The usual concluding formula is used to sum up the reign of Jeroboam II. Most of the elements have been fully discussed earlier (see the comments at 1 Kgs 14.19, 29; 15.23). However, certain distinctive features of his administration are highlighted. In addition to his general courage in battle (how he fought), it is noted specifically that he recovered for Israel Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah. This Revised Standard Version translation does not reflect the very difficult underlying Hebrew text, which actually reads “he recovered Damascus and Hamath for [or, to] Judah in Israel.” The writer is probably saying that King Jeroboam recovered the cities of Damascus and Hamath; but if so, it is not clear what this has to do with the southern kingdom of Judah.

Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} rating to the Hebrew text and suggests that the reading of some ancient Greek manuscripts, which is followed by Good News Translation, was created in an attempt to remove the difficulty found in the Hebrew. The difficulty of the text is demonstrated by the following wide variety of renderings in modern versions: “he recovered Damascus and Hamath in Jaudi for Israel” (Revised English Bible, taking the Hebrew term usually rendered “Judah” as referring to Jaudi, a region north of Syria), “he brought Damascus and Hamath back to their allegiance to Judah and Israel” (New Jerusalem Bible), “he recovered for Israel both Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Yaudi” (New International Version, also the alternate translation in New Living Translation), “he recaptured the towns of Damascus and Hamath” (Contemporary English Version), and “he fought with Damascus and turned back Hamath from Israel” (New American Bible). Osty-Trinquet and La Bible Pléiade simply omit the words which had belonged to Judah, explaining in footnotes that these words are not historically correct.

The Revised Standard Version rendering anticipates the recommendation of Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, which suggests that the names of the two kingdoms be retained in translation as follows: “(and how he recovered) for Israel (Damascus and Hamath,) to Judah.” According to 2 Sam 8, Damascus was occupied by David’s armies, but that same chapter says only that David accepted tribute from Hamath, not that he had conquered Hamath. The interpretation of these words is very uncertain. Translators should probably follow the interpretation in Revised Standard Version and indicate in a footnote that the meaning is not clear here.

For Damascus see the comments on 1 Kgs 11.24; for Hamath see the comments on verse 25. As indicated in the comments on verse 25, interpreters are uncertain whether “Lebo-hammath” refers to the city of Hamath. Most likely, the reference in verse 25 is to a city to the south of Hamath but within the area controlled by the ruler of Hamath.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .