You saw: this verb is repeated throughout the explanation of the dream (verses 34, 41, 43, and 45) and is a feature of the literary technique of the writer. Unless it is clumsy in the receptor language, the repetition should be retained.

O king: see verse 29.

And behold: the Aramaic interjection translated by these words in Revised Standard Version is omitted by most modern English versions. Some translators attempt to capture the effect of this element by the use of an exclamation mark at the end of the sentence (see Moffatt, for example). It is probably better left untranslated in most languages, unless there is a natural way of expressing such an element of surprise and amazement at something that is seen.

Image: the English word may be misleading, since it can refer to any sort of likeness, whether in two dimensions (drawings, photographs) or in three dimensions. Here the likeness is in three dimensions, and the term is better translated “statue” as in the majority of English versions (including New Revised Standard Version).

There is no hint in the text that the statue was an idol; so words having this meaning should be avoided. In some languages there are different words for statues carved of wood and those made of ceramic material or metal. Since this statue was made mostly of a variety of metals but partially of ceramic material, it will probably be better to use the term that refers to metal objects, if such a distinction is required by the language.

The description of the statue emphasizes two main characteristics at the same time. It is both magnificent and terrifying. The terms great and mighty and of exceeding brightness stress the magnificence of the statue. But the word frightening indicates that it also caused great fear. The text also indicates that the giant statue was standing in front of the king. The word mighty may be misunderstood as referring to physical strength, but the term used here clearly refers to size.

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 first sentence of this verse in Aramaic is incomplete. Many English versions complete the sense with words similar to well and good, as in Revised Standard Version, or some other phrase meaning “it will be all right for you,” or perhaps even “you will not be punished.” But these are not a part of the original. Two important commentaries in English provide another way of handling this problem. The translation in Anchor Bible has “I hope that now, when you hear…, you will fall down and worship the image I have made.” And Lacocque suggests that it be put in the form of a question: “Are you now ready, at the moment you hear…, to prostrate yourselves and worship the statue I have made?” A similar solution has been adopted by Bible en français courant, but breaking the long discourse down into two separate sentences, the second of which is a question: “You will again hear the trumpet … music. Are you now ready to bow down to worship the statue that I made?”

Horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe: see verses 5 and 7.

If you do not worship: in many languages “the statue,” or the pronoun “it” referring to the statue, will have to be added after the verb worship. But in other cases this may be translated more meaningfully as “if you refuse, ….” Or it may be possible to combine these two suggestions, as in New Jerusalem Bible: “if you refuse to worship it….”

You shall … be cast: again the passive verb form will have to be translated actively in many languages. See verse 6 above.

Burning fiery furnace: see also verse 6.

Who is the god that will deliver you…?: a rhetorical question such as this has the same value as a negative affirmation meaning “there is no god that is able to save you.” It may be translated this way in languages where the rhetorical question may be misunderstood or is felt to be unnatural in this context. Moffatt frames the rhetorical question in a different way that may be a good model for some languages: “Where is the god that can save you from my power?”

Out of my hands: a literal translation may be misleading in some cases. New English Bible/Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and others have “from my power,” which accurately translates the meaning of the phrase.

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 .

While there is no paragraph break in Revised Standard Version, several other modern versions make one here, including Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, and New Revised Standard Version. This is probably because this verse constitutes a sort of summary and conclusion of what the king had to say to Daniel. In some languages it may be wise to mark this by introducing this verse with a phrase like “Then King Nebuchadnezzar added (or concluded)….” If this is done, it will probably be more natural not to have the name of Nebuchadnezzar included in the direct quotation.

The word translated declare at the beginning of this verse is the ordinary verb meaning “say” or “tell.” Therefore translators should not look for special vocabulary to render this verb.

All the wise men … are not able …: the negative marker is moved from the verb to the subject in Good News Translation for the sake of naturalness. This may be a good model to follow in some cases. Also, it may be more natural to say “were not able” instead of are not able.

The interpretation: the repetition of this word may make the translation heavy in some languages. This can be avoided by using an expression of similar meaning, such as “what it means,” or by omitting it in the second case, as in Good News Translation.

The spirit of the holy gods: see verses 8 and 9.

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: the transition word used here often introduces a new stage in a narrative and adds special emphasis. Good News Translation has attempted to get at this by using “at once.” In other versions a simple paragraph break without any other obvious marker is used to show the transition (New Jerusalem Bible, for example).

Was brought in: this passive formulation will have to be made active in many languages. Sometimes it is possible to say “someone brought Daniel in”; in other cases it will be more natural to use a third person plural indefinite pronoun “they brought Daniel in.”

The king said: literally “the king speaking said.” See 2.5. But in this context it is quite acceptable to use the verb “asked” as in Anchor Bible and New American Bible.

You are that Daniel: the punctuation of Revised Standard Version makes this a simple declaration of fact. But since Belshazzar had not known Daniel before the queen mother’s explanation that led to his being summoned, it is much more logical that this should be translated as a question. This is done in many versions. Others seem to assume that the king would have been told who Daniel was when he came into his presence. Thus the rendering “So you are Daniel” (New English Bible/Revised English Bible and New Revised Standard Version).

One of the exiles of Judah …: literally “one of the sons of the exile of Judah.” In order to avoid the Revised Standard Version repetition of the geographical reference Judah, Good News Translation and Revised English Bible use the adjective “Jewish” here. Compare 2.25.

If the translator follows the recommendation of rendering Belshazzar’s words as a question, the language may require a response that is not given in the text. If this is the case, it will be perfectly legitimate to insert the words “ ‘Yes,’ replied Daniel” at the end of this verse, and then “Then the king continued” or similar words at the beginning of the next verse. Another way of handling the problem may be to replace the straightforward interrogative form with one that may not require an answer: “You are Daniel…, aren’t you?” Making the translation sound natural should dictate the exact form 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 king, when he heard …: this rather peculiar structure with the relative clause between the subject and the verb is not recommended to translators in most languages. It will probably be more natural to put this relative clause either before the subject, as in Good News Translation, or after the verb “distressed.”

