Just as you saw …: in many languages it will be clearer to start this verse with something like “That is the meaning of the stone you saw…” (New American Bible) or “This is the meaning of the vision of the rock…” (New International Version).

A stone was cut from a mountain …: see verse 34.

The iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold: here again the order of the elements has been changed. But this time the order seems to be random. Some Greek versions have the same order here as in verses 32-33, but this is probably due to a deliberate correction of the original text. The modified order should probably be retained, unless the translator’s language has strong reasons for requiring something different. Compare verse 35.

A great God: the Revised Standard Version rendering reflects the Aramaic original in that there is no definite article here. However, the context (“the God of heaven” in verse 44) justifies the use of the definite article, which almost all other English versions adopt. In some languages, however, there are no definite articles, and translators may say “God, who is great….”

To the king: that is, “to you” or “to your majesty.” See verse 7.

The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure: the theme of the content and the meaning of the dream is maintained here. Anchor Bible renders these words “this is certainly the dream and its interpretation is trustworthy.” Another way of saying this in some languages may be “This is exactly what you dreamed, and you can be sure that this (what I have told you) is its meaning.” The emphasis is on the absolute certainty of both the form and the meaning of the king’s dream.

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 .

There is no paragraph break in Revised Standard Version or most other versions at this point, but Good News Translation begins a new paragraph here. However, the flow of the narrative may require that the speech of the king not be divided at this point.

Therefore: another way of showing the transition may be to say “Consequently.” Bible en français courant has “This is why…,” and New Jerusalem Bible begins the verse with “I hereby give an order….”

Make a decree: the verb used here gives the idea of a public proclamation from the highest authority. In some situations it may be advisable to say something like “as king I command that….”

In Aramaic the rest of the verse is probably indirect discourse, but in many languages it may be desirable to shift to direct discourse and present the actual text of the decree within quotation marks. It must be noted, however, that this will mean a quotation within another quotation, and this presents serious problems in some languages. Translators must simply resort to the most natural form in their own language, whether indirect or direct discourse.

People, nation, or language: these are the same words as found in the list in verse 4; only the form is slightly different. As in the previous case the idea of universality is what is important. But the focus is on any individual who may show disrespect for the God of these young men. A possible model for restructuring this verse is Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch: “This is why I communicate the following order to all peoples of my kingdom: ‘If anyone speaks….’ ”

Speaks anything against: the Aramaic word carries the idea of negligence or lack of respect. Some other possible wordings are “speaks disrespectfully of” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “says a word against” (Moffatt). Several English translations (New Revised Standard Version, New English Bible/Revised English Bible, New American Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible) use the rather strong verb “blaspheme” or the noun “blasphemy” to convey the idea of this verb.

The God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: see comments on this expression in verse 28.

Shall be torn limb from limb: this is essentially the same expression as in 2.5, but in the third person singular form here. The fact that it is a passive will require adjustment in some languages. If it has to be made active, translators may consider having the king say something like “my men will cut him to pieces,” or “my servants will dismember him.”

Houses laid in ruins: this verb will also have to be made active in those languages where the passive form is unnatural or nonexistent. As above, we may say “my men will demolish their houses” or “my servants will totally destroy their houses.”

For: this shows the relationship between the statement that follows and the decree itself. It is because there is no other god capable of such a dramatic deliverance that the decree has been issued. While it may be possible simply to present this as a separate statement at the end of the decree as in Good News Translation, it is probably better to show the relationship more clearly. Some possible transition words are “because” (Anchor Bible and King James Version) or “the reason is that….”

No other god: the Aramaic word in this context is a common noun, so it would be a mistake to spell the word god with a capital letter as in King James Version. Further, the whole phrase may have to be reworded in some languages, since it is inconceivable that there would be another god. In those cases translators may have to say something like “there is no other power.”

Deliver: see the use of the term in verses 15, 17, and 28.

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 .

Although there is no break in the text of Revised Standard Version, it may be helpful to the reader to begin a new paragraph here as in Good News Translation.

While the words were still in the king’s mouth: there may be many other ways of saying this that are more natural in other languages. Some possibilities are “Just as the king was saying these words” (Bible en français courant); “The words were still on the king’s lips, when…” (New Jerusalem Bible), or “Before he had finished what he was saying.”

There fell a voice from heaven: in most languages this will be quite unnatural. It may be preferable to say “someone spoke from heaven,” “a voice from heaven said…,” or “he heard a voice from heaven saying….” This voice is, of course, the voice of God, and in some languages it will be necessary to make this clear in translation. Some may say “God spoke from heaven….”

To you it is spoken: these words may also be considered strange and artificial if translated literally. The meaning is clearly “I am telling you,” or “Listen to what I am about to tell you,” or perhaps better, “This is what has been decided concerning you.” Moffatt says “here is your sentence:…,” and New American Bible has “it has been decreed for you.”

The kingdom has departed from you: it may prove quite unnatural in many languages to make The kingdom the subject of the sentence here. The Good News Translation rendering may be equally difficult because it is passive in form. Some more workable models may be “You have now lost your royal power” (making Nebuchadnezzar the subject) or “God has now taken your royal power from you” (making God the subject). But since it is God who is speaking, it will be more natural in most languages to say “I have now taken your royal power from 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 .

MENE: although the first word was apparently written twice, it is explained only once. The cryptic word meaning “number,” “measure,” or “count” is explained in greater detail by Daniel. It is taken as a verb with God as the subject. What has been numbered, measured, or counted is the days from the beginning to the end of Belshazzar’s rule.

And brought it to an end: the use of the past tense here reflects the writer’s conviction that an unchangeable decision has already been made, even if it has not yet been fully accomplished. The grammar of some languages will make it impossible to use a past tense here, but a present progressive may convey the same idea.

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 .

Delivers and rescues … works …: the habitual verb form will probably be used in those languages that possess such a form. In other languages there will be different means of indicating that this is an action that occurs regularly and not just something that happens once or is simply taking place at present.

Signs and wonders: see 4.2.

Saved: this is the same word as translated delivers at the beginning of the verse (compare Good News Translation). But in some languages it may be stylistically desirable to use a different term here. Note, however, that the verb form is different, since this part of the verse talks about the past tense deliverance of Daniel from the lions, while the first part of the verse is a generalization about the nature of God.

From the power of the lions: literally “from the hand of the lions”; but as has been pointed out earlier (1.2 and 3.15), the word “hand” often stands for power. Translators may also consider “from certain death in the lions’ pit” or, more literally, “from the claws (or paws) of the lions.”

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 raised my eyes and saw: this is a typically Hebrew expression where the first part (I raised my eyes) does not imply in Hebrew that the person was at first looking downward, but it marks the beginning of the action and is followed by a second verb (saw) indicating the essential part of the action. It is similar to “opened my mouth and spoke” in 10.16. But it may be more natural in other languages to use a single verbal expression to translate both parts, as in Good News Translation.

Behold: this interjection will be considered redundant in some languages and should therefore be omitted. But in other languages where the use of such forms is natural and frequent, it may be retained. Here it serves to make the description more dramatic. Compare 2.31; 4.10; 7.2.

The bank of the river: the word translated bank is really a very general term in Hebrew which has a wide variety of meanings depending on the context in which it is used. Here it may be rendered by a preposition like “beside” or “by.” Another way of conveying the same basic meaning is that of New Jerusalem Bible: “between me and the river.” It will be noted that New Jerusalem Bible and Anchor Bible have “before the gate” at this point, but translators are advised against using “gate” in the previous verse.

Both horns were high: the mention of two horns and both horns so close together may sound strange and unnecessary in some languages. They represent the same Hebrew words. And there is in fact some textual evidence to omit the second occurrence (both horns), but this may be done for the sake of naturalness rather than for textual reasons. Each language will have its own way of describing particularly large animal horns, but in English it is much more natural to speak of “long horns” (as in Good News Translation and other versions) rather than “high horns.” The two horns represent the Medes and the Persians (see verse 20). It was the Persians who took over the empire from the Medes. But this information should be restricted to footnotes and not placed in the translation itself.

And the higher one came up last: the conjunction and should probably be rendered differently in most languages. Since what follows is contrary to the reader’s expectation, it may be more effective to say something like “but” or “however.” The word translated last in Revised Standard Version may be understood as meaning later in time (Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and Moffatt) or in a position behind the other horn (New English Bible, An American Translation). New American Bible handles the whole matter by saying “the one (was) larger and newer than the other.” See also 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 .

This verse is largely a repetition of the previous one. It should be noted, however, that the third person plural pronoun “they” at the end of verse 7 becomes a first person plural (we) in this verse, so that Daniel identifies himself more closely with those who have sinned.

Confusion of face: see comments on the previous verse.

Our fathers: that is, “our ancestors,” as in verse 6 above.

We have sinned: the same as the first verb in verse 5.

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 .

Prince: in the context this seems to refer to some sort of supernatural being like Gabriel and Michael (see verses 20-21). Each nation was thought to have its own angel who served as its protector. For this reason Good News Translation and New English Bible have made it clear that the reference is to “the angel prince.” Translators may also consider an expression like “The protecting angel” or “The guardian angel” (Moffatt and Revised English Bible).

Withstood me: in some languages translators will want to know whether the term thus translated in Revised Standard Version involves physical resistance or some other kind of opposition. The word has the basic meaning of “to stand” or “to take up a position,” and here it means “stood in my way” (New American Bible).

Twenty-one days: this corresponds to the same period of time (“three weeks”) of Daniel’s self-denial as described in verses 2 and 3. But this is probably not very significant. However, if it is more natural in the translator’s language to say “three weeks” than twenty-one days here, then this may be done.

Michael: this is the guardian angel of the people of God. Compare Zech 3.1-2, where the angel of the LORD resists Satan, and Jude 9, where Michael is mentioned by name. Here Michael is further described as one of the chief princes, or “a prince of the first rank” (New Jerusalem Bible), or “one of the archangels” (An American Translation and Moffatt).

I left him there: the Revised Standard Version rendering comes from a proposed correction in the Hebrew text, based on the ancient Greek. The Hebrew text actually has a passive verb form, “I was (or had been) left there.” This text is followed by New International Version, “I was detained there,” and by Good News Translation and certain other English versions. Some commentators feel that this does not make good sense, because the guardian angel did not remain with the angel of Persia but came to Daniel as a result of Michael’s help. However, it is quite possible to adopt the reading of the traditional Hebrew text, in the sense that Michael came after the guardian angel had been detained there for a while. The change proposed by Revised Standard Version is therefore unnecessary.

With the prince of the kingdom of Persia: literally “with prince of the kings of Persia,” but Revised Standard Version takes this as having the same meaning as the initial clause in this verse. It is true that in Daniel “kings” and “kingdoms” are frequently interchanged (compare 7.17; 8.21, and comments). Some versions (New Jerusalem Bible, for example) follow a different text that says “with the kings of Persia.” This, in fact, is the reading recommended by Hebrew Old Testament Text Project/Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. It is, however, interesting to note that the proposed interpretation of Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament allows for an explanatory note indicating that the “king” in fact represents the empire, as in 7.17 and 8.21.

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 .