The final summary of Asa’s reign follows the usual formula and gives particular attention to his military achievements and what he had done in construction. As in previous cases, the rhetorical question may be better translated as a statement in many languages (see 1 Kgs 14.29).

All his might most likely refers to his military victories. Compare Peregrino: “his military exploits/deeds.” But it may also be understood in a more general sense as “all his successes” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch) or “the courage that he showed” (Bible en français courant). This same Hebrew noun rendered might is used in reference to Baasha in 1 Kgs 16.5 and of Omri in 1 Kgs 16.27.

And the cities which he built: These words are not in some Greek manuscripts. New Jerusalem Bible omits them, considering them to be a later addition from the previous verse. But these words form a part of the Masoretic Text and there is no convincing reason why they should be omitted. Built is rendered “fortified” by Good News Translation (see verses 17, 21-22).

The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah: See 1 Kgs 14.29.

But in his old age he was diseased in his feet: But translates a Hebrew adverb that expresses an exception. All of the things that are mentioned at the beginning of this verse are to be understood as signs of God’s approval and blessing. Then the writer adds the comment about Asa’s diseased feet, which is an implicit sign of God’s disapproval. The Septuagint even makes this explicit by saying that his disease was the result of his evil ways.

Asa may have had gout or dropsy when he was old. Sometimes in the Old Testament, the noun feet is used as a euphemism for the male genitals (for example, 2 Sam 11.8; Isa 6.2; 7.20). If feet is a euphemism here, the sense would be that Asa had some kind of venereal disease, but none of the translations consulted expresses this interpretation.

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

He walked in all the way of Jeroboam: Translators will recall that the verb walked is used figuratively to speak of the way in which Omri behaved or conducted his life. See 1 Kgs 3.3, 6; 15.3, 26.

The judgment against Omri is the same as that against Zimri in verse 19, but as noted in the comments on verse 25, the writer adds that Omri did all of the evil things that Jeroboam did. Good News Translation and many other modern versions do not adequately translate the word all. However, compare New Jerusalem Bible, which says “In every way he copied the example of Jeroboam.”

Regarding the words the son of Nebat, see the comments on verse 3.

He made Israel to sin: See the comments on 1 Kgs 14.16.

Provoking … to anger: See the comments on the same phrase in 1 Kgs 14.9.

Their idols: See the comments on verse 13.

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

The common Hebrew conjunction at the beginning of this verse is translated So by Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, and most other modern English versions. This reflects the fact that the conjunction is used as a logical connector in this context. It is because of what the LORD said to Elijah that the prophet took the action described in this verse. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh correctly translates the meaning using the less common term “Thereupon.”

Elijah went to show himself to Ahab: See the comments on the verb show in verse 1. For reasons of English style, Good News Translation says simply that “Elijah started out.” Similarly New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “Elijah set out to appear to Ahab,” because the following verses show that certain other events intervened before Elijah actually reached King Ahab.

The famine was severe: These words have been rendered by others as “the famine was raging” (Moffatt) and “there was no food” (New Century Version). There is actually no verb in the Hebrew, but the verb “to be” is understood. The text has only the Hebrew noun for “famine,” which is followed by the adjective meaning “hard” or “strong.” But the idea is that “there was a strong famine.”

Samaria: See the comments on 1 Kgs 16.24.

It will be important in most languages to ensure that a new paragraph is begun in the middle of this verse at the point where the severity of the famine is mentioned (so Good News Translation, Nouvelle Bible Segond). This will help the reader to understand that the following verses set up the encounter between Elijah and Obadiah.

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

Revised Standard Version preserves the form of the Hebrew here, which is considered repetitive in English style. For this reason Good News Translation avoids repeating the words a second time and a third time.

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

Ben-hadad the king of Syria: The name Ben-hadad refers to at least two different Syrian kings in the Old Testament (see the comments on 1 Kgs 15.18). Benhadad I, a son of Tabrimmon, was king early in the ninth century B.C. and is referred to in 1 Kgs 15.16-22 and in the parallel text in 2 Chr 16.1-6. Benhadad II, son of Hazael, ruled later, at the end of the ninth century during the reign of King Joash of Judah. He is mentioned in 2 Kgs 13.3-7, 22-25.

Some interpreters consider the Ben-hadad of 1 Kgs 20, 22 and 2 Kgs 6–8 to be Benhadad I. Others consider him to be a third king who reigned between Benhadad I and Benhadad II. Many interpreters today, however, think that the reference here is to Benhadad II, but that the stories about his reign have been incorrectly placed in the reign of Ahab and his sons Ahaziah and Joram.

New Jerusalem Bible has a footnote stating that the reference is to Benhadad II. Since there is uncertainty, translators may wish to use a footnote and state that it is not known whether this refers to Benhadad I, mentioned in chapter 15, or to Benhadad II, mentioned in 2 Kgs 13.

The word translated Syria is literally “Aram” (so New Revised Standard Version, New International Version). See the comments on 1 Kgs 10.29 and 11.25.

The thirty-two kings who were with Benhadad were not equal in power with him but were subordinate to him, as verse 24 makes clear. They were “vassal-kings” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch) or “territorial chieftains allied with him” (De Vries, page 248). A translation such as the one in Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch is recommended here (also in verse 12) in order to make clear the relationship of these thirty-two kings to the king of Syria. If no technical term such as “vassal-kings” exists in the receptor language, then this may be expressed as “thirty-two lesser kings” or “thirty-two kings who were under the Syrian king.” New Living Translation calls them “thirty-two allied kings.”

For chariots see the comments on 1 Kgs 1.5-6.

He went up: The movement from Syria to Samaria involved an increase in elevation, but this is only incidental to the story. For this reason some modern versions omit any reference to upward movement in the verb phrase went up; for example, New Revised Standard Version says “marched against,” Contemporary English Version “marched to,” and New Jerusalem Bible “marched on.”

Besieged: See the comments on 1 Kgs 8.37 and 15.27.

Samaria was the capital of the kingdom of Israel (see the introductory comments on 1 Kgs 16.21-28). While Bible en français courant makes it explicit that Samaria was a “city,” translators may wish to be more explicit in the receptor language. Compare New Living Translation “Samaria, the Israelite capital.”

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

The men refers to Benhadad’s officials (verse 31).

The words were watching for an omen translate a single Hebrew verb that sometimes means “to seek an omen through divination.” In this context, however, the officials were not practicing some form of divination. Rather, they were paying careful attention to what King Ahab said, looking for something that would indicate whether or not he would act favorably toward Benhadad, the defeated king of Syria. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “divined his meaning.” The meaning here is that the messengers were attempting to find out if Ahab really meant what he had said in using the word “brother.”

They quickly took it up from him: The meaning of the Hebrew here is uncertain. The Hebrew verb rendered took … up occurs only here in the Old Testament. It apparently means “to declare valid” or “to accept as a convincing explanation.”

The initial letter of the Hebrew word translated from him seems to be an interrogative (question) particle, which makes little sense here. The reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text indicates that this initial letter is a pronominal suffix (it) and is to be read as the final letter of the previous word.

For quickly took it up from him, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “quickly caught the word from him.” Other renderings include “quickly accepted his offer” and “were eager to take Ahab at his word” (La Bible du Semeur).

Your brother Ben-hadad: See the comments on the term brother in 1 Kgs 9.13.

He caused him to come up into the chariot means Ahab caused Benhadad to get into Ahab’s chariot. The Hebrew verb here is a causative form of the verb translated “went up” in verses 1 and 26. Benhadad had “come up” against Samaria and Aphek, yet it was the king of Israel who caused the Syrian king “to come up” into his chariot. But a more natural equivalent in many languages may be something like “Ahab invited him into his chariot” (Revised English Bible) or “Ahab made him step into the chariot” (Moffatt). Others may prefer to say “Ahab helped him up into his chariot.”

For the word chariot, see the comments on 1 Kgs 1.5.

Since Benhadad had been hiding, he would have to go find Ahab before he could get into Ahab’s chariot. In some languages this implicit information will need to be made explicit. Compare Parole de Vie for the last half of the verse: “Ben-Hadad left his hiding place. He went to find Ahab, who had him climb into his chariot.”

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

And of Jezebel the LORD also said: Nearly all translations include verses 23-24 as part of Elijah’s prophecy to Ahab. In some translations this is shown by enclosing all of verses 20b-24 within quotation marks as the words spoken by Elijah (so Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, De Vries). Other translations make explicit that these are Elijah’s words by adding the words “Elijah continued” or something similar. Bible en français courant for example, begins verse 23 as follows: “And, added Elijah, the Lord has also spoken against Jezebel…” (similarly Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje). In verse 24 some translations also change the third person reference about Ahab to a direct second person address to Ahab (so Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, La Bible du Semeur, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente).

It is possible, however, to consider one or both of these verses as the author’s parenthetical comments to the reader, as verses 25-26 are. Notice that in verse 23 the LORD is referred to in the third person, as is Ahab in verse 24. But, on the other hand, since it is common in Hebrew narratives for the speaker to switch back and forth between second and third person pronouns, it is possible that verses 23-24 are still Elijah’s words to Ahab and are not the author’s comment to his readers.

New American Bible and New Jerusalem Bible place verse 23 only within parentheses as a parenthetical comment. Peregrino similarly includes only verse 23 within parentheses, but reverses the order of verses 23-24 in order that all of Elijah’s words to Ahab (verses 20b-22 and 24) appear together. Since Hebrew did not use quotation marks or parentheses, any of these interpretations is possible and may be followed.

The fulfillment of Elijah’s prophecy regarding Jezebel is found in 2 Kgs 9.36.

Within the bounds of Jezreel: The words within the bounds of translate a single Hebrew noun (chel) whose exact meaning is uncertain. In later Hebrew it came to mean the space between outer and inner ramparts (walls). This seems to be the basis for the rendering “near the rampart of Jezreel” (Revised English Bible, Nouvelle Bible Segond). Other interpreters have tried to explain the meaning of this Hebrew noun by comparing it to similar words in Arabic that mean “by” and “round about.”

Instead of the noun chel in the Masoretic Text, a few Hebrew manuscripts, followed by some ancient versions, have the noun cheleq, which means “portion” or “territory.” This is the basis for the translations “in the district of Jezreel” (New American Bible) and “in the field of Jezreel” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Jerusalem Bible). This reading agrees with the parallel passage in 2 Kgs 9.10, but it is possible that a scribe changed the reading to “in the territory” in order to make this verse agree with the text in 2 Kings. It is difficult to know which Hebrew text to follow here, but a rendering such as “at the foot of the wall of Jezreel” (Bible en français courant) or “by the wall of Jezreel” (New International Version) may be the best solution.

The embedded quotation of the LORD in this verse may be a problem for some languages. If this is true, the Good News Translation model may be followed since it resorts to indirect speech. God’s Word provides another possible model:

• Then the LORD also spoke [through Elijah] about Jezebel: “The dogs will eat Jezebel inside the walls of Jezreel.”

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

Seize is literally “take.” Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have translated it according to the context. The verb is second person singular, which Good News Translation makes clear by adding “one of his officers.”

Take him back to Amon … and to Joash: Take him back suggests that Micaiah had previously been with Amon and Joash. New Revised Standard Version says “return him.” The renderings “take him” (Good News Translation) and “hand him over” (New Jerusalem Bible) fail to express this sense.

Amon the governor of the city: This is the only mention of Amon (other than in 2 Chr 18.25, the parallel text), who was the ruler of the city of Samaria. The Hebrew noun rendered governor has a wide range of meanings depending on the context. It may refer, for example, to a representative of a king, an important person, a military commander, or a civilian administrator. The context here seems to suggest a city official. For the governor of the city, a general translation such as “the city official” (NET Bible) or “the city leader” is recommended. Since Samaria has not been mentioned since verse 10, the city may be explicitly identified in translation as “Samaria” (so Parole de Vie).

Ahab refers to his own son as Joash the king’s son. A number of translations say “Prince Joash” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Peregrino). However, it is possible to understand the reference to the king’s son in two other ways.

• (a) There is some archaeological evidence that the king’s son was an official title given to one of the king’s officials, perhaps the person in charge of prisoners and state security (also Jer 36.26; 38.6). Therefore, it may be that Joash was not the king’s biological son, but was rather an official in the royal court. And even if he was a biological son, it may be his function that is in focus here rather than his biological relationship to the king.

• (b) As noted in the comments on 1 Kgs 20.1, some interpreters think that Benhadad in chapters 20 and 22 is Benhadad I, who was king early in the ninth century B.C. and is referred to in 1 Kgs 15.16-22 and in the parallel text in 2 Chr 16.1-6. Other interpreters think the reference is to Benhadad II (2 Kgs 13.3-7, 22-25), who ruled later, at the end of the ninth century during the reign of King Joash of Judah. Still other interpreters consider the Benhadad of 1 Kgs 20 and 22 to be an otherwise unknown king who reigned between Benhadad I and Benhadad II. If the reference here is to Benhadad II and the stories about his reign have been incorrectly placed in the reign of Ahab and his sons Ahaziah and Joram, then the Joash mentioned here in verse 26 is the son of Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 13.10), and not the son of Ahab.

In light of the difficulties in knowing for certain the identity of Joash, the best solution may be to translate the text literally and then indicate in a footnote that the king’s son may be a title of a royal official rather than a reference to one of the king’s own sons.

According to Revised Standard Version, the sentence begun in this verse continues in verse 27. But it may be wise to bring the sentence to an end here and begin a new one in the following verse.

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