In the days of those kings: Anchor Bible recommends “in the days of those regimes” rather than “… of those kings.” But there is very little real difference in meaning in this context. What the writer is probably referring to would be the kings of the last-mentioned kingdoms, those compared to iron and clay.

The God of heaven: see verse 18.

A kingdom: while this does refer to the kingdom of God, translators are not advised to render this “his kingdom” (as Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has done). This would be too direct and would detract from the deliberately puzzling character of the text. The description of this kingdom should be enough to show that it is fundamentally different from the ones before it.

Which shall never be destroyed: this passive construction may be rendered actively, as in Good News Translation “will never end,” or “shall remain forever.” In other languages it may be better to say “no power will be strong enough to destroy it.”

Nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people: this is another passive that will have to be rendered actively in many languages. Some may say “and no other people will be able to take away its authority” or “no other people will have the strength to dominate it.”

Break in pieces: maintaining the image of the stone and the statue, this figure focuses on their total destruction, while bring them to an end emphasizes the end of the other kingdoms.

Stand for ever: this emphasizes the permanence of the new kingdom. In some languages it will be necessary to say “endure for all time” or “continue always” or “never end.” On the idea of for ever, compare verses 4 and 20 earlier in this chapter.

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 .

Nebuchadnezzar: the proper noun may be replaced by a pronoun or by the title “king,” if this will be more natural. See 2.5 and 3.14.

Blessed be: the verb “bless” is often difficult to translate, especially when it is used of a human blessing God. In such cases the Aramaic verb (as well as the corresponding Hebrew) has as its primary component the idea of “praise” or “give thanks to.” And in some languages it will be necessary to avoid the passive and name the subject of the verb: “I praise God,” “I magnify the name of God,” or “Let us praise God.” See comments on 2.19-20.

The God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: that is, the God that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego worship. Translators should be careful not to give the impression that someone owns God or that God belonged exclusively to the three persons mentioned or was worshiped only by them.

His angel: compare verse 25. The Aramaic term may indicate a messenger or envoy. The translator may wish to use an expression like “heavenly messenger” or “divine messenger,” to emphasize the supernatural character of the person sent.

Delivered: grammatically the subject of this verb may be either God or the angel he sent. Since the result will be essentially the same in either case, this is not an extremely important question. However, most languages will force the translator to decide one way or the other. In such cases it is probably better to make it clear that God is the subject of the verb.

Who trusted in him: this refers to the three persons named, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. King Nebuchadnezzar also calls them his servants, meaning God’s servants.

Set at nought the king’s command: since it is the king who is speaking, it will be unnatural in certain languages for him to refer to himself as “the king.” The clear meaning is that they “disobeyed the royal command” (New English Bible/Revised English Bible) or, more directly, “disobeyed my orders” (Good News Translation).

Yielded up their bodies: in many languages it may be necessary to indicate an indirect object, if the verb yielded up is maintained: “They yielded their bodies to punishment” or “They gave their bodies over to their torturers.” The ancient Greek version, the Septuagint, actually supplies such an indirect object, and Revised English Bible follows this, translating “yield themselves to the fire.” Or there may be other meaningful ways of rendering this idea; for example, “willingly surrendered” or, more colloquially, “put their lives on the line.”

Rather than serve …: some translators may prefer to say “in order not to have to serve….” For serve and worship see these verbs used together in verses 12, 14, and 18.

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 .

The king said: literally “speaking the king said.” But the content of the quotation that follows may make it necessary to use a stronger verb here. New Jerusalem Bible and New English Bible/Revised English Bible have “exclaimed.” Other versions prefer to take this as a thought process, “said to himself” (An American Translation); but this is unlikely, since the following verse seems to indicate that he actually uttered these words aloud.

Is not this great Babylon …?: the rhetorical question of the original is both lengthy and negative in form. This may make it very difficult to translate literally in a large number of languages. The idea is “Just look at this great city (called Babylon) that I have built for my residence!” It is probably a good idea to break this down into two separate sentences. Good News Translation should serve as a good model at this point.

The words translated royal residence refer to the place where the king lives. It has the same essential meaning as royal palace in the previous verse and may have to be translated identically in many languages. But it may also be rendered “the center of my government.”

The glory of my majesty: is an abstract notion that will be difficult to translate in some languages. Note that Good News Translation speaks of “my capital city to display my power and might, my glory and majesty.” Another way of saying this is “the center of my government which shows that I am great and strong. My power and glory (or honor) can be seen here.”

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 .

The Aramaic words written on the wall were not foreign to King Belshazzar. They were quite ordinary words. The mystery lay in their brevity and the fact that they could be read either as nouns or as verbs. Consequently, although most English versions transliterate the Aramaic terms, translators are advised to give the meaning following the Good News Translation model. MENE may be translated “number,” “measure,” or “quantity.” TEKEL concerns a “weight” or a “load.” PARSIN has to do with “division,” “split,” “partition,” or “separation.” Note that the first word is repeated while the others occur only once. Although several ancient versions omit the second occurrence of the first word, it is found in the Aramaic text and should be included in the translation.

According to certain commentators the words could have been used to designate three different pieces of money in Aramaic: the mina, the shekel and the half-mina. While this is possible, it plays no role in the narrative and does not even have to be mentioned in a footnote. The meaning of the words is given in detail in the following verses.

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 .

I make a decree: Revised English Bible “I have issued a decree.” See 3.29.

In all my royal dominion: some other ways of wording this are “everywhere that my power extends” or “among all the people over whom I rule.”

Men: the decree was not exclusively for males but applied to every individual in the empire. For this reason it is fitting to use more inclusive terminology here such as “everyone” (Good News Translation), “each person,” “every inhabitant of the empire,” or simply “all people.”

Tremble and fear: here the focus is more on the idea of respect and honor of God than on literal trembling and fear.

The God of Daniel: as in the case of “my God” (verse 22) and “his God” (verse 23), the possessive idea may be better rendered as “the God Daniel worships.”

The living God: see verse 20. Note that here Good News Translation uses the indefinite article rather than the definite “the” in this case. Whatever the reasons for doing this in Good News Translation, translators should avoid giving the impression that there are many living gods.

Enduring for ever: many languages will have to use a verb such as “remain” or “continue” and follow it up with something like “always” or “which will never end.”

Be destroyed: this passive may be translated “no one (or no power) will ever be able to destroy his kingdom” or “no one can spoil his rule.”

The last two lines of this verse are parallel in structure and meaning, and the parallelism may be retained in those languages where it is natural to do so. But translators should avoid giving the impression that two totally different things are being talked about. In some languages this may be done simply by not using a conjunction like “and.”

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 .

It is important that this verse be translated in such a way as to make clear to the reader that Daniel was not physically in Susa, but only in his vision. The repeated use of the phrase I saw … underlines this fact. Certain scholars maintain that the second occurrence of I saw in the vision is a textual error. Several modern versions leave it out, although it is not always clear whether the omission is for textual or translational reasons.

The capital: while Susa was, in fact, the capital of the province of Elam, it was also a fortified city. The word used here seems to focus more on the fortifications than on the fact of its political importance. For this reason most versions have something like “citadel” (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Standard Bible, An American Translation, Moffatt) or “the fortress” (New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible). The Good News Translation rendering is simply a less complicated way of saying the same thing. The rendering used here should be compared with Neh 1.1 and Est 1.2, where the same term is used.

The province of Elam: this is the region east of the Tigris River, which provided numerous raw materials. Its people are depicted as a ruthless nation whose warriors were skillful in using chariots as well as bows and arrows. Elamites are mentioned in the New Testament as being present in Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts 2.9).

The river Ulai: this expression is repeated in verse 16 of this chapter, and the word translated river occurs again in verses 3 and 6. The Ulai is one of three bodies of water near Susa. Today it is called the Eulaeus. It is actually an artificial canal that joins the other two streams, the Kerkha and the Abdizful. For this reason a more accurate translation may be “canal,” as in New International Version, Revised English Bible, and New American Standard Bible. In those languages where there is no word for canal, it will be better to use something like “stream” (New English Bible, An American Translation), indicating a less important body of water than the word “river” may signify. Some versions, including New Jerusalem Bible and Anchor Bible, have “the Ulai Gate” at this point. This is a conjectural translation based on the ancient versions, but translators are advised not to adopt this solution.

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 .

The structure of this verse and of the two following is unusual in English and perhaps in many other languages. Each of these verses begins with “To….” By shifting the pronominal expression (To thee) forward to the beginning of the sentence, it is given special importance or emphasis. In some languages the same effect may be achieved by the use of emphatic pronouns or some other device stressing such prominence.

Lord this translates ʾadonai and not Yahweh. See comments on verses 3 and 4 above.

Belongs righteousness: literally, “to you Yahweh righteousness” (with no verb, since the verb “to be” is understood). As in the case of the Aramaic equivalent in 4.27, the noun translated righteousness conveys the idea of “justice” or “acting correctly.” And some experts feel that the idea of salvation is also an important element in this context and should be clearly stated. As indicated in Harper’s Dictionary of the Bible, “righteousness also refers to God’s saving actions … In the Dead Sea Scrolls and its ‘teacher of righteousness,’ God’s righteousness offers hope for redemption from sin.” If translators decide to choose this option, New Jerusalem Bible, which speaks of “saving justice,” provides a possible model. The word belongs is not found in the Hebrew but was supplied by the Revised Standard Version translators. The point is that God has been true to his covenant promise to Israel, but that they have failed him shamefully. The whole idea may be translated by a verbal expression in many languages. Some possible models in addition to Good News Translation are “you are righteous” (New International Version) and “justice (or right, or righteousness) is on your side” (New American Bible, Revised English Bible, New Revised Standard Version).

But to us: this marks a very strong contrast in Hebrew coming after to thee at the beginning of this verse. It will be possible in some cases to say something like “but as for us, we,” using emphatic pronouns.

Confusion of face: the word here rendered confusion is translated elsewhere in Revised Standard Version as “shame” (Psa 44.16), and this is much closer to the meaning in modern English. New Revised Standard Version translates here “open shame.” The term has to do with a feeling of disgrace. And in some languages it will be necessary to say something about what has caused their shame: “as for us, we are terribly ashamed because of what we have done.” Some languages may be able to retain something of the terminology used in Hebrew with “for our part, we have lost face.”

As at this day: most understand this to mean “even to this (very) day” (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible and Anchor Bible). Revised English Bible has “now as ever.” In some languages it may be possible to leave this unstated, or else implied, as in Good News Translation “This is true…,” but only if to state it would be unnatural.

To the men of Judah: the singular noun translated men has a collective meaning and does not refer exclusively to the male sex. It will have to be translated “people of Judah” in most languages. It may also be more natural in some languages to change the order of this phrase and of the two phrases to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel. And instead of all Israel some languages will require “all the rest of Israel” or “all the other Israelites,” since the men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem were also a part of the whole people of Israel.

Those that are near and those that are far away: this phrase is based on 1 Kgs 8.46 (also found in Isa 57.19 and Jer 25.26). And in the context of this verse it is another way of saying “all Israel,” focusing on those who were able to remain in the land (those that are near) and those who were forced to go into exile (those that are far away). According to some scholars this seems to indicate that the original author of this part of Daniel was in Jerusalem and not in Babylon or Susa (Lacocque). Only a Judean author would have been able to affirm in these terms that the dispersion was a divine punishment.

Because of the treachery which they have committed against thee: in the original the noun treachery and the verb, meaning “to commit treason,” have the same root. This kind of construction is very frequent in Hebrew. In those languages that use similar constructions naturally in such a context, the form of the original may be reflected in the translation. The basic meaning of the verb “commit treason” and the noun “treachery” involves acting in an unfaithful manner and thereby breaking a relationship. The violation of the covenant relationship with God is the ultimate act of treason. Some languages may say something like “because they have broken the agreement and destroyed their relationship with you” or “because they have not kept faith with you.”

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 .

Fear not: Daniel’s trembling was due to his fear because of the appearance of the heavenly being. He is therefore instructed to abandon his fear. This may be better translated in some languages as “stop being afraid” or “leave your apprehension.”

Set your mind to understand: in many languages it will be necessary to state clearly what it was that Daniel was trying to understand. If this is the case, translators may wish to say something like “ever since you started trying to understand the message (or revelation, vision, oracle),” using the same term as in verse 1.

Humbled yourself: in some languages it is possible to use an idiomatic expression like “lower your heart” or “abase yourself.” The reference is probably to Daniel’s self-denial described in verse 3. In many cases it will be more natural to reverse the order of the two verbs “understand” and “humbled yourself.” Logically, humbling yourself comes before the attempt to gain understanding.

Your words have been heard: this clearly means that the words that were spoken to God in prayer had been heard by him. It is therefore better in many languages to express the idea of prayer directly and transform the passive to an active form. A good model for this is the Good News Translation rendering above.

I have come because of your words: or, as New International Version has it, “I have come in response to them.” Another model is “I have come to bring the answer (to your prayer).”

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 .