Jehu met the kinsmen of Ahaziah king of Judah: The expression the kinsmen of Ahaziah (literally “brothers of Ahaziah”) occurs twice in this verse. It refers to people who were related to King Ahaziah of Judah, who had died. The translation of New Jerusalem Bible, “the brothers of Ahaziah,” is probably too restricted in English, but may be acceptable in other languages where the word “brother” has a broader meaning. If the definite article is used in the phrase the kinsmen, this will incorrectly suggest in some languages that all of Ahaziah’s relatives are included here. The next chapter makes it clear that not all of Ahaziah’s relatives were killed by Jehu. Therefore it will be better in many languages to use an indefinite reference here, for example, “some relatives” (Good News Translation, New International Version, New Living Translation, Bible en français courant). Instead of saying king of Judah, many languages will have to say “the former king of Judah” or “the king of Judah who had been killed.”

The relationship between these relatives of Ahaziah (from the southern kingdom of Judah) and Jezebel (queen mother of the northern kingdom of Israel) may be explained by the fact that Athaliah, a daughter of King Ahab of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 8.26), married Jehoram, the king of Judah. There was, therefore, kinship between members of the two kingdoms.

He said: The verb said probably should be translated “asked” in many languages since a question follows it.

Who are you?: This question is addressed to the whole group of Ahaziah’s relatives since the pronoun you is plural.

We came down: While the movement toward Jezreel may have involved going toward a lower elevation, it will not be natural to translate the verb here literally in certain languages. It will be better to say simply “We are going” (Good News Translation) or “we are on our way” (New Jerusalem Bible).

The royal princes and the sons of the queen mother: This seems to refer to two different groups: “the families of the king and of the queen mother” (Revised English Bible). But Contemporary English Version summarizes all this by saying simply “his [Ahaziah’s] family.” The royal princes is literally “the sons of the king” and probably refers to the royal family in general. The sons of the queen mother refers to the children of Jezebel and Ahab. It may be desirable in other languages to state clearly that the queen mother is Jezebel. Good News Translation provides a good model for this part of the verse, saying “the children of Queen Jezebel and … the rest of the royal family.”

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 brought out the king’s son: If there is any doubt about the participants in this event, the pronoun he may be replaced by the proper name “Jehoiada” (Good News Translation, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible) or the phrase “the priest” (La Bible Pléiade). The king’s son should probably be replaced by “Joash,” or possibly the name “Joash” might be added before or after the king’s son.

Put the crown upon him: The use of the definite article with crown may suggest that this was the same crown used to symbolize the sovereignty of previous rulers of Judah, but it does not necessarily imply that this was a particular crown. In languages that have a special verb for the coronation of a king, it is appropriate to use it here.

Gave him the testimony: The meaning of the Hebrew noun rendered testimony is debated in this context. Some interpreters argue that in this context, the noun does not mean “testimony,” but rather comes from a Semitic root that means “to ornament.” Based on this interpretation, American Bible renders put the crown upon him, and gave him the testimony as “placed the diadem and the jewels upon him.” Other interpreters note that 2 Sam 1.10 refers to a crown and a bracelet worn by King Saul. Based on this passage in 2 Samuel, some interpreters add one consonant to the beginning of the Hebrew noun for testimony to create the word “bracelet.” While this meaning is adopted by Jerusalem Bible, it does not appear in New Jerusalem Bible and it is found in only a few other modern versions (La Bible Pléiade, Maredsous).

The parallel passage in 2 Chr 23.11 has the testimony, and this is probably what should be translated here. This term refers to the set of rules and regulations under which the kings of Judah operated, understood as a covenant between God and the king. In some versions it is called “a copy of the agreement” (New Century Version) or “a copy of the covenant” (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible). This document may have included regulations like those outlined in Deut 17.14-20. Contemporary English Version speaks of “a copy of instructions for ruling the nation.”

They proclaimed him king: The pronoun they may refer to the priest and the guards or it may refer to the people in general.

Anointed him: For the verb anointed, see the comments on 1 Kgs 1.34. The verb is plural in Hebrew, but most likely the actual anointing was done by the priest, while the people signaled their approval. Compare 1 Kgs 1.39, where the priest Zadok anointed Solomon and the people said “Long live King Solomon!”

They clapped their hands: In the Old Testament, clapping is often associated with joy and approval (Psa 47.1; 98.8), but it sometimes has other meanings (Lam 2.15). Here the gesture clearly shows the pleasure and approval of those participating. In languages where the clapping of hands conveys a different meaning, translators may consider a more generic rendering of the meaning, such as “they showed their approval” or “they demonstrated their consent.” The implied subject of the verb clapped is probably “all the people present.”

Long live the king!: See 1 Kgs 1.25, 34, and 39, where the name of the king is specifically given. Here the name is only implied. Compare also 1 Sam 10.24 and 2 Sam 16.16.

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 .

Besought the LORD is literally “appeased the face of the LORD” (compare Exo 32.11). See the comments on this same Hebrew idiom in 1 Kgs 13.6. The somewhat archaic English verb besought is replaced by “entreated” in New Revised Standard Version. New Jerusalem Bible has “tried to placate Yahweh.” But some more common language renderings might be “pleaded with the LORD” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “begged the LORD” (New Century Version), or simply “prayed earnestly to….” Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente makes explicit what Jehoahaz asked the LORD to do: “he begged the Lord to calm his anger.”

The LORD hearkened to him: The verb hearkened is also somewhat archaic. Both New International Version and New Century Version have “the LORD listened to him.” But in some languages the use of the verb “listened” alone might imply that there was no subsequent action. The context, however, demonstrates that God not only heard the prayer of Jehoahaz but that he also acted to answer it. Verses 22-25, however, seem to indicate that God did not deliver the Israelites from the domination of Syria until after the death of Jehoahaz.

The transition word translated for introduces the reason for Yahweh’s mercy. He answered the prayer of Jehoahaz because he saw how much the people of Israel were suffering and he felt sorry for them. It will sound more normal in certain languages to restructure along the lines of Good News Translation, presenting the reason before the result.

The two clauses he saw the oppression of Israel and how the king of Syria oppressed them may be rendered as a single clause in certain languages (so Good News Translation) since the second clause is a restatement and an amplification of the first one, focusing on the oppressor (the king of Syria) instead of the oppressed people (Israel).

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 .

Seized is literally “took” (Revised English Bible, New American Bible), so the Revised Standard Version rendering seems to be stronger than the Hebrew here. But the context allows for such a rendering.

Gold and silver: See the comments at 1 Kgs 6.20; 10.21 and 2 Kgs 5.5. Good News Translation has changed the order of this phrase to “silver and gold,” which is the more natural order in English of referring to these two metals.

Vessels: The general term used here in Hebrew may be translated “equipment” (Good News Translation), “utensils” (New American Bible, New Century Version) or “articles” (New International Version) in this context. See the comments at 1 Kgs 7.51 and 2 Kgs 4.3.

The passive construction, that were found, serves no particular purpose in this sentence and may be translated actively. The meaning is simply “that he found” or, perhaps better, “that his soldiers found.”

Plundering the wealth of an enemy’s temple and palace is quite common in 2 Kings and in warfare in general. But taking hostages is less common. Hostages is literally “sons of the guarantees,” which is not found elsewhere in the Old Testament except in the parallel account in 2 Chr 25.24. The Hebrew noun for “guarantees” comes from a root verb that means “to take as a pledge” or “to give in exchange.” In some languages the idea of hostages may be very difficult to express. Some may have to say “persons kept while waiting for an agreement to be fulfilled” or simply “people that he had captured.” The latter would not be very different from “prisoners,” but if the hostage concept is to be retained, the idea is probably that these were children of noble families who would be held as a guarantee of commitment and obedience on the part of the conquered masses and their local rulers.

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 standard concluding formula is used to summarize the reign of Menahem (see the comments at 1 Kgs 11.41). In this case the question format is used, but it will be better in many languages to transform this into a direct affirmation.

For deeds see the comments at verse 11.

The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel: See the discussion at 1 Kgs 14.19.

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 .

While the exact meaning of this verse is uncertain, it is quite clear that the actions described here constitute an additional change in the arrangement of the Temple furnishings that was done in obedience to the wishes of the king of Assyria. The sense is probably that Ahaz removed some of the objects from the Temple (verse 17) in order to pay tribute to the king of Assyria and that he also made changes in the Temple building itself to show that he was subject to the rule of the Assyrian king (verse 18).

The covered way for the sabbath is one possible understanding of a difficult Hebrew text. The words the covered way translate a technical architectural term in Hebrew whose meaning is uncertain, although most interpreters understand this rare term to come from a root meaning “to cover.” Furthermore, the relation of this term to the sabbath is also uncertain. This uncertainty is reflected in various translations, such as “the Sabbath canopy” (New International Version), “covered portal for use on the sabbath” (New Revised Standard Version), “the structure … for use on the sabbath” (Revised English Bible), “the sabbath passage” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), and “the sabbath covering” (American Bible).

One version of the ancient Greek translation reads “the foundation of the throne.” This reading is the basis for modern translations, such as “the platform for the royal throne” (Good News Translation, New Century Version), “the emplacement … for a throne” (New American Bible), and “the dais for the throne” (New Jerusalem Bible).

Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament recommends that the Masoretic Text be followed, but it acknowledges the difficulty of the text by giving only a {C} rating to the Hebrew noun translated the covered way and a {D} rating to the word sabbath.

Which had been built inside the palace: Some versions understand the palace to be a reference to the king’s palace (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), but others believe it refers to the Temple (Good News Translation, Nouvelle Bible Segond, La Bible de Jérusalem Nouvelle Version, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible) since the Hebrew word rendered palace is literally “house.” Since the exact meaning of this verse is uncertain, either interpretation is acceptable.

The outer entrance for the king: The meaning of these words is not clear in Hebrew. Good News Translation says “the king’s private entrance,” and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “the king’s outer entrance.” Translators should follow either Revised Standard Version or Good News Translation and indicate in a footnote that the meaning of the Hebrew here is unclear.

In place of the words translated he removed from the house of the LORD (Revised Standard Version), which are based on a correction of the Hebrew text, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text, which reads “he turned about in the house of the LORD” (similarly New English Bible). The Masoretic Text does not have the word from. Compare New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, which attempts to translate the Masoretic Text: “He also extended to the House of the LORD.” But the meaning of the reading in the Masoretic Text is uncertain and most versions choose to translate the text reflected in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament does not discuss this problem since it is not really a textual problem. The correction found in Revised Standard Version is based on suggested corrections by scholars who are trying to make sense of the Hebrew. Translators should probably follow the interpretation found in Revised Standard Version and perhaps indicate in a footnote that “The text of verse 18 is not clear and the translation is uncertain” (so Bible en français courant).

Because of the king of Assyria: The precise meaning of this clause is disputed by biblical scholars. Some commentators have suggested that it means “by order of the king of Assyria.” But Ahaz’s actions in verses 17-18 may not have come as a result of a direct command; they may have been done simply “to satisfy the king of Assyria” (Revised English Bible) or “in deference to the king…” (New Jerusalem Bible). As noted above, perhaps the items removed from the Temple were to be used as part of the bribe to the Assyrian king. In certain languages it may be better to move this information to the beginning of the verse as Good News Translation has done. A very different interpretation of because of the king of Assyria is also possible: Ahaz removed the expensive articles and ornamental structures and put them where the representatives of the Assyrian king would not see them and take them for the Assyrian king.

While there are many uncertainties in the understanding of verses 17-18, a possible model for them is:

• Then King Ahaz had the side panels removed from the bronze carts. He also took the small washing bowls off the carts. Then he removed the large bronze bowl, which was called the Sea, from the statues of the bronze bulls that held it up. And he had it put on a stand made of stone. Ahaz also took down the platform that had been used for worship on the Sabbath. He even closed up the entrance the kings of Judah had been using for going into the Temple. All these thing he did to make the king of Assyria happy.

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 also feared the LORD: The pronoun They refers to all the new inhabitants of Samaria who had settled there in place of the Israelites and not just to the last mentioned group as some readers might understand. In some languages it might be wise to translate “All these people….”

Also means in addition to their worship of the other gods mentioned in the previous verses. The Hebrew text does not have a separate word that corresponds to the English word also, but Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have added it as the sense requires.

For feared the LORD, see the comments on verse 5 and 25. In the Hebrew text the verb construction here slightly emphasizes this action as simultaneous and continuous. This is also true for the verb sacrificed (literally “they were doing”) later in the verse.

And appointed from among themselves all sorts of people as priests of the high places: In some languages it may be more natural to connect this clause to the previous clause with a conjunction like “but” (New International Version, New Century Version) rather than and as in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. This is because the appointment of priests for places of worship may be seen as incompatible with the statement that They also feared the LORD. Revised English Bible attempts to accomplish the same kind of thing with the following wording: “While still paying homage to the LORD, they appointed all sorts of people to act as priests of the shrines.”

From among themselves all sorts of people; that is, from all their own non-Israelite population. They did not select priests from among the Israelites. The same sort of expression is elsewhere translated by Revised Standard Version as “from among all the people” (see 1 Kgs 12.31; 13.33). In any case, the priests who would have been chosen would clearly not have been from the tribe of Levi as required by the Law of Moses. Some other renderings here are “from their own ranks” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) and “from their number” (New American Bible).

Priests of the high places are priests who offered sacrifices at the places of worship that the author did not consider acceptable since sacrifices to Yahweh were to be done only at the Temple in Jerusalem. The translation of the second half of this verse in Good News Translation is misleading. The author is not talking about the worship of foreign gods here in verse 32 as he has been in the preceding verses. Here the focus in on the people’s improper worship of the LORD. The accusation against the people is that even though they worshiped God, they worshiped him incorrectly by worshiping God at the high places rather than in the central place of worship in Jerusalem (see 2 Kgs 18.22 and the comments at 2 Kgs 12.3 and 16.4) and by appointing as priests men who were not qualified to serve as priests.

The shrines of the high places: See verse 29.

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 .

Moreover: This transition word is used to translate the Hebrew adverb of time that is sometimes rendered “now” (King James Version). In this context New Jerusalem Bible takes it as introducing the final element in the Assyrian official’s argument by saying “And lastly.” New Living Translation similarly says “What’s more.” New International Version takes it in much the same way, translating “Furthermore.”

Is it without the LORD that I have come up against this place to destroy it?: This rhetorical question may be better rendered as an affirmation, for example, “I did not attack your country to destroy it without the help of the LORD.” Or, in languages where the use of a negation with the word “without” presents problems, a more positive statement may be made. Something like the following might be appropriate: “It was clearly with the help of the LORD that I attacked your country and destroyed it.”

For come up against, see verse 9.

The words this place and this land both refer to the land belonging to Judah. In this dialogue with the spokesmen for Judah, it will probably be most natural to say something like “your country” (Good News Translation) or “your nation” (Contemporary English Version). Both Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version avoid the repetition of these synonymous expressions. Naturalness in the receptor language should determine whether a literal rendering of the two expressions is necessary in translation.

The LORD said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it: This last part of the verse is presented as a direct quotation within the larger quotation, but it may easily be made indirect by saying something like “The LORD told me to attack this land and to destroy it.”

Verses 19-25 are complicated because of the numerous embedded quotations. The Assyrian official quotes his king in verses 19b-22. Then in verses 23-24 the official himself develops the argument begun in verse 21. Verse 25 returns to the words of the Assyrian king as delivered by his official. The words of verses 19-25 are all spoken by the Assyrian official, but within his words are numerous quotations of words spoken by his king, by Hezekiah, and by God himself.

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 .