Set his mind: literally “set his heart upon” (New Jerusalem Bible). But since the heart was considered the seat of intelligence (see comments on 1.8; 2.30; 4.16), it will be more natural in most cases to say something like “tried to think of a way” (New English Bible), “made up his mind” (New American Bible), or “thought about a means.”

Deliver: since Daniel had not yet been arrested, this is not to be taken in the sense of liberating or freeing from imprisonment. Rather it carries the idea of sparing him from the fate required by the decree. The verb translated rescue at the end of the verse is virtually identical in meaning.

He labored …: this clause emphasizes the king’s persistence in seeking a way to spare Daniel’s life. Some other renderings are “continued his efforts” (Revised English Bible), “made every effort” (New Revised Standard Version), “racked his brains” (New Jerusalem Bible).

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 .

But: the connecting word is important here. And in some cases it will have to be strengthened by an accompanying adverb. One possibility is to say “But eventually” or “After them (the four kingdoms)” as in Bible en français courant. New Jerusalem Bible has simply “Then.”

The saints of the Most High: New Revised Standard Version renders saints as “the holy ones.” The reference here is to those who are faithful to the true God, namely, the people of Israel. But within the framework of this apocalyptic vision it is unwise to say this too clearly, although it is probably a good idea to make it clear that “people” are involved. The expression translated the Most High is actually a plural (“the most high ones”), but it is most likely a plural of majesty that should be rendered as a singular. Compare 3.26 and 4.17.

Receive … and possess: the repetition of the word kingdom after each of these two verbs will be unnatural in many languages. But the two verbs do focus on two somewhat different aspects, the first having to do with receiving royal power, and the second with retaining it.

For ever, for ever and ever: the Aramaic formula used here is way of expressing an absolute superlative. These words serve to emphasize the fact that the people of God will always keep the power that he gives to them.

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 Revised Standard Version is difficult at this point. It may be simplified in the translation by following the Good News Translation model.

As for the horn that was broken: literally “And the broken one.” See verse 8.

His nation: literally “a nation.” The Hebrew has no possessive pronoun. The Revised Standard Version reading comes from the ancient versions, but it is not clear which noun the pronoun refers back to. The context requires something like “that nation” (Revised English Bible) or “the Greek nation” (Moffatt). This may be done for translation reasons without recourse to the ancient versions to correct the Hebrew text.

But not with his power: this has been amplified in Good News Translation, since the concise expression of the Hebrew reflected in Revised Standard Version may be difficult for the modern reader to understand. The four kingdoms into which the empire of Alexander the Great was divided did not actually cover all the territory that he had conquered. So the combined power of the four kingdoms would not be as great as that of Alexander.

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 .

He: the pronoun refers to the ruler or leader mentioned in the previous verses. In view of the confusion in verse 26, it may be a good idea to make this clear in the translation, as in Good News Translation.

A strong covenant: the meaning is very likely that the leader will make a binding agreement with other groups of people in order to strengthen his position. Some other renderings are “make a firm league” (New English Bible) and “strike a firm alliance” (New Jerusalem Bible). An American Translation, however, understands this to mean that “the covenant will be abandoned by many.” This interpretation is not recommended.

With many: other versions understand this to mean “with the mighty” (New English Bible). But it is generally agreed that it means “many peoples.”

One week … half of the week: once again the meaning of the word for week is a period of seven years. Some prefer to translate the second time reference as “in the middle of the ‘seven’ (years)” (New International Version). Compare New English Bible “the week half spent.” The problem of “weeks” in this case may be avoided by saying more generally “half of the time” or “in the middle of the period.” But in the first occurrence of week it is unavoidable and should probably be rendered “seven years.”

Cause sacrifice and offering to cease: both nouns are singular in form but have a collective meaning and should be translated by a plural in many languages. The term translated sacrifice involves the killing of animals in the worship of God, while the word for offering relates to giving of such things as grain, wine, and oil. In 167 B.C. the Jews were forbidden to practice their religion, and the sacrificing of animals was especially prohibited (compare 8.11 and comments).

The end of this verse is very obscure, and a variety of corrections of the text have been proposed. A literal rendering of the Hebrew text yields something like “on the wing abominations desolations until the end and what was decreed is poured on the desolator.” Obviously it requires some ingenuity to make sense of this text without relying on textual changes.

Upon the wing of abominations: the words are badly connected in Revised Standard Version and the meaning is unclear. The word translated wing is understood in Good News Translation as referring to the pinnacle, or highest point, of the Temple. New American Bible, New International Version, and New Jerusalem Bible adopt a similar solution (compare Matt 4.5). Others understand it to mean “at the corner of the altar” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “in the train of these abominations” (New English Bible). The idea of the “wing” or “pinnacle” of the Temple is probably best here.

In Hebrew the two words meaning abominations and desolations are placed side by side. This proximity has given birth to the expression “the abomination that makes desolate” found in 11.31, and the nearly identical Hebrew expression in 12.11. Compare these two passages. Compare also Matt 24.15.

Until the decreed end is poured out: on the image of “pouring out” anger or punishment, see comments on verse 11. The decreed end is the end decided by God. This may have to be stated directly, as in Good News Translation.

In view of all the problems listed above, the following wording may be suggested:

• For one seven-year period that leader will make a steadfast agreement with many peoples. For half of that time he will abolish all sacrifice and offering. And he will put something very terrible on the high point of the Temple, and it will remain there until God does away with him (who placed it there), just as he has planned.

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 .