by the king thought they were completely safe. The Traduction œcuménique de la Bible rendering, “in complete peace,” seems to follow the first, while New Jerusalem Bible, “taking them unawares,” adopts the second meaning. The translation Without warning also takes the second meaning as the correct one. This is probably best, but other languages may render it “when they think they are safe….”

The Prince of princes: this literal rendering presents two serious problems. First, the English word “prince” does not mean the ruler himself but rather the son of the ruler, while the Hebrew term always designates a ruler, not at all implying son of a ruler. See verse 11, where the text speaks of the “Prince of the host.” Second, this kind of construction is a common Hebrew way of communicating the superlative idea. Compare “king of kings” in 2.37, where Good News Translation translates “the greatest of all kings.” And note that the book title “Song of Songs” actually means “The Greatest of All Songs.” So this expression should probably be translated “the greatest of all kings” or something similar. But in this case the expression is a euphemism for God himself.

By no human hand: the word hand is often used in the Old Testament to indicate power. In most languages it is inadvisable to translate it literally in such contexts.

He shall be broken: in those languages where it is necessary to transform the passive formulation to an active one, it is not recommended that the agent be named. It will probably be better to say something like “he will fall” or “he will suffer punishment.” If required, a more radical restructuring may name the agent: “God will break (or destroy) him without the help of any human being.”

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René & Ellington, John. A Handbook on Daniel. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Ate no delicacies: the word here rendered delicacies is literally “bread of delightfulness.” It has been variously translated “agreeable food” (New Jerusalem Bible); “tasty food” (New Jerusalem Bible); “choice food” (New International Version and Revised English Bible); “savory food” (New American Bible); “appetizing food” (An American Translation); “rich food” (Good News Translation and New Revised Standard Version). Most languages will have a way of describing pleasant food in contrast with ordinary food taken merely to stay alive. Perhaps there is even a deliberate contrast here with “bread of affliction” (Deut 16.3).

No meat or wine entered my mouth: a literal rendering may be unnatural in some languages, since it may give the impression that the meat and wine could act of their own will. Some languages will require two separate verbs as in Good News Translation, but some other models are “never tasted flesh or wine” (Moffatt) and “took no meat or wine” (New American Bible). This mourning was not a matter of fasting as such but of the refusal of certain types of food and drink that were normally much sought after and considered a luxury.

Nor did I anoint myself at all: the idea of anointing in this context is that of using perfumed oil on the hair and face. It has nothing to do with anointing in the religious sense of consecration to God, but rather relates to ordinary care for skin and hair. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible translates “did not perfume myself”; New International Version says “I used no lotions at all.” Note that Good News Translation renders the same expression “did not … comb my hair.” Compare the rendering of the same kind of expression in the New Testament in Matt 6.17, for example.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René & Ellington, John. A Handbook on Daniel. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Then: once again this reflects the common Hebrew conjunction and should be rendered in such a way that the transition is natural in the translation. The connection seems to be temporal rather than logical, that is, it introduces the next event in a sequence of events. The Good News Translation rendering “so” may therefore be misleading.

Throw up siegeworks: the noun used in Hebrew refers to a large mound or ramp of earth that an attacking army built up against the wall of a fortified city. Such a mound enabled the archers to reach their targets inside the city and at the same time provided them with some protection. The Hebrew verb used here usually means “spill” or “pour out” (the earth was brought in baskets and “poured out” at the base of the city wall). In languages where walled cities and sieges are completely unknown, translators may have to resort to a less direct expression, such as “pile up earth against the wall in order to be able to attack the city” or something similar.

And take a well-fortified city: this refers to the military capture of a city that had strong defenses and was well protected.

The forces of the south: as in the expression “king of the south,” the word south is a reference to Egypt. The first word is literally “arms” (see King James Version) but refers to the “armed forces” or the military personnel of Egypt stationed in the fortress.

Shall not stand: the verb in this context has the sense of standing firm in resistance of the enemy, but it is, of course, made negative in this verse. Translators may say “will not be able to hold out,” or “will not stand up to him” (Revised English Bible), or “will be powerless to resist” (New Jerusalem Bible and New International Version).

Even his picked troops: or “the elite of his army” (New Jerusalem Bible), “their best troops” (New International Version), or “even though its best warriors engage him” (Knox).

There shall be no strength to stand: many languages will require a clearer statement of the real subject of this sentence. Who is it that will lack strength? Although the structure of the original is unusual, it is clearly his picked troops that is intended.

The probable historical reference of verse 15 is to the siege of the coastal fortress town of Sidon by Antiochus III in 198 B.C. This city was held by Egyptian troops under General Scopas.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René & Ellington, John. A Handbook on Daniel. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Many of those: more accurately, “the many.” Compare 11.14, 33, 39.

Who sleep … shall awake: the images of sleep for death and awakening for resurrection are common in the New Testament and possibly have their origin in Daniel. This is, in fact, the only passage where virtually all Old Testament scholars agree that there is a reference to a resurrection from the individual from death to life. If these images are likely taken literally and thereby misunderstood by readers, then their meaning should be translated more clearly. The verb sleep will be rendered “have died,” and awake may legitimately become “will live again,” “will be revived,” or “will return to life.”

