He did very abominably: The Hebrew verb rendered did … abominably expresses the idea of doing something that is horrible or awful, something that people find to be disgusting. A Hebrew noun based on the same root is translated “the abomination [of the Ammonites]” in 2 Kgs 23.13 (also in 1 Kgs 14.24). The verb is reinforced by the use of an adverb adding the idea of “abundance” or “greatness.” New International Version attempts to reflect this by the use of the superlative as follows: “He behaved in the vilest manner.”

For the Hebrew noun rendered idols, see the comments on the same noun in 1 Kgs 15.12.

The Amorites here refer to all of the population of Canaan at the time of the Israelite invasion. See 1 Kgs 4.19 and 9.20.

Whom the LORD cast out before the people of Israel: This refers to the invasion of the Israelites at the time of Joshua many years earlier. Contemporary English Version rephrases this as “before the LORD forced them out of the land and gave it to Israel.”

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 .

I will disguise myself and go into battle, but you wear your robes: The forms of the Hebrew verbs rendered disguise and go may be read as either infinitives or second person singular imperatives. If they are read as imperatives, then the Masoretic Text reads “Disguise yourself and go into battle.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh follows this reading of the Masoretic Text and says “Disguise yourself and go into the battle; but you, wear your robes.” But such a translation makes no sense with the rest of this verse. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh states in a footnote that the Targum (ancient Aramaic translation) and Septuagint read “I will disguise myself and go.”

Walsh attempts to make sense of the Masoretic Text by arguing that these verbs should be read as infinitives and that Ahab is thinking through his plans. Walsh translates as follows: “To disguise oneself and to go into battle…, but you wear your own robes.” De Vries also reads these verbs as infinitives and translates “With respect to girding for combat and entering into battle: you dress in your robes.”

The best solution seems to be that the Masoretic Text should be read as it is without correction. These two verbs should be read as infinitives, which are sometimes used in exclamatory and excited speech when the action in itself is vividly expressed (Burney, page 256; Gibson, page 127). Compare “Let me disguise myself and enter the battle!” (Burney) and “Disguise myself [will I] and go into battle!” (Gibson).

Regarding the translation of the verb disguise, see the comments at 1 Kgs 14.2, where a different Hebrew verb is used but the sense is the same.

But you wear your robes: You renders an independent pronoun that is emphatic in Hebrew. It serves to highlight the contrast between the actions of Ahab and Jehoshaphat. However, translating the common Hebrew conjunction that precedes it as but may serve the same purpose in some languages.

The robes that Jehoshaphat is to wear are his “royal garments” (Good News Translation), mentioned earlier in verse 10.

And the king of Israel disguised himself and went into battle: Parole de Vie translates “So, the king of Israel put on other garments so that no one would recognize him, and he went into battle.”

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 .

Again: This represents a Hebrew verb that literally means “and he turned.” The verb is used here to mark the repetition of an action already mentioned. The same form is found at the beginning of verse 13 and this use of the verb “turn” or “return” is also found at the beginning of Gen 26.18. In some languages the most natural rendering might be something like “Just as before.”

The king sent to him: Some versions make the term king more explicit by using the proper name “Ahaziah” (New American Bible, New Century Version). In other languages it may be appropriate to use both the name and the title, “King Ahaziah.” The Masoretic Text says simply “he sent to him.”

Another captain of fifty men with his fifty: See verse 9. But note that here the text adds the word another. The inclusion of this adjective in translation is important in order to avoid giving the impression that the same officer and men were sent back.

He went up translates the Septuagint. As in verse 9, the second officer took his fifty men up the hill where Elijah was located just as the first one had done. In place of went up, the Hebrew text says that the captain “answered,” but this seems strange because the captain did not respond to anything that the prophet Elijah had said. For this reason many translations follow the ancient Greek in reading that the captain went up. In Hebrew the words “he went up” and “he answered” are spelled alike except for the final consonant, which has somewhat the same shape. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, however, gives an {A} rating to the Hebrew text since the verb “answered” sometimes means “began to speak” (for example, 1 Sam 9.17, where Revised Standard Version has “told”) and the reading went up probably arose under the influence of the same verb in verse 9. Translators should follow the Hebrew text and translate the verb as “began to speak” rather than “answered.”

As in verse 9, there are two levels of quotation at the end of this verse. They may be handled in the same way as in the earlier case.

Come down quickly: The quoted command of the king is slightly different in this verse. In Hebrew the word quickly is added. The order might be more literally rendered “Hasten to come down!” or “Hurry down!” This indicates an added sense of urgency to the message as previously given.

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 .

See the comments on the standard formula introducing the kings of Israel and Judah at 1 Kgs 15.1-2, 9-10.

In the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat …: For the dating of the beginning of Joram’s reign, see the comments on 2 Kgs 1.17. The frame of reference for the beginning of Joram’s reign in Israel is fixed in terms of the leadership of the kingdom of Judah. This is a common device used throughout the books of 1–2 Kings. Translators should ensure that it is understood that this refers to the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat’s reign and not to his age.

Jehoram is rendered as “Joram” in Good News Translation. See the comments at 2 Kgs 1.17.

Samaria was the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel. See the introductory comments on 1 Kgs 16.21-28.

Reigned: Some may prefer to translate this verb as “was king” or “continued as king.”

The wording of this verse may be reordered in such a way as to shift forward the main clause. The verse would then begin, as in New American Bible, “Joram, son of Ahab, became king of Israel in Samaria….” This is then followed by the time reference and statement about the length of his reign. The same kind of restructuring is done in New International Version and New Century Version.

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 .

In Hebrew this verse begins with the verbal transition that is sometimes rendered “And it came to pass” (so King James Version, Jewish Publication Version). However, it is ignored by most modern versions since it serves only to move the story along to the next stage.

When the vessels were full: Some other possibilities for conveying the meaning of this clause are “when the last container was full” and “when all the containers had been filled.”

Her son refers to “one of her sons” (Contemporary English Version, Parole de Vie) since verse 1 clearly states that she had two sons.

Bring me another vessel: The woman was obviously unaware that all the containers had been filled. Good News Translation transforms this into indirect discourse and slightly alters the meaning. But the result is the same; the woman is told that there are no more containers available.

Then the oil stopped flowing: In some cases translators may wish to say “Then the increase of oil ceased” or “Then there was no more olive oil to pour out.” One African language says “At that the oil came to stand.”

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 .

They poured out: The pronoun they is indefinite and does not refer back to anyone in particular. For this reason Good News Translation made the verb passive. If a definite subject is required, translators may indicate that it was “the cooks” or “the men who cooked” who did the serving.

The text does not state what was poured out, but it is clearly the stew or pottage. The verb here may be better rendered in some cases as “served.”

While they were eating of the pottage: In view of the context, this may be rendered “as they began to eat the stew” or “when they tasted the stew.”

O man of God occurs at the end of the quotation in Hebrew. See the comments on verse 16 and 1 Kgs 17.18.

There is death in the pot: While it is apparently possible to die from eating too much of this fruit, it is doubtful that those complaining would have actually eaten very much of the bitter-tasting food. This statement is probably a great exaggeration since the men were not really in danger of dying. But it is a reaction of fear after tasting something extremely bitter or distasteful. Another possible rendering for this exaggeration is “this stew is killing us!” Contemporary English Version translates “this stew tastes terrible!”

They could not eat it; that is, they would not eat it. Some may prefer to say “they refused to eat it.” Contemporary English Version transforms this statement into a part of the direct discourse that precedes it and has the men who complain saying “We can’t eat it.”

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 .

While the Hebrew text begins with the common conjunction, which Revised Standard Version translates Now, many translators may see the need for a different kind of introductory word or expression to show that a new episode is beginning. Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, and Bible en français courant do this with the words “One day.”

The sons of the prophets: See the comments at 1 Kgs 20.35 and 2 Kgs 2.3.

See: This is a translation of the Hebrew focusing particle that is often rendered “behold” (2 Kgs 2.11) or “lo” (2 Kgs 1.14). This particle is followed in the Hebrew text by another one, translated “now” in King James Version, which would normally indicate that the speakers are making an appeal. But this particle is ignored in many modern versions. Others take the two terms together to mean “Look” (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible) or “As you see” (New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible).

The place where we dwell under your charge: This may mean either “the place where we live under your direction” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh; similarly New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible) or “the place where we meet with you” (New International Version, New Century Version, Contemporary English Version, American Bible). The commentaries and modern versions are almost equally divided on this issue. Either interpretation is possible. The writer does not say where this place is, but it may have been in Jericho (see 2 Kgs 2.5) since Jericho was close to the Jordan River (verse 2).

The words under your charge are taken out of direct quotation by Good News Translation, but the meaning is retained in the introduction to the quotation.

Is too small for us: In some languages this may have to be rendered “is not fitting for us because it is small.”

The pronouns we and us should probably be rendered in such a way as to include Elisha in those languages that make the distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural pronouns. But in the following verse the exclusive form is more likely.

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 .

Then: The common Hebrew conjunction here may be rendered as a temporal connector or, in some cases, omitted altogether. It serves merely to continue the flow of the story.

The captain on whose hand the king leaned: This refers to one of the close personal escorts of the king. The Hebrew word translated captain is literally “the third.” The reference is to the third man who got into the king’s chariot, after the king and his driver. He was clearly a high-ranking person who had the authority to speak out in such a situation. This person has been referred to in various translations as an “aide” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), a “lieutenant” (New English Bible, Hobbs), an “adjutant” (New American Bible, Moffatt), an “officer” (New International Version, Revised English Bible), and a “chief officer” (Contemporary English Version). The physical action of the king’s leaning on this person’s hand is not necessarily to be taken literally. What is important is that this person was close to the king and was able to speak with his authority. For the whole expression here, New Century Version has “the officer who was close to the king.”

As in a number of previous verses (2 Kgs 6.6, 9, 10, 15), the expression the man of God may be replaced by the proper name “Elisha” (so Good News Translation).

If the LORD himself should make windows in heaven: The king’s lieutenant begins his response in Hebrew with the focusing particle often translated “behold” or “lo.” Here it introduces and puts emphasis on this conditional clause, so Good News Translation renders it well with “even if.”

Heaven here refers to the sky. The windows in heaven were thought to be the source of rain (Gen 7.11; 8.2). What is implied is the possibility that God would open up these windows and pour out rain in order to produce grain or possibly pour out the grain itself. In either case the officer does not believe that it is remotely possible for Elisha’s prediction to come true. This particular kind of figurative language may prove confusing if translated literally in some languages. But it is almost impossible to avoid some kind of figure. Some may say “Even if God poured grain down out of the sky” or something similar. For other passages having to do with the windows in heaven, see Isa 24.18 and Mal 3.10.

Parole de Vie has a helpful footnote on windows in heaven, which may be useful in other languages: “The windows of heaven are openings through which rain fell. In the ancient Orient the world was pictured as follows: the earth is like a sort of round, flat plate, surrounded by water on all sides. The sky is like a solid roof above the earth. It protects the waters above. Under the earth is a sea formed by the waters below. See Genesis 1.6-10.”

Could this thing be?: This question is really a way of saying “this could not possibly be!” In many languages it should be translated as a strong negative statement rather than as a question. Contemporary English Version provides a good model by beginning the officer’s comments with “I don’t believe it!”

For the officer’s whole response, this model from Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch may be helpful: “That is impossible, even if the LORD were to make a window in heaven.” Compare also Bible en français courant: “Even if the Lord sent grain by piercing a hole in the vault of the sky, could what you have just said take place?”

He said: Translators should ensure that the pronoun he is understood as referring to Elisha.

You shall see it with your own eyes: In Hebrew these words begin with the focusing particle often rendered “behold.” Here it draws special attention to what follows. The pronoun it probably refers to the whole process of the LORD’s sending grain and the falling of prices as predicted by the prophet. Some translators may have to say “You will see these things happen….” The addition of with your own eyes makes the statement all the more emphatic. But others may express this same idea by using an emphatic pronoun; for example, “You yourself will see….”

The contrast between seeing abundant grain and being unable to eat any of it is marked by translating the common Hebrew conjunction here as but in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation as well as most other versions.

You shall not eat of it: This statement leaves a great deal to the imagination of the reader. If all the elements are made explicit, it would read something like “you will not eat any of the food made from the grain that the LORD will provide.”

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 .