See the similar statement concerning the men in charge of Temple repairs at the time of King Joash of Judah (2 Kgs 12.15).

As noted in verse 4, it is possible to understand verse 7 in two different ways: (a) as the end of the quotation beginning in verse 4 (that is, as part of Josiah’s instructions) or (b) as the author’s comment.

Most translations follow the first interpretation. New Jerusalem Bible, however, follows the second interpretation by closing Josiah’s words at the end of verse 6 and translating verse 7 as follows: “The latter were not required to render account of the money handed over to them, since they were conscientious in their work.” Compare also Moffatt: “No audit was ever taken of the money thus handed over: the men acted honestly.” This same interpretation is reflected in New American Bible and An American Translation.

But translates a Hebrew particle that may be understood either as restrictive, that is, as limiting what follows, or as indicating some kind of opposition. It may be translated “Only” or “But.”

No accounting shall be asked from them for the money: This passive expression may be made active by saying something like “no one needs to ask them for an accounting of the money” or “They do not need to report how they use the money” (New Century Version). From them refers to “the workmen who have the oversight” (verse 5).

Money translates the same Hebrew word as in verse 4. Even those translations such as Revised English Bible and New Jerusalem Bible, which translated it as “silver” in verse 4, recognize that the sense here is “money.”

Which is delivered into their hand: See verse 5.

For they deal honestly: The transition word for shows that what follows is the explanation as to why it is unnecessary to ask for an accounting of the funds. In some languages it may be more natural to reverse the order of the clauses in this sentence and say something like the following (if the interpretation in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation is followed):

• But since the people responsible for the work are totally honest, it is not necessary to ask them to report on the way in which they use this money.

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 shrines … of the high places: As in 2 Kgs 17.29 and 32, the word translated shrines is actually the ordinary word for “houses” in Hebrew. But it is quite clear that these were places where the writer considered it illegitimate to worship, either because God was to be worshiped only in Jerusalem or because pagan gods were worshiped at these shrines. So it is legitimate to make this clear in translation.

In the cities of Samaria: Good News Translation translates this “In every city of Israel” and Contemporary English Version has “all over Israel.” This is done for the sake of clarity since the reference is to the former northern kingdom called Israel.

Provoking the LORD to anger: See the comments on 1 Kgs 14.9. Revised Standard Version supplies the words the LORD. The Hebrew text does not have the name Yahweh at this point, only the verb meaning provoking … to anger. But there can be little doubt that Revised Standard Version and most other modern versions are correct in adding the LORD here. This addition was, in fact, thought to be necessary by the Septuagint, which is followed by Revised English Bible, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, La Bible Pléiade, and Osty-Trinquet.

According to all that he had done at Bethel: In the same way that Josiah had completely demolished the pagan place of worship in Bethel, he also destroyed the others located throughout the region of Samaria.

The structure of this verse may have to be altered in certain languages, stating in a first sentence that the kings of Israel had previously set up pagan places of worship, which resulted in Yahweh’s anger, and then, in a second sentence, describing the actions of Josiah in destroying these places. Others may prefer the structure of Good News Translation, which shifts the main verb removed to the beginning of the verse.

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 .

And renders the Hebrew verbal transition marker that is sometimes translated “And it happened.” The beginning of a new paragraph is an adequate representation of this transition marker here.

The ninth year of his reign: Since this is the beginning of a new chapter and a new section, some implied information from the background may have to be supplied. When the text speaks of his reign, it is referring to the reign of Zedekiah and not of Nebuchadnezzar. So this may be made explicit in translation. New American Bible, like Good News Translation, has “the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign.”

Good News Translation also includes from the end of 2 Kgs 24.20 in the Masoretic Text the statement that “Zedekiah rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia.” In many languages this information will also have to be provided in the translation of this verse. It was because of Zedekiah’s attempt to reject the authority of Babylonia that Nebuchadnezzar found it necessary to attack Jerusalem with his army.

For Babylon as Babylonia, see the comments at 2 Kgs 20.12 and 24.1.

In the tenth month: If translated literally into certain languages, the tenth month is likely to be misunderstood as meaning October (see the comments at 1 Kgs 6.1). Often translators are required to resort to a footnote or a special explanation in the glossary to explain the months of the year in the Bible. See Appendix A, “The Hebrew Calendar.” Here the reference is to January 588 B.C. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesied regarding Zedekiah and Jerusalem on the day that Nebuchadnezzar attacked the city (Jer 21.1-10; 34.1-5; Ezek 24.2).

The two verb phrases, laid siege to it and built siegeworks against it round about, both concern the same activity on the part of the Babylonian army (compare the comments on “laying siege” at 1 Kgs 15.27, where a different Hebrew verb is used). The verb laid siege is third person singular in Hebrew, but the verb in the parallel passage in Jer 52.4 is plural, and the plural is followed in some modern translations (Moffatt, La Bible Pléiade). The focus here in 2 Kings, however, is on Nebuchadnezzar. Many modern versions include the idea of the enemy army camping in the area around the city under siege since this is clearly implied in the verb and preposition translated laid siege (so Good News Translation). So in view of the context (with all his army), in those languages where it is unnatural to translate the verb laid siege with a singular subject, it is perfectly acceptable to use the plural subject “they” here. Laying siege involved two stages: surrounding the city with semipermanent camps of soldiers and constructing ramps made of earth to enable these soldiers to go up over the city walls. In 1 Kgs 16.15 the same verb is translated “encamped against.”

Built siegeworks may be rendered “piled dirt against the city walls to attack it” (New Century Version), and this is the recommended translation. Some scholars understand the Hebrew noun translated siegeworks to refer to a mobile tower or platform on which archers stood in order to shoot over the walls of the city, and for this reason some versions state that material other than earth was used; for example, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “built towers against it all around” and Revised English Bible has “erected siege-towers against it on every side.”

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 .