In the dust of the earth: literally “in the earth (or land) of dust.” This is an expression used to refer to the world of the dead, the sheol of the ancients (compare Isa 26.19, “land of the shades”; Psa 22.15, “the dust of death”; Psa 30.9, “the Pit … the dust”). The idea of burial is understood in this expression and may be made clear. Bible en français courant renders it “in the bottom of the tomb,” and New Jerusalem Bible translates rather literally “the Land of Dust.” In many languages the most natural way to convey this idea will be to say straightforwardly “who (have died and) have been buried.”

Some … and some …: according to the view described here, the resurrected persons were made up of two distinct groups: (a) the faithful, who were destined to everlasting life in communion with God; and (b) the others, destined for shame and everlasting contempt in the absence of communion with God. According to certain commentators, a second interpretation is possible, namely that the resurrection really concerned only the faithful, who would receive eternal life. The others would not be raised but would remain in a state of shame and rejection forever in the world of the dead. This second interpretation allows the establishment of a good parallel with the previous verse, and this parallel form may be outlined as follows:

verse 1
those living at the time of the end
the faithful will remain alive
(UNSTATED: the others will die);
verse 2
those who lived in previous generations
the faithful will be raised to life
the others will awake to permanent shame.

The choice between the two interpretations is difficult to make, but it is important to try not to be influenced by later theological developments (for example, John 5.28 and Rev 20.4-5). However, the first interpretation is the most commonly held and probably correct.

The Hebrew word rendered contempt is rare and is found elsewhere only in Isa 66.24 (“abhorrence”). The root meaning has the idea “repel,” and so it seems to express the thought that other people will not want to be near anyone to whom this word applies. It follows another word that is better known, shame, and this provides some meaning to this term. If two such words are not easily found, it is acceptable to render them by a single noun in the translation, as in Good News Translation.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René & Ellington, John. A Handbook on Daniel. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

In the third year: there has been a great deal written about the apparent conflict between this statement and Jeremiah, where the text speaks of “the fourth year” (Jer 25.1; 46.2). This difference has been accounted for by some writers by the fact that the year when the king began to reign was counted differently in Babylonia and in Israel. In any case the text of Daniel says “in the third year,” and this is what must be translated.

Jehoiakim: on the reign of King Jehoiakim, see 2 Kgs 23.36–24.6 as well as 2 Chr 36.5-7. In those languages where there is no distinction between the /k/ and /ch/ sounds, special care must be taken in the transliteration of this proper name, so that there is a clear distinction between Jehoiakim and his son Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 24.6).

King: in certain languages there is no exact equivalent for the word “king,” since this kind of hierarchy, or classification of levels of people in society, does not exist in the culture of the receptor language. So it may be necessary to use the word for “chief” or resort to an expression meaning “big boss,” “the one who commands,” or something similar. One language in the Asia-Pacific Region has to say “older brother with uplifted name.” In some languages it will be more natural to place the title before the name, and in others it will sound better after the name. Translators should ask themselves which sounds better, “King Jehoiakim of Judah,” or “Jehoiakim, king of Judah,” or possibly “the king of Judah, Jehoiakim.” The same kind of order should probably also be used with King Nebuchadnezzar in the expressions that follow.

Nebuchadnezzar: this name appears thirty-two times in the Book of Daniel, all of them in the first five chapters. Some older Catholic versions of the Bible use a different spelling based on the ancient Greek and Latin versions of the Old Testament, but most modern English versions are agreed on the above spelling. This form therefore is the one that should be the basis of transliteration into other languages.

Babylon: In the Bible Babylon may mean “Babylon” or “Babylonia” in modern terms. That is, it may refer to the capital city or to the whole region. The king resided in the capital but was ruler over the entire country. For this reason Good News Translation uses the term “Babylonia.” Some languages may prefer to say “the country of Babylon.”

Came to Jerusalem and besieged it: the first of these two verbs is very common and is usually translated “come,” “come in,” or “go,” “go in.” In some languages the choice between “come” and “go” depends on the supposed position of the writer. Given the context, it may be better to select a more precise word or phrase as in Good News Translation. However, translators should be careful not to choose a verb that may contradict the next one (as the choice in Good News Translation seems to do). New Jerusalem Bible (New Jerusalem Bible) may be a good model, with “marched on Jerusalem.” The second verb, besieged, involves placing soldiers on all sides of a city in order to cut off all supplies of arms and food. In this way the inhabitants of the city would eventually be required to surrender to the surrounding forces.

Also, in some languages it will be much more natural to supply the information that King Nebuchadnezzar was accompanied by his army, since it may sound absurd to say that one person was able to surround or lay siege to an entire city. An additional model for this verse may be “During the third year that King Jehoiakim was ruling over Judah, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia marched with his army to the city of Jerusalem and surrounded it in order to make the inhabitants give up.”

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René & Ellington, John. A Handbook on Daniel. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .