Judah was defeated by Israel: This passive clause may be readily transformed into an active statement by saying “Israel defeated Judah.” Or, providing more detail, translators may prefer to say “the army of Israel was victorious over the army of Judah which Amaziah led.”

Every man fled to his home is literally “and they fled, a man to his tent.” All the soldiers of Judah ran away to the places where their families lived. For home, which is literally “tent,” see the comments at 1 Kgs 8.66. Compare 2 Kgs 8.21 and see also 2 Sam 18.17 and 19.8.

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 .

The Assyrian ruler referred to here as Pul is better known as “Tiglath Pileser.” The name Pul is found in the Old Testament only in this verse and in 1 Chr 5.26, where it is in apposition with “Tilgath-pilneser.” The name Pul is an abbreviated form of the name Pulu, by which this Assyrian ruler is sometimes known in cuneiform records. The form “Tilgath-pilneser” is also found in 1 Chr 5.6 and 2 Chr 28.20. The form “Tiglath-pileser” is found later in this chapter (verse 29) and in 2 Kgs 16.7 and 10. Translators are advised to use a uniform spelling for all three forms of the name used to refer to this ruler of Assyria. The best known form in English is undoubtedly Tiglath Pileser.

Three Assyrian rulers had the name Tiglath Pileser. The reference here is to Tiglath Pileser III, who ruled 744–727 B.C.; but since the other two rulers by this name are not mentioned in the Old Testament, there is no danger of readers confusing the different rulers with one another. For this reason it is not necessary to identify him as Tiglath Pileser III.

King of Assyria: Assyria was located around the upper Tigris River in what is now known as northeastern Iraq. At the height of its power in the mid-seventh century B.C., the Assyrian Empire included a large part of the Ancient Near East, extending from southern Egypt to Cyprus and north through Palestine and Syria and east to Mesopotamia to the Iranian plateau. Since Assyria was an empire that included other kingdoms within the territory it ruled, Good News Translation uses the term “emperor” rather than king when referring to the rulers of the Assyrian Empire. In many languages, however, the two words will probably be translated the same.

Came against the land: As is often the case in the Old Testament, the land refers to the land of Israel. Here the Hebrew verb and preposition translated came against may be rendered “attacked,” “invaded” (Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New International Version), or “marched against” (American Bible). Some interpreters, however, think that the words translated came against mean only that the Assyrian king “came into” Israel to inspect the land that he considered to be subject to his rule.

A thousand talents of silver: For the word talents, see the comments on 1 Kgs 9.14. Some translators may have special difficulties here because of the unusually large amount of silver involved. Since a talent weighed about 34 kilograms or 75 pounds, the weight of the silver in this case would have been about 34,000 kilograms or 75,000 pounds (Good News Translation “thirty-eight tons”). However, in view of the uncertainty of the exact equivalence for a talent, it is not unreasonable to round the figure off and say “thirty tons” (Bible en français courant) or possibly “thirty-five thousand kilograms.”

That he might help him to confirm his hold of the royal power: The pronouns he, him and his may have to be clarified. The meaning is “so that Tiglath Pileser might help Menahem confirm Menahem’s hold on the royal power.”

That he might help him is literally “that his hands might be with him.”

Confirm his hold of the royal power is literally “cause to strengthen kingly power in his hand.” Some other possible models for conveying this idea are “make him a stronger king” and “cause him to be more powerful in ruling his kingdom.”

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 .

It will be unnecessary to repeat the information that Uriah was the priest since this is already stated in verse 10 and possibly also in verses 11 and 15. Similarly, it may also be redundant to give both the proper name and the title of King Ahaz. Naturalness in the receptor language should determine how these items are handled.

All this refers to everything contained in the order given by King Ahaz in verse 15. Some languages will prefer to say “all these things.” But others may render the whole verse as “Uriah did all that King Ahaz had ordered.”

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 .

As will be noted in the discussion on the names of the foreign deities listed in verses 30-31, there is much disagreement among interpreters (and translations) regarding the correct identification and spelling of several of these names. It is likely that the original spellings of some of these names have been changed, either accidentally by scribes or deliberately in order to make fun of these foreign gods.

There is no reason to believe that the expressions the men of Babylon, the men of Cuth and the men of Hamath are intended to exclude women. So it will be better to translate “the people of/from…” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). What they made were “idols of the god” (Good News Translation) from each of these places. Another way of making this information explicit is by translating made as “made a statue of” (La Bible du Semeur).

Although the spelling differs in Hebrew, the name Cuth should be spelled the same as in verse 24 since it refers to the same city.

The writer begins to list the names of the foreign deities in this verse: Succoth-benoth, Nergal, and Ashima. Succoth is the name of two different places referred to in the Old Testament: (1) the first stopping place of the Israelites during the Exodus from Egypt (Exo 12.37) and (2) a town located on the east side of the Jordan River, which is mentioned in 1 Kgs 7.46.

A Babylonian god by the name Succoth-benoth is not known from any other ancient source. For this reason some scholars think that the two Hebrew words, succoth and benoth, should be translated according to their meaning. Succoth is the plural of the Hebrew word for “booth” or “stall.” Some scholars think that the name Succoth-benoth refers to booths where women (benoth) were involved in some sort of sexual ceremonies. But this is far from certain.

Another solution has been to assume that the words succoth and benoth are a scribal error and that the Hebrew text originally read the name “Sarpanitu,” the name of a Babylonian goddess (so Gray), but the textual evidence to support this correction is far from certain.

Others suggest that the name was originally “Sakkuth,” the star-god mentioned in Amos 5.26 (so La Bible Pléiade), and that the word benoth was added to the text after the name Sakkuth was miscopied as succoth. La Bible Pléiade follows this interpretation and translates the beginning of this verse as follows: “The people of Babylon made Sakkuth [ ] ….” But there are serious linguistic difficulties in making this identification, so the rendering in La Bible Pléiade is not recommended.

The New American Bible translators decided that the Hebrew text here contains an error, so they corrected the text to read “Marduk” instead of Succoth-benoth. Marduk was the patron deity of Babylon.

Translators would be wise to treat the term Succoth-benoth as a proper name without attempting to reflect the possible meaning of the Hebrew words.

Both Nergal and Ashima are names that do not occur elsewhere in the Bible. The Mesopotamian god Nergal, who is well known from ancient non-biblical documents, was a god of the underworld and was associated with fire, famine, plagues, and death. Ashima, however, cannot be identified with certainty with any other known god or goddess. Some scholars think that Ashima refers to the Phoenician god Eshmun. Other interpreters think that the words “guilt [ʾashmath in Hebrew] of Samaria” in Amos 8.14 originally read “Ashimah [ʾashimaʾ in Hebrew] of Samaria,” but such an interpretation of Amos 8.14 is debated.

The classifier term “god” will have to be added in most languages to each name if the translation is to be meaningful.

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 .

The second person verbs in the previous verse were plural, but in verses 23-24 they are singular, as if the Assyrian official is addressing Hezekiah directly.

Come now is literally “And now.” These transition words in the original text are sometimes ignored by modern versions, but many languages will require something at this point. The words signal the fact that the speaker is moving from a general discussion to a more specific proposal. New Jerusalem Bible attempts to show this by beginning the verse with “Very well, then.” Revised Standard Version may also be including the Hebrew particle of entreaty in its rendering Come now. Nouvelle Bible Segond begins with “Now … I pray”

Make a wager is literally “pledge yourself,” which is followed by the Hebrew particle of entreaty (see the comments on verse 19). The Hebrew verb used here is related to the noun translated elsewhere as “surety” (Gen 43.9; Pro 11.15). According to the proposition that follows later in this verse, the deal would be one in which each party would be required to do something, but if Hezekiah failed in his part of the bargain, the Assyrian king would not have to keep his part. Many modern versions retain the word wager, and Contemporary English Version even has “make a bet.” But this seems misleading. Revised English Bible is probably better with “make a deal.” La Bible du Semeur provides another possible model, saying “I issue you a challenge.”

With my master: The Assyrian official is not proposing that Hezekiah go to the king of Assyria and make a deal there. Rather, he is suggesting that a deal be made on the spot between the kings of Judah and Assyria with himself acting on behalf of the Assyrian king. Good News Translation and La Bible du Semeur seek to convey this idea by adding the words “in the name of.” Something similar may be required in other languages. For the whole clause still others may use a reciprocal verb meaning something like “let’s make a deal between you and my master.”

I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders upon them: In some cases the order of the clauses here may need to be reversed, placing the if clause first, in order to make it sound more natural; for example, some may say something like the following: “If you [singular] can find two thousand men who can ride horses, then I will give you two thousand horses.”

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 .

So now is literally “And now.” The common Hebrew conjunction is followed by the adverb now. Together they have the force of a logical transition, which may be translated “Therefore” (New American Bible).

I beseech thee renders the Hebrew particle of entreaty (see the comments on 1 Kgs 1.12). The archaic rendering of Revised Standard Version is replaced by “I pray you” in New Revised Standard Version, while New Jerusalem Bible has the more natural expression “I beg you.” The Hebrew particle of entreaty is not found in the parallel text in Isa 37.20, but unless there are very strong reasons for dropping it, it should not be omitted here. The emphasis added by the writer of 2 Kings should be reflected in translation if at all possible.

From his hand: Some modern translations make explicit the name of the Assyrian king here, saying “from the hand of Sennacherib” (Nouvelle Bible Segond). But since the word hand refers to power, in many languages it will be more natural to say “from Sennacherib” (La Bible du Semeur), “from the Assyrian king” (Contemporary English Version), “from his power” (New Living Translation), or “from him.” Or since the king stands for his whole military establishment, it might be preferable in some cases to say “from the Assyrian army.”

That all the kingdoms of the earth may know …: That renders the common Hebrew conjunction. Here it introduces why Hezekiah prayed for deliverance. If God delivered Judah from the powerful king of Assyria, the result would be that the other nations would come to know that Yahweh was the only true God.

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 .