When all Israel heard that Jeroboam had returned: See verses 2-3a. In some languages it may be necessary to state where Jeroboam had been (“from Egypt” in Good News Translation and Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje) or where he had returned (“to the country” in Moffatt).

For all Israel, see the comments on verse 1. Contemporary English Version states in a footnote on this verse, “From this time on, ‘Israel’ usually refers to the northern kingdom, and ‘Israelites’ refers to the people who lived there. The southern kingdom is called ‘Judah.’ ” Rather than rely on footnotes, however, translators are encouraged to make this information explicit and clear in the text itself (see the comments on verse 16).

They sent and called him: See verse 3. Here the meaning of the verbs sent and called together is simply “summoned” (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). But some may prefer to say “they sent messengers and summoned him” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

The assembly: Other renderings include “a meeting of the people” (Good News Translation) and “a popular assembly” (Moffatt). As noted earlier, verse 20 seems to contradict the information in verse 3. According to verse 3, the people had called Jeroboam to be with them when they had their first meeting with Rehoboam (verses 3-5). But verse 20 seems to imply that Jeroboam is meeting now for the first time with the people of the northern tribes. In any case, Jeroboam was not made king until verse 20. Some interpreters solve this difficulty by saying that the Hebrew noun for assembly in verse 3 refers to an assembly of representatives, while the different Hebrew noun here in verse 20 refers to the people as a whole. See the comments on verse 3 regarding these two Hebrew nouns.

There was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only: Revised Standard Version follows the form of the Hebrew here. New Jerusalem Bible is similar with “no one remained loyal to the House of David, except the tribe of Judah.” In some languages it will be more natural to avoid the none … but construction and state this positively as in Good News Translation.

That the tribe of Judah only remained loyal to Rehoboam fulfilled the prophecy of the prophet Ahijah (1 Kgs 11.35-36). This statement seems to contradict the evidence of verses 21-24 that both Judah and Benjamin remained loyal. Perhaps the difference is explained by the fact that the tribe of Judah absorbed the small tribe of Benjamin and the two came to be regarded as a single tribe. Later writers often refer to “Judah and Benjamin” as a single unit (for example, 2 Chr 11.1, 3, 12, 23; 14.8; 15.2; Ezra 1.5; 4.1; Neh 11.36). The Septuagint translation of this verse and of verse 23 says “Judah and Benjamin,” but this reading is clearly not original and should not be followed.

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 .

The subject of the verb went away must be the prophet from Judah.

A lion met him on the road and killed him: In languages where lions are unknown, it will be possible to use a more general expression for lion, such as “ferocious animal” or something similar. The fact that the lion did not attack the ass was a sign that what happened was out of the ordinary. Elsewhere also in the Old Testament, lions are sent to punish people (1 Kgs 20.36; 2 Kgs 17.25).

The verb met may seem too mild for this context. For this reason some modern versions use a verb like “attacked” (New Century Version, Contemporary English Version). The Hebrew verb here has the sense of “to come upon unexpectedly.” In this context it is possible to follow La Bible du Semeur, which says “pounced on.”

His body was thrown in the road: See the comments on the same Hebrew noun rendered body in verse 22. In this context some languages will translate the word “remains,” “corpse” (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), or “cadaver” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant). The Hebrew says that the body was thrown on the road. Possibly the sense is that the lion tossed the body to the ground from the back of the donkey, but many translations say simply that the body “lay” on the road (so Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

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 .

For the parallel account of verses 25-28, see 2 Chr 12.2-12, which is considerably longer. The author of 1 Kings does not tell why Shishak invaded Judah, but the author of 2 Chronicles says that it was punishment for the fact that Rehoboam was not faithful to God. An inscription discovered by archaeologists on the wall of a temple in Karnak names 154 towns that Shishak claims to have destroyed during this invasion.

The Hebrew of this verse begins with the verbal transition meaning “And it happened” (King James Version “And it came to pass”), but the beginning of a new paragraph is sufficient to express it here (so Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation).

The fifth year of King Rehoboam refers, of course, to the fifth year of his reign.

Regarding Shishak king of Egypt, see the comments on 1 Kgs 11.40. Although the Masoretic Text has the spelling “Shushak” here in verse 25, the reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text gives the spelling Shishak.

Came up against is rendered by Good News Translation and many other versions according to the context as “attacked.” Anchor Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh say “marched against.”

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 .

This verse may be taken as a summary of what has been previously described (Good News Translation) or as a fulfillment of the plans made in the earlier verses. It is probably better to understand it as simply fixing the precise time when these events occurred.

Reigned in his stead is a literal translation of the Hebrew. Verse 25 stated that Nadab became king of Israel, but in order to help readers keep clear which kings ruled in which kingdoms, a translation such as Good News Translation or Contemporary English Version (“Baasha became king of Israel”) may provide a good model. Others may prefer to say “took his place as king of Israel” or something similar.

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 .

And renders the Hebrew verbal transition that is sometimes translated “And it happened” or “And it came to pass” (Jewish Publication Version). Like Good News Translation, most modern versions do not render it explicitly in this case.

As if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, he took … is literally “was it a light thing his walking in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat? And he took….” The Hebrew interrogative particle here sometimes has the sense of “if” or “whether.” In this context it should probably be translated as if. This complex structure must be simplified in many languages. The words as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam seem to be an indication that Ahab considered it insignificant that he imitated the wrongdoing of Jeroboam. In some languages this may be translated as a separate sentence like “Ahab did not give a second thought to imitating the sins of Jeroboam” or “Following the evildoing of Jeroboam was not at all important in the eyes of Ahab.”

To walk in the sins of Jeroboam is a common judgment on the kings of Israel (see verses 2, 19, 26).

Regarding the words the son of Nebat, see the comments on verse 3.

Ethbaal king of the Sidonians: Ethbaal is usually considered to be the king of Tyre who is called Ithobalos by the first-century Jewish historian Josephus. He ruled for thirty-two years (887–856 B.C.) over the kingdom of Tyre, which included the city of Sidon. If this identification is accepted, then the word Sidonians is being used in the extended sense of “Phoenicians” (see the comments on “the Sidonians” at 1 Kgs 5.6). Some translations say “King Ethbaal of the Phoenicians” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), and such a rendering is acceptable. There is, however, some evidence that king of the Sidonians was an official title of the kings of Sidon, so the identification of Ethbaal with Ithobalos of Tyre is not certain.

Went and served Baal and worshiped him: Hebrew uses three verbs here for what is essentially one action. Good News Translation combines the three verbs into the one verb “worshiped.”

Baal was a Canaanite storm god and fertility god, whose female counterpart was sometimes Astarte and sometimes Asherah (additional comments on these goddesses may be found in 1 Kgs 11.5). This god was worshiped in various countries of the ancient Near Eastern world. Sometimes the Old Testament refers to Baals, that is, the plural form is used. It is not certain whether the plural refers to various different Canaanite gods in general or whether it refers to the various local manifestations of the same god.

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 .

So: The common Hebrew conjunction at the beginning of this verse may be taken as a logical connector, as in Revised Standard Version and a number of other versions. The result of the proposition of the previous verse was the agreement to separate from each other and search in different parts of the country.

To pass through it is a literal rendering of the Hebrew. Of course, Ahab and Obadiah were not simply passing through the land; they were searching for water and grass for their animals. Some translations use a more specific expression according to the context. Compare “explore” (Good News Translation, New American Bible) and “for [the purpose of] their survey” (Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible).

Ahab went in one direction by himself …: Good News Translation has simplified the second half of this verse, while Revised Standard Version gives a literal translation.

The words by himself, which occur twice in this verse in the Masoretic Text, probably do not mean that these two men went alone, but rather that they were separated from each other.

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 .

The fire of the LORD fell: In the Old Testament fire is frequently associated with God’s presence (Exo 3.2) or his punishment of people (2 Kgs 1.10). In Jdg 6.21 a fire from God consumes a sacrifice. The sense of the words the fire of the LORD may not be clear if translated literally. Here it may be better to say something like “the fire that the LORD sent.” The original readers would probably have understood the fire of the LORD to be lightning, but translators should not be more specific here than the Hebrew text is.

To state that the fire of the LORD fell may give the impression that the event was accidental or haphazard. But the clear intent of the text is to show that Yahweh acted in response to Elijah’s prayer to show his power. For this reason it may be advisable to make the LORD the subject of the sentence by stating more actively that he “sent fire down” as Good News Translation does. Contemporary English Version makes the scene more dramatic by adding an adverb as follows: “The LORD immediately sent fire.” The Hebrew text of verses 38-39 says that the fire fell, and as a result, the people “fell” on their faces. While the same Hebrew verb is used in these two verses, it may not be possible to preserve this connection in the receptor language.

Some scholars consider the words and the stones, and the dust to be a scribal addition to the original text, and indeed these words are omitted in some Greek manuscripts. For this reason New Jerusalem Bible does not translate this part of the verse. Perhaps a scribe omitted these words because people do not usually think of stones and dust being consumed by fire. But translators should follow the Masoretic Text here.

Licked up the water: The basic meaning of the Hebrew verb translated licked up is “to eat.” In this context the meaning is that the fire completely dried up the water.

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 .

The Hebrew begins this verse with the common conjunction that is sometimes overlooked by modern translations. New American Bible uses the contrasting conjunction “But,” while New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and New Century Version take it as a temporal connection by translating “Then.” It may be better, however, to follow the model of Good News Translation, which translates the transition word in such a way as to indicate the passage of a certain amount of time between the first encounter and this one.

The messengers came again, and said: Good News Translation makes it explicit that Benhadad’s messengers were speaking to “Ahab.”

Thus says Ben-hadad is literally “Thus says Benhadad saying.”

I sent to you: The Hebrew text has the short word ki to begin this clause, but neither Revised Standard Version nor Good News Translation translates it. One function of this Hebrew particle is that it may introduce direct speech, in which case it is represented by quotation marks in English. This Hebrew word has a wide range of other uses, including the expression of cause (“because”) and condition (“if”). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh takes it as a conjunction expressing a time relationship, so it says “When I sent you.” Gray translates it as an adversative particle by saying “Nay, but I have sent to you.” It may also be understood as a particle that indicates emphasis. Walsh renders it “See here! I sent to you,” and this may well be the best rendering in this context. Verse 6 begins with this same Hebrew word, which Revised Standard Version translates there as “nevertheless.”

Deliver to me your silver …: The wording used in this verse for Benhadad’s demand is not the same as in verse 3. In this case the Hebrew verb for “give/deliver” is used, but there seems to be no difference in meaning. If there is a difference in meaning, perhaps all that Benhadad was saying in verse 3 was that he exercised authority over all of Ahab’s kingdom, but now he is demanding that Ahab Deliver to him all of his possessions.

This verse contains the same problem of more than one level of quotation as found in verse 2, but in this case there are three levels of quotation instead of two. So this may require a somewhat more creative solution. Contemporary English Version provides one possible model for this verse as follows:

• Later, Benhadad sent another messenger to say to Ahab, “I already told you to give me your silver and gold, your wives, and your children.”

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 .