In this verse we pass almost imperceptibly from a symbolic vision of the fate of the tree (representing the king) to a more realistic description of the fate of the king himself. In Aramaic, where the noun for “tree” is masculine, the transition from “it” and “its” to “him” and “his” is not evident. It has been suggested that if possible the translator should respect this scheme and avoid an abrupt change in the middle of the verse like that in Good News Translation, which begins a new paragraph and translates the pronoun as “this man.” And in languages that do not have different pronouns to refer to trees (or tree trunks) on the one hand and to human beings on the other hand, this will be possible; however, in those languages where the pronouns must be different, it may be necessary to follow the Good News Translation model and make a clear break. Note that Revised English Bible also uses a blank line to indicate this break.

But: the strong contrastive conjunction at the beginning of this verse is important, since it introduces a shift from destruction to preservation. Some other possibilities are “nevertheless” (King James Version) or “yet” (New American Standard Bible).

The stump of its roots: the tree was to be cut down close to the ground so that a stump with its roots still in the earth would remain.

Bound: a literal translation of this verb may give the impression that the metal bands were present before the tree was cut down. The intent of the writer, however, is that those who cut down the tree should also bind it. For this reason it will be better in some languages to use another imperative form of the verb here: “bind it…” or “encircle it….”

With a band of iron and bronze: literally “in binding of iron and bronze.” The word translated band is not necessarily singular in meaning, so translators should not present the idea of a single band made of two kinds of metal. The image is rather a picture of two or more bands made of iron and bronze encircling the stump. The idea of “binding” may be adequately translated “fetters” (New Jerusalem Bible), “hoops” (New Jerusalem Bible), or “chains” (Bible en français courant). And bronze may also possibly be translated “brass.”

The tender grass of the field: the words of the field here and of the earth toward the end of the verse may be omitted as redundant in many languages.

Let him be wet: as indicated above, the pronoun him is translated “this man” in Good News Translation, referring to King Nebuchadnezzar, and a new paragraph is begun. Translators will have to consider whether this model should be reproduced in their languages. New International Version also begins a new paragraph at this point.

The dew of heaven: the words of heaven may be considered superfluous in many languages. This is simply another common usage in Aramaic and Hebrew, similar to “the birds of the air” or “the grass of the field” in this context.

Let his lot be with the beasts in the grass of the earth: his lot in English means “his fate” or “his destiny.” It is possible to understand this fate as a condemnation to live in the grass or on the ground “among the plants” (New International Version) like the animals. Or it may be a condemnation to obtain his food from the herbs of the land. Both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation clearly follow the first interpretation. The New Jerusalem Bible rendering, “and share the earth’s verdure with the beasts,” is more ambiguous. New American Bible comes down clearly on the other side: “(Let) his lot be to eat, among the beasts, the grass of the earth.” This interpretation, also adopted by Bible en français courant and a number of other versions, seems to be supported by the context, since the following verse indicates that his mind will be that of an animal.

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 .