Came near: the structure of Revised Standard Version may make it questionable on first reading as to whether they came near to Daniel or near to the king. But the meaning is clearly that they approached the king. So the structure should probably be changed in many languages. The Good News Translation rendering also makes it clearer that their purpose was to accuse Daniel.

Concerning the interdict: this indicates that those who came before the king spoke to him about the order that he had given, forbidding the worship of anything other than himself. Other versions have worded this as follows: “and reminded him of the royal prohibition” (Anchor Bible) or “they talked to him about the law he had made” (New Century Version).

O king: see 2.4. This formal address is repeated later in the verse, but the repetition is omitted by Good News Translation as being stylistically undesirable.

Did you not sign…?: the first part of the discourse of Daniel’s accusers before the king is in the form of a rather long and complicated question which is intended merely to remind the king of what he had done. But in some languages it will be more natural to follow the Good News Translation model and make this a simple declarative statement, but followed by a shorter question like “Is that not so?” or something similar. Another possibility is to begin by saying “We remember that you…” and then concluding with “Is this not true?”

The thing stands fast: the rather vague word translated thing in Revised Standard Version can also mean “word,” “affair,” or “utterance” and refers to the decree prohibiting prayers to any deity or human being other than the king. In most cases it will be desirable to state this in the translation. The verb may be rendered “is firm” or “is rigid” in this context. In addition to the above Good News Translation model, translators may also consider the following: “the decree is absolute” (Anchor Bible), “the decision stands” (New Jerusalem Bible), “the matter has been determined” (Revised English Bible), “the order stands firm” (New Jerusalem Bible). Moffatt says simply “It is true” in answer to the question.

The law of the Medes and Persians: see verse 8.

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 .

One of those who stood there: this was presumably one of the multitude of persons (or possibly angels) mentioned in verse 10 above.

The truth concerning all this: this wording may possibly be understood as meaning “what was true in the entire vision” (suggesting that not all of it was true), but that meaning is to be avoided.

Told me, and made known to me: once again the same thing is said in two slightly different ways. But it will be more natural in many languages to reduce this to a single statement. Good News Translation, in fact, reverses the order of the two verbs and concludes this verse with a translation of made known to me the interpretation of the things. The first of these two verbs (he told me) is then used to introduce the following verse, “He said….”

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 actual explanation of the vision begins with this verse. The meaning of the text is fairly straightforward, and translators should refer back to the vision itself for the basic vocabulary.

Ram … with the two horns: see verse 6.

Kings: on the question of “kings” versus “kingdoms,” see comments on 7.17.

The kings of Media and Persia: while these two proper names are singular in form, the meaning is, of course, collective, referring to the Persian and Median kingdoms rather than to the individuals who ruled over them. Some languages may speak more naturally of “the kingdoms called Media and Persia,” or even “the governments of Media-land and Persia-land.”

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 .

Know: it will be considered strange if not impossible in some languages to use the imperative of the verb “to know.” In some cases this can be avoided by saying “I want you to know…” or “I would like for you to be aware of this….” But others will choose a different verb such as “learn” (New Century Version) or “note” (Good News Translation).

Therefore: this Revised Standard Version rendering is much stronger than the ordinary conjunction in the original. It is left untranslated by New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New International Version, as well as Good News Translation. And this is certainly justifiable.

From the going forth of the word: that is, from the time the order is given. This is a reference to the prophecy pronounced by Jeremiah (see comments on verse 2).

An anointed one, a prince: here the word prince refers to a ruler or leader, and not the son of a ruler, which is the normal meaning of the English rendering. Compare 8.25 and comments. The word translated anointed one is the origin of our term “Messiah,” and it evokes the idea of consecration. But in the present context it is not used with all the theological meaning that the word “Messiah” has in Christian thought. Some scholars have identified this “anointed one” with Cyrus the Great, who is in fact called “the LORD’s anointed one” in Isa 45.1, and who did permit the first Jews to go back to Jerusalem. Others think that it is Zerubbabel, who is referred to by messianic titles in Haggai 2 and Zechariah 4. But the most likely candidate is Jeshua, the son of Jehozadak, who was a high priest during this period (see Ezra 2.2, 36 and Neh 7.7, 39). This man is referred to as Joshua in Hag 1.1 and Zech 6.11. In any case, this information should only be given in a footnote if at all, and the rendering should be ambiguous enough to be applied to any of the candidates. Some English versions use capital letters in the text as a way of indicating that this term refers to Christ (New International Version), and others translate “Messiah” (New American Standard Bible), but neither of these solutions is recommended.

Seven weeks: the expression used here means seven periods of seven years each. On the meaning of weeks see the previous verse. Since it may sound strange in some languages to say “seven times seven years,” it is legitimate to make the calculation and render the whole expression as “forty-nine years.” However, it may be preferable to retain the number “seven” as a number signifying completeness for the Jews.

Sixty-two weeks: again the word weeks indicates a period of seven years. Hence the Good News Translation rendering “seven times sixty-two years.” However, in keeping with the discussion of the previous verse, it may be better to say “sixty-two times seven years.” In those languages where this is unnatural, it will be possible to say “four hundred and thirty-four years.” But many feel that this is too direct and precise in the context of an apocalyptic vision, in which the number “seven” plays a symbolic role.

It shall be built: the pronoun refers to the city of Jerusalem, and the passive construction as a whole may be rendered actively by means of an indefinite subject: “they shall rebuild the city.”

With squares and moat: the Hebrew equivalent of the first of these two words usually designates a “plaza” or a space just inside the city gate, used as a forum, a market, and place for deciding court cases. But here it may be taken in the more general sense of “streets” (New American Bible, New International Version, Anchor Bible, as well as Good News Translation). The second word, rendered moat by Revised Standard Version, is literally the word for “cut” and refers to a trench cut into the rock on the exterior walls of a city in order to make the wall a more difficult obstacle for those who would attempt to attack from the outside. This is the only time in the Old Testament where the word is used in this sense. It is translated “ramparts” by New Jerusalem Bible and more generally as “strong defenses” in Good News Translation.

In a troubled time: given the present context, the translation of this expression will probably have to conserve a certain amount of vagueness, but in some languages it may be necessary to state who will experience the trouble. If this is the case, translators may consider saying “at a time when God’s people will be troubled” or “… when God’s people will suffer.”

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 .

His sons: that is, the sons of the king of Syria (“the king of the north”). It is important to ensure that the persons referred to by the pronoun be made clear. This will mean using a noun phrase like “the king’s sons” in place of the pronoun. This is especially important at the beginning of a new paragraph.

Wage war and assemble a multitude: if the first verb is taken to mean “make war,” as the Revised Standard Version rendering so indicates, then this expression is not in logical order. But the meaning here is rather “prepare for war” as in Good News Translation and New International Version. Compare also New American Bible, which is more literal: “But his sons shall prepare and assemble a great armed host.” The most important element in preparing for war is the gathering together of a large group of warriors. The multitude of great forces consists therefore of soldiers, and it will be important to make this clear in most languages.

The second half of this verse switches the subject abruptly from a plural subject, His sons, to the third person singular masculine pronoun. It is confusing to say “he” without a singular noun that it can refer back to (as in New Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible), and misleading to use the relative pronoun which (New International Version and New Revised Standard Version) referring to the assembled armies. Some versions attempt to reflect the singular pronoun by saying “one of them” (New English Bible/Revised English Bible and Good News Translation), referring to one of the sons of the Syrian king. This is probably the best solution to a difficult problem.

The Hebrew text that follows contains no less than five different verbs in series. The first is repeated in the infinitive form. A literal rendering of these verbs is:

(a) he will come on to come on and
(b) he will overflow and
(c) he will pass along and
(d) he will turn and
(e) he will do battle

In the following comments, discussions of these verbs are marked by letters within brackets for the sake of easier reference.

(a) The duplication of the first verb, come on, serves as a kind of emphasis. The King James Version rendering “shall certainly come” is not bad. The verb translated come on is the ordinary word “come” used several times in the verses immediately preceding. The translation come on is repeated in verse 13, but there is no reason to translate by any verb other than “come.” It is the repetition here that requires a more emphatic translation.
(b) The verb overflow gives a picture of flowing water that spills over the banks of its normal course. Since this is incompatible with a singular subject, it is possible to shift the subject once again and add “and with his soldiers, he will….” The imagery of an army as a flood is taken from Isa 8.8. The flood image is retained in most English versions.
(c) The verb translated pass through can also mean “cross over” and possibly refers to crossing over the border into the other country, but this can also be taken as a part of the flood imagery.
(d) The next verb is the subject of considerable debate. It may mean “carry on” or “turn back,” or simply again. New American Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, and King James Version take it to mean “return,” “turn back,” or “retreat.” New International Version, New English Bible, An American Translation, and Moffatt prefer the meaning “press forward” or “carry on.” And New Jerusalem Bible and New American Standard Bible, as well as Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, translate the same term “again.” The meaning “press forward” is probably to be preferred.
(e) According to the traditional written text, this verb has a plural subject, “they will attack (or do battle),” but the ancient specialists in the Jewish holy books noted in the margin of the manuscripts that it should be read as a singular, “he will attack.” This suggestion is followed by most modern versions.

His fortress: the possessive pronoun his in this case refers back to the king of Egypt. The reference here is probably to “the fortress of Gaza” (Moffatt), which was the strongest fortification in southern Judea. However, it is probably better not to be as precise as this in translation. It can be rendered “the enemy’s strongest town” or something similar. New Jerusalem Bible has “the southern stronghold,” while Revised English Bible has simply “the enemy stronghold.”

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 .

Stretch out his hand against: or “use his power against,” or “extend his domination over.”

The countries: the reference here may be to Edom, Moab, and Ammon mentioned in the previous verse (Good News Translation), or possibly to “other countries” in addition to them (Bible en français courant and New English Bible/Revised English Bible). New International Version has “many countries.” This interpretation seems more likely than that of Good News Translation. But if the interpretation of Good News Translation is followed, it will probably not be necessary to repeat the proper names. It is quite likely that a more definite reference such as “those countries” will be appropriate.

The land of Egypt: this is another clearly-stated geographical reference to Egypt, confirming the translation of “king of the south” as “king of Egypt” (see the discussion under verse 5).

Shall not escape: or “will also be captured.”

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 .

Answered a second time: literally “answered again and saying.” This is essentially a repetition of their request in verse 4. The text does not provide the object of the verb answered, but in those languages where one is required, it is clearly the king.

Let the king tell his servants …: again the indirect reference to the king (rather than saying “you”) and to themselves as his servants (instead of simply “us”) are ways of showing respect and were very natural in ancient times. But the use of the pronouns is recommended in most languages today.

Show its interpretation: that is, “show you what it means.”

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 often feel that verses 41-44 are cluttered with needless repetition. In these four verses toes, which were not mentioned earlier, complicate the figure of speech. Also some kind of clay is mentioned seven times. But it is difficult to see any particular significance in the various terms used, and many languages will not have the resources to make such distinctions.

As you saw the feet and toes partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron: all this forms a single subordinate clause in Aramaic. For stylistic reasons it may be better in some languages to break it into two shorter units and make a separate sentence of it. For example, “As you have noticed, the feet and toes of the statue are made partly of ceramic and partly of iron.”

The word for clay or “baked clay” (New International Version) is qualified in the original by “of potter.” Depending on the word chosen for clay, it may be possible to leave this out. On the translation of the idea of clay, see verse 33. But a different word is used here. The Revised Standard Version miry clay at the end of the verse seems to focus on the watery character of clay that has not yet been baked or fired, and this is not at all the intent of the writer. It is probably best not to try to distinguish between what the Revised Standard Version calls potter’s clay and miry clay.

And toes: these words are omitted by some modern versions (New Jerusalem Bible) because they are not in some ancient Aramaic texts. However, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends that translators follow the longer text that includes these words. In some languages, however, it may be awkward and unnecessarily redundant to mention the toes, since they would be clearly understood as being included in the word feet. If this is the case, the words and toes may be left out—for translation reasons rather than for textual reasons.

It shall be …: although it is not stated in the text at this point, this is still a part of the explanation of the dream. For this reason Good News Translation adds “This means that…” (compare also New American Bible). This is probably a good model for most other languages to follow.

A divided kingdom: another way of saying this is “will not be united” or “will lack unity.” As the end of the verse demonstrates, it is not a question of a separation into several parts but of internal tension. Just as clay and iron do not mix well, so this kingdom will lack cohesion and unity.

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 .