The hand of the LORD was on Elijah: In the Old Testament the hand is frequently used as a symbol of power. In this context the meaning seems to be that the LORD gave Elijah the strength and speed to run ahead of Ahab to Jezreel. New Living Translation says “the LORD gave special strength to Elijah.”

He girded up his loins: The subject of the verb girded up is Elijah and not the LORD. Regarding the word loins, see the comments on 1 Kgs 2.5. The long garment that a man wore hung loose when he was not working, but in preparation for some activity, the garment would be tucked into a belt or girdle. Revised English Bible has “he tucked up his robe,” and New Jerusalem Bible says that he was “hitching up his clothes.” The same kind of expression is used in the New Testament for getting ready for action even if the activity is not physical (1 Peter 1.13).

Ran before Ahab: Since verses 44-45 indicate that Ahab went by chariot, New Living Translation says that Elijah “ran ahead of Ahab’s chariot.”

To the entrance of Jezreel: Since Jezreel was about 26 kilometers (17 miles) away, Elijah had a long way to run. Good News Translation expresses the idea of great distance by saying “all the way to Jezreel” (similarly New Living Translation).

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 .

In Hebrew this verse begins with the verbal transition meaning “And it happened.” When Ben-hadad heard is literally “And it was when to hear.” Hebrew does not have an explicit agent for the infinitive “to hear,” but the context clearly shows that Ben-hadad is the subject. Both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation insert his name for the sake of clarity. In fact, even King James Version does so.

Some languages require that the verb drinking have an explicit object. Verse 16 says that the king became drunk, which clearly indicates that they were drinking alcohol.

The kings are the thirty-two vassal-kings mentioned in verse 1. Regarding the translation of the word kings in this context, see the discussion at verse 1.

Booths were temporary dwellings made of branches and mats. They were used in military campaigns (2 Sam 11.11). The Hebrew noun rendered booths is spelled the same as the place name Succoth, which is mentioned in 1 Kgs 7.46. So in the booths is translated “in Succoth” by Gray and “at Succoth” by Anchor Bible, although most interpreters prefer the interpretation found in Revised Standard Version. The city of Succoth was around 48 kilometers (about 30 miles) from Samaria, and it seems unlikely that Benhadad would have camped so far from Samaria. So translators are advised to translate the idea of temporary dwellings. This has been rendered “under the awnings” (New Jerusalem Bible), “in their quarters” (Revised English Bible), and “in their tents” (Good News Translation, New Living Translation). It is, however, not advisable to follow New Century Version, which reads “in his tent.” See also the comments on verse 16.

His men is literally “his servants.” In this context the sense is most likely “his officers” (New Living Translation). Compare Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, which says “his commanders.”

Take your positions translates a single Hebrew verb that means “to put” or “to place.” In this context it may be rendered “Position yourselves for an attack on the city” (similarly Revised English Bible). Certain languages may prefer to present this idea in the form of indirect speech rather than as a direct quotation. In such cases Good News Translation provides a possible model.

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 .

They washed the chariot is literally “he washed the chariot,” but the Hebrew here is an impersonal construction meaning “they washed the chariot” or “the chariot was washed.” It is not known who did the washing of the chariot. Parole de Vie says “Some servants washed the chariot of the king.”

By the pool of Samaria: Archaeologists have discovered a pool about 10 meters by 5 meters (33 feet by 16.5 feet) in the northwest corner of Samaria.

The dogs licked up his blood: See the prophecy concerning this in 1 Kgs 21.19.

The harlots washed themselves in it is literally “the harlots washed themselves.” These words are difficult to understand. They are not in the prophecy in 1 Kgs 21.19. Revised Standard Version has supplied the words in it according to the sense of the verse as the translators understood it. Among the many interpretations of this clause which are most likely to be correct are the following:

• (a) The prostitutes were washing in the pool of water into which the king’s blood had flowed. Compare Bible en français courant: “They washed the chariot at the Pool of Samaria while the dogs licked up the blood, and the prostitutes washed in it” (similarly Traduction œcuménique de la Bible).

• (b) The prostitutes were washing themselves in the blood itself. This is clearly the meaning in the Septuagint; and it seems to be the intended meaning in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh (similarly Peregrino), which says “and they flushed out the chariot at the pool of Samaria. Thus the dogs lapped up his blood and the whores bathed [in it].” If this interpretation is followed, the sense may be that they washed in the king’s blood because blood was thought to have magical powers.

• (c) These words are parenthetical, indicating that this pool is the one where the harlots normally bathed, not that they bathed in it at this very moment. New International Version says “They washed the chariot at a pool in Samaria (where the prostitutes bathed), and the dogs licked up his blood.” Compare also Moffatt: “They washed the chariot at the pool of Samaria, where the harlots bathed, and dogs licked up his blood” (similarly New Living Translation).

Another interpretation has been proposed by several scholars and is suggested in the New International Version footnote. By making a slight correction in the spelling of the Hebrew word for harlots (zonoth), it is possible to read “they washed the weapons [zenaʾ in Hebrew]” (so Gray). But this Hebrew word for “weapon” is not found in biblical Hebrew, and the Hebrew verb for washed is never used elsewhere with things instead of people as the object.

Cogan (2000) notes that dogs and pigs were scavengers in the ancient Near East and that both animals appear together in curses from the ancient Near East, so he suggests that the Hebrew word hazonoth (the harlots) was originally chazirim (“pigs”), and that a scribe mistakenly changed “pigs bathed” to “the harlots bathed.” While this suggestion is possible, there is simply no manuscript evidence to support it.

The first or second interpretation, that is (a) or (b), should probably be followed. These words, which have been added to the prophecy of 1 Kgs 21.19, were most likely intended as a negative criticism of Ahab by associating prostitutes with his death.

According to the word of the LORD which he had spoken: The prophecy in 21.19 says “In the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick your own blood.” Naboth’s blood was licked up by dogs in Jezreel, but Ahab’s blood was licked up in Samaria, so there is only a partial fulfilment of the prophecy.

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 .

In Hebrew this verse begins with the verbal transition marker that is literally “And it happened.” Here both Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version render it Now. See the discussion on this discourse marker in “Translating 1–2 Kings,” pages 14-15.

Revised Standard Version makes a single sentence of this verse while Good News Translation has a shorter initial sentence that is equivalent to the temporal clause introduced by Now when in Revised Standard Version. Good News Translation then makes the last part of this verse a part of a new sentence that continues in verse 2. Translators should consider which of these structures would be more natural in their own language. Others may decide to put the last part of this sentence first in order to set the stage for what is about to happen; that is, the verse might begin with “Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal….” Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente begins this verse with “One day the Lord took Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind.”

The LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven by a whirlwind: The verbal expression rendered was about to take … up may be more literally rendered “it happened at [Yahweh’s] causing to go up….” The idea is that Yahweh would use the whirlwind to cause Elijah to go up into heaven.

While the Hebrew word rendered heaven is often used to refer to the skies or the area above the earth, it sometimes carries the meaning conveyed by the English word “heaven,” that is, the place where God lives (see 1 Kgs 8.30). This is clearly the meaning that is intended here. In some languages the most natural way to communicate the intended meaning in this context may be to translate “the place where God lives.”

Some translators may find that the most natural way to translate the Hebrew word for whirlwind is “turning/twisting wind” or “sucking-up wind.” American Bible, however, maintains that the term is adequately translated by “storm.” It is indeed so translated in Revised Standard Version at Psa 107.29 and Jer 30.23, and it is rendered “tempest” in the Jonah story (Jonah 1.4, 12) as well as in a number of other places (Psa 55.8; 83.15; Isa 40.24; 41.16; Jer 25.32). KBS gives the meaning “high wind.” While the Hebrew noun for whirlwind refers to a strong high wind, this context seems to suggest a whirlwind that spun objects upward.

Gilgal was about thirteen kilometers (eight miles) north of Bethel (verse 2). Another town by the same name was located on the west border of the Jordan River where the Israelites entered the land of Canaan (Josh 4.19).

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: The common Hebrew conjunction here provides a logical transition moving the story along to the next step.

The king of Edom: While the writer goes to great pains to describe the entrance of Judah into this battle, the presence of Edom is very casually introduced and almost seems to be taken for granted. The Edomites were related to the Israelites since they were the descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob/Israel (Gen 36). At this time the Edomites were still vassals to the southern kingdom of Judah.

When they had made a circuitous march; that is, after they had taken the route to the south of the Dead Sea and then turned back north toward Moab. The detail of their circling around is left out of Good News Translation, but there is no convincing reason for this omission. New American Bible translates “After their roundabout journey.” Revised English Bible speaks of an “indirect route,” and New Jerusalem Bible refers to “a flanking movement.”

There was no water: The southern part of Judah and the country of Edom were very dry regions.

The beasts which followed them is literally “the animals that [were] at their feet.” This expression is normally used of those following closely behind a leader (compare 1 Kgs 20.10). These animals were, in fact, being led by some of the soldiers and were carrying food and other supplies for the soldiers. Hobbs translates “the animals who accompanied the foot soldiers” while Revised English Bible, similar to Good News Translation, refers to “their pack-animals.”

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 .

He said: Translators should ensure that readers understand that Elisha is speaking to Gehazi again. Some modern translations say “Elisha said” (Nouvelle Bible Segond) or “Elisha ordered” (Good News Translation).

Call her: This seems to confirm the fact that the woman was not “standing before” Elisha in verse 12 since she had to be called into his presence at this point. Nevertheless, if verse 12 is translated in such as way as to have her standing before Elisha at that point, then this would have to be rendered “Call her back” (Revised English Bible). The direct quotation here may also be rendered as indirect speech in some languages as follows: “Elisha commanded his servant to call her back.”

He had called her; that is, “Gehazi called her” (Nouvelle Bible Segond).

She stood in the doorway: Good News Translation inserts the implied information that the woman came to the guest chamber before standing in the doorway. She did not approach any closer to the prophet either because of modesty or out of respect for the prophet.

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 .