1In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar. The word was true, and it concerned a great conflict. He understood the word, having received understanding in the vision.
The term that is transliterated as “Daniel” in English is translated in American Sign Language with the sign for the letter D and for “lion,” referring to the story in Daniel 6. (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“Daniel” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
In Swiss-German Sign Language it is translated with the sign for “prayer” that illustrates Daniel’s close relationship with God.
Following is a hand colored stencil print on washi of Daniel by Sadao Watanabe (1965):
Image taken with permission from the SadaoHanga Catalogue where you can find many more images and information about Sadao Watanabe. For other images of Sadao Watanabe art works in TIPs, see here.
The following is a stained glass window depicting Daniel by Endre Odon Hevezi and Gyula Bajo from 1965 for the Debre Libanos Monastery, Oromia, Ethiopia:
Photo by Timothy A. Gonsalves, hosted by Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license
Stained glass is not just highly decorative, it’s a medium which has been used to express important religious messages for centuries. Literacy was not widespread in the medieval and Renaissance periods and the Church used stained glass and other artworks to teach the central beliefs of Christianity. In Gothic churches, the windows were filled with extensive narrative scenes in stained glass — like huge and colorful picture storybooks — in which worshipers could ‘read’ the stories of Christ and the saints and learn what was required for their religious salvation. (Source: Victoria and Albert Museum )
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Daniel 10:1:
Kupsabiny: “And/But in the third year after Cyrus began to rule Persia a vision came to Daniel, (whose other name was Belteshazzar). That vision was of truth and it was about a great war. The meaning of that vision was revealed to Daniel.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “In the 3rd year of King Cyrus, Daniel (also known as Belteshazzar) was given a massage. This message is true. This was about a great war. In the vision the meaning of the message came to him.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “In the third year of the reign of Cyrus of Persia, there was- a message -revealed to Daniel, also called Belteshazar. The message (was) true, and it [was] about a great war. This was-caused-to-be-understood to Daniel through a vision.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “During the third year that Cyrus was the king of Persia, I Daniel, who had been given the name Belteshazzar, received another message from God. The message was true, but it was very difficult for me to understand it. But later I understood the message because of the vision that I had seen.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:
Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))
Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo (Dinė) was determined:
“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”
In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia: the ancient Greek translation reads “In the first year of King Cyrus,” but modern English versions do not follow this reading. Compare 7.1 and comments.
A word was revealed: this clearly refers to more than a single word (King James Version has “a thing”). Moffatt translates “a revelation was made.” In some languages it may be wise to follow the Good News Translation model and translate “a message was revealed”; but in those cases where passive forms cause difficulties, it will be better to restructure the sentence and say “a revelation came to Daniel” (Revised English Bible), “God revealed a matter to Daniel,” or something similar. Translators should understand that the word … revealed and the vision mentioned at the end of this verse are not identical. The vision came later in order to explain the revelation.
Who was named Belteshazzar: see 1.7; 2.26; 4.8. In order to avoid the passive, it is fitting to say “whom the king had named Belteshazzar.”
The word was true: literally “the word was sealed.” In ancient times the use of a seal was a guarantee that a document was legitimate. It served to confirm the truth of what was contained in the writing. So this phrase emphasizes the fact that what God revealed to Daniel was authentic. If word is translated “message” earlier, then the same rendering should probably be used again to ensure that the reader understands that the reference is to the “word that was revealed.”
And it was a great conflict: the meaning of the two Hebrew words translated by this clause is unclear. Some have taken them as a description of the war waged by the angels in verses 12-21 at the end of the chapter. They have thus been translated “it concerned a great war” (New International Version) or “it concerned a great conflict” (New Revised Standard Version). While this meaning is certainly possible, it is more likely that the two difficult words refer to the struggle involved in understanding the message. These words may be taken, as in Good News Translation, to mean that the matter revealed to Daniel required a real mental struggle to understand; that is, it was extremely difficult to comprehend. Revised English Bible translates “yet only after much struggle (did understanding come to him in the course of the vision).” And New Jerusalem Bible renders the same expression “it was a great task (to understand the prophecy).”
He understood the word and had understanding of the vision: this literal rendering of the original is not very natural in English. The meaning is stated more clearly in the following renderings: “he paid heed to the revelation and understood the vision” (Moffatt); “understanding came to him through the vision” (New Jerusalem Bible); “He paid attention to the oracle, so that he understood the revelation” (Anchor Bible).
This verse is clearly different from what follows, since Daniel is here referred to by a third person singular pronoun. In the verses that follow, the first person singular pronoun is used. For this reason some early editions of Good News Translation placed this verse within parentheses. But this is not necessary. It will be sufficient to set it off as a separate paragraph, as in the later editions of Good News Translation and in most other versions.
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 .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.