Who sets his heart to seek God: See the comments on 2 Chr 11.16. The petition of Hezekiah is not for all the people but is limited to those who are determined to worship God wholeheartedly. The assumption is that there were at least some of the people who had failed to perform the proper ritual cleansing, but who nevertheless were sincere in their desire to worship God. Hezekiah prays that in spite of their ritual impurity God might accept them as pure because of their sincere desire to worship him. This clause may be rendered “who sincerely desire to worship you.”

The LORD, the God of his fathers may be translated “the LORD, the God of our ancestors.”

Even though not according to the sanctuary’s rules of cleanness: The Passover regulations regarding ritual purity are found in Num 9.6-14. A possible model for this clause is “even though they have not observed the rules of purification for the Temple.”

The direct quotation that begins in the previous verse and concludes here may be transformed into indirect discourse by translating verses 18b-19 as follows:

• So Hezekiah prayed to the good LORD for these people that he would forgive every one 19 who sincerely desired to worship the LORD, the God of their ancestors, even if they had not observed the rules of purification for the sanctuary.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And he burned his sons as an offering is literally “And he caused his sons to pass through the fire.” See the comments on 2 Chