I will add fifteen years to your life is literally “I have added to your days fifteen years.” In other languages it may be more natural to say “I will cause you to live fifteen years longer” or “I will give you life for another fifteen years yet.” The LORD agrees to prolong Hezekiah’s life by fifteen years, starting from the time that he would have died according to God’s original intention.

I will deliver you and this city …: The city referred to is Jerusalem, the capital in which Hezekiah lived. In some languages it may be wise to make this information explicit as Good News Translation has done, and the whole expression may be reworded to sound more natural. Some languages, for example, may prefer to say “I will not let the city of Jerusalem fall [to the Assyrian ruler] and you will therefore be saved also.”

Out of the hand of the king of Assyria may be rendered “from the power of the Assyrian king.” Bible en français courant uses figurative language that is suitable to the context here, saying “from the claws of the king of Assyria.”

I will defend this city: See the comments on 2 Kgs 19.34. The Hebrew verb used here is elsewhere translated “protect” (Isa 31.5; Zech 9.15). The same verb is used in this context by certain modern versions (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Revised English Bible, Nouvelle version Segond révisée, Bible en français courant). New American Bible has an expression that is more picturesque, but no less accurate: “I will be a shield to this city.”

For my own sake and for my servant David’s sake: Compare 2 Kgs 19.34, where the same expression is used in Hebrew even though the Revised Standard Version wording is slightly different. Yahweh’s action in saving the city goes beyond answering Hezekiah’s prayer. It is for his own sake and in order to safeguard the dynasty of David that he acts to protect Jerusalem.

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 walked in all the way in which his father walked: The verb walked, which occurs twice in this verse, is a figurative way of speaking of the manner of living or behavior of the two kings (see 1 Kgs 3.3; 2 Kgs 8.18). Revised English Bible translates this part of the verse using the English idiom “Following in his father’s footsteps.” But other languages may find one of the following models easier to follow: “He followed exactly the path his father had trod” (New American Bible), “In every respect he followed the example of his father” (New Jerusalem Bible), or “He lived in the same way his father had lived” (New Century Version).

Served the idols that his father served: The wording of this second part of the verse, like the first part with its repetition of the verb, seems to indicate that Amon’s imitation of his father was absolute. For the word idols, see verse 11 and the discussion on the meaning of the Hebrew noun used here in 1 Kgs 15.12.

The verb worshiped is virtually synonymous in this context with served. In some languages where the resources are limited, it will be acceptable to translate the two verbs with a single verb (so Good News Translation).

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 all the priests out of the cities of Judah is literally “he caused to come out….” The Hebrew verb rendered brought … out is not the same one used in verse 6. The priests in question were removed from their own cities throughout Judah and taken to the capital. Many common language translations make it clear that these priests were brought “to Jerusalem” (Good News Translation, New Living Translation, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente).

The Hebrew word for priests here is not the same as the one for “idolatrous priests” in verse 5. The word used here is the same one that is often used to refer to legitimate priests in the cultic life of the people of Israel.

Defiled the high places: The text does not state how Josiah “desecrated” (Good News Translation, Revised English Bible), “profaned” (La Bible du Semeur), or “rendered unsanctified” (New Jerusalem Bible) these high places, but it has been suggested by some commentators that it was done by scattering garbage over them. What is important, however, is that they could no longer be used as places of worship.

From Geba to Beersheba: The usual expression for talking about the entire united kingdom is “from Dan to Beersheba” (see the comments on 1 Kgs 4.25). The use of Geba as the northernmost point shows that only the southern kingdom is intended here. According to 1 Kgs 15.22 (see also 2 Chr 16.6), King Asa reinforced this city as one of Judah’s northern defenses. Geba was about 10 kilometers (6 miles) northeast of Jerusalem, and Beersheba was about 70 kilometers (43.5 miles) to the southwest. This expression, therefore, stresses the thoroughness of Josiah’s reform movement. Pagan worship was abolished throughout the entire territory of Judah. Good News Translation omits the place names and says simply “throughout the whole country.” But the meaning may be kept while also keeping the place names. Compare “from Geba just north of Jerusalem to Beersheba in the south” (Contemporary English Version) and “from Geba to Beersheba, from one end of the country to the other” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente; similarly Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje).

He broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua …: Some interpreters have suggested that the Hebrew noun translated of the gates should be slightly corrected to read “of the demons” (Revised English Bible, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy) or “of the satyrs” (New American Bible, Osty-Trinquet [a “satyr” is a forest deity with characteristics of a horse or goat]). Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje says “dedicated to the desert demons.” According to Lev 17.7, the Israelite people were no longer to offer sacrifices to goat demons (called “satyrs” in Revised Standard Version). This proposed change of the Masoretic Text is the basis for the Good News Translation rendering “dedicated to the goat demons.” Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text with “of the gates,” but it is not certain what this means.

It is possible to understand the Hebrew at the end of this verse in several different ways: (a) there were several high places in one city (either Jerusalem or Beersheba) located at one gate, which was called the gate of Joshua; (b) there were high places located at the gates of numerous cities from Geba to Beersheba, and one such place in one specific city was called the gate of Joshua.

The gate of Joshua refers to the gate built by the governor of the city whose name was Joshua. This person is not to be confused with the man named Joshua, the son of Nun, who was the assistant and successor of Moses (Num 11.28; Josh 1.1). The name, however, is the same. For governor see the comments at 1 Kgs 22.6.

It is not clear what city is referred to. If Jerusalem is the intended city, as is usually thought, then this is the only reference to a gate in Jerusalem by this name. Good News Translation implies that the reference is to Jerusalem, and Bible en français courant makes this explicit by saying “In Jerusalem he destroyed the altars…” (similarly New Living Translation, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje).

A few interpreters, however, think that the reference is to a gate in the city of Beersheba rather than Jerusalem. This is the basis for the Contemporary English Version rendering “He even tore down the shrine at Beersheba that was just to the left of Joshua Gate, which was named after the highest official of the city.” But since there is no certain evidence to support the interpretation found in Contemporary English Version, translators should not include the name of Beersheba in the text. In light of the uncertainty of meaning, it will be better not to make the name Jerusalem explicit here either.

Which were on one’s left at the gate of the city is literally “which [was/were] on the left hand of a man at the gate of the city.” It is not clear whether this means the high places were left of the city gate, as Revised Standard Version seems to suggest, or, more likely, that the gate of Joshua was left of the main gate (so Good News Translation). See also New Living Translation “This gate was located to the left of the city gate as one enters the city.” A literal translation is “on the left hand of a man at the gate of the city.” Probably what is intended is the perspective of a person going into the city. Some may have to adopt the following model of Jewish Publication Version in translating this part of the verse: “on a man’s left hand as he entered the gate of the city.” New American Bible provides a model that is perhaps somewhat smoother for some languages: “to the left as one enters the city gate.”

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 .

This verse is the same as 2 Kgs 23.32 and 37 except for the fact that the word for father is singular rather than plural. So in this case, instead of speaking of the ancestors of Jehoiachin generally, it refers specifically to Jehoiakim, who was his father and his immediate predecessor as king of Judah. With the exception of this detail, the verse may be translated as in the corresponding verses in the previous chapter. The pronoun he, however, will probably be replaced by the proper name “Jehoiachin,” as Good News Translation has done, for the sake of clarity. Translators may also introduce the name “Jehoiakim.” Compare Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch: “Jehoiachin did what displeased the LORD, just as his father Jehoiakim.”

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 .

But renders the Hebrew verbal transition marker that is sometimes translated “And it happened.” Here it is correctly translated in such a way as to show contrast since what happens in this verse is contrary to expectation. Gedaliah’s assurance that everything would go well is contradicted by the events described here.

In the seventh month: This does not mean the month of July. It refers to mid-September to mid-October. See the comments on the need for a glossary explanation of the calendar system in the Old Testament at verse 1. See also Appendix A, “The Hebrew Calendar.” Since Gedaliah apparently began his rule “In the fifth month” (verse 8), it is quite legitimate to translate here “about two months after Gedaliah began his rule” (Contemporary English Version).

Son of Nethaniah, son of Elishama may possibly sound as if one of the named persons is the father and the other is the mother of Ishmael. But this is clearly not the case. The meaning is that Nethaniah is the son of Elishama. Ishmael was, therefore, the “grandson of Elishama” as Good News Translation indicates. There can be no doubt that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah mentioned here is the same person as found in the list at verse 23.

Of the royal family is literally “of kingly seed.” Translators in some languages may need to make it clearer which royal family is intended here since this expression may have to be translated “of the tribe of the chief.” The man named Ishmael, who is at the center of this incident, is mentioned elsewhere only in the parallel passage in Jer 40–41. So it is difficult to be certain what royal family he was connected with. But it is virtually certain that he was an Israelite and not a member of a Babylonian royal clan. Biblia Dios Habla Hoy says “who was of the royal family of Judah” and the first edition of Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch says “who came from the family of King David.” Since the kings of Judah had several wives, it is not surprising that there would be many people who could claim “royal blood.” The parallel passage in Jer 40–41 provides greater detail about this case of treason. Ishmael was sent by the king of Ammon to betray Gedaliah, who trusted him in spite of warnings about his unfaithfulness.

Attacked and killed Gedaliah and the Jews and the Chaldeans: The Masoretic Text says “they attacked Gedaliah and he died and the Judeans and the Chaldeans.” Gray correctly notes that the accusative (direct object) forms “the Judeans and the Chaldeans” are very awkward in Hebrew following the verb “died.” For this reason Gray omits the words “and he died” and translates “they struck down Gedaliah and the Jews and the Chaldeans.” Other interpreters solve the grammatical difficulty by correcting “he died” to read “they killed” (so Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, La Bible Pléiade).

Even though the Hebrew is admittedly awkward, it is possible to make sense of it without correcting the verb. New Revised Standard Version, for example, says “they struck down Gedaliah so that he died, along with the Judeans and Chaldeans.” Compare also New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh: “they struck down Gedaliah and he died; [they also killed] the Judeans and the Chaldeans.”

The Jews translates the same Hebrew noun that Revised Standard Version renders “the men of Judah” in 2 Kgs 16.6. This noun literally means “someone belonging to the tribe of Judah,” but that is not the meaning it has in the Old Testament. Rather, it began to be used in the Babylonian period to refer to the Israelite people who lived in the province of Judea. Verse 21 refers to these same people as “Judah.” New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, and Osty-Trinquet say “the Judeans/Judaeans,” while other translations say “the Jews” (Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, New American Bible). The rendering “the Israelites” (Good News Translation) fails to keep the focus on the people of the southern kingdom of Judah.

Good News Translation shifts the specific mention of the place name Mizpah forward in this verse in order to show more clearly where Ishmael and his ten men went. The adverb “there” is then used later in the verse. This model may be helpful to translators in certain other languages.

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 biblical story of David does not record this promise that David made to Bathsheba (see also verse 30). It is not clear whether Nathan is making up this promise to fool a senile king or whether he is simply reminding Bathsheba of something that she already knew. Some scholars think that the name “Bathsheba” means “daughter of an oath,” in which case there may be an intentional play on words here with the Hebrew verb translated swear.

This verse contains several layers of direct quotation. Nathan began speaking in verse 11, so a quotation began there. Now in verse 13, Nathan tells Bathsheba what to say. Within the words that she is to say is another quotation of the words that David said to Bathsheba. Good News Translation restructures verse 13 so that it contains only one embedded quotation rather than two as in Revised Standard Version. In some cases, however, it will be necessary to translate in such a way as to avoid embedded quotations altogether (refer to the discussion on embedded quotations in “Translating 1–2 Kings,” pages 10-11). The following model may be helpful:

• Go immediately to King David and respectfully remind him that he definitely promised you that your son Solomon would replace him as king. Ask him how it is possible that Adonijah is calling himself king.

Go in at once to King David: Go in at once is literally “come, go to.” The imperative “come” is used here in the Hebrew as an introductory interjection. Anchor Bible translates this clause rather literally as “Go and come to the King David,” but such a translation is not recommended.

Did you not, my lord the king, swear to your maidservant: In the initial words that Bathsheba is to speak, she speaks of herself and the king in the third person as my lord the king and your maidservant. Good News Translation changes this to the second person but maintains the respectful attitude with the words “Your Majesty.” Some languages translate the latter phrase as “me, your maidservant.” The presence of the independent pronoun for you in the Masoretic Text may suggest that it is slightly emphatic. Anchor Bible, for example, uses italic font for the pronoun: “Did not you my lord…?”

The verb swear in this context should not be understood to mean “to curse” or “to use vulgar language,” as the English verb “to swear” sometimes means. The Hebrew verb here means “to take an oath.” The person who took an oath received a curse upon himself if he failed to keep his word or his promise. In Good News Translation the idea of this kind of swearing is contained in the expression “solemnly promise.”

Solomon your son …: The text has Bathsheba quoting David’s words in which he called Solomon your son, placing the emphasis on the fact that he is Bathsheba’s son (the pronoun your is feminine in Hebrew). But Good News Translation, changing to indirect discourse, has “my son.” In some languages, however, the most natural way of referring to the son of David and Bathsheba in a conversation between them may be to say “our son” if direct discourse is used.

The phrases shall reign after me and shall sit upon my throne in David’s words to Bathsheba are parallel in meaning. In some cases it may be wise to translate the words after me in such a way as to make it clear that this refers to the time after the death of David. Often in 1 Kings, the noun throne is used in the sense of “kingship.”

Contemporary English Version treats the first question in this verse as rhetorical by translating “You promised me that Solomon would be the next king.” In languages where rhetorical questions are problematic, this may be a good model to follow.

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 .

Once again, the qualifying terms the priest and the prophet may be omitted here since this information has been given previously.

Anointed: See the comments on verse 34. Parole de Vie does not mention Nathan in this verse, saying only in the first half of it, “Then, the priest Zadok consecrated him as king near to the spring of Gihon.” The reason for this omission is not clear; perhaps the omission was made in order to harmonize this verse with verse 39. But there is no manuscript evidence for such a translation, and it is not recommended.

Gihon is Gihon Spring. See the comments on verse 33.

They have gone up from there rejoicing, so that the city is in an uproar: Up from there is translated “all the way back to Jerusalem” by Contemporary English Version.

The Hebrew connector for so that is the common conjunction, but there is some indication that what follows is the result of what has already been said. In some languages the order of these elements may be reversed in order to show more clearly the cause and effect as follows: “the city is in an uproar because they have gone there with great rejoicing.”

The same unusual word for city as found in verse 41 is used here. But, as has already been indicated, there is no reason to search for a different word in the receptor language.

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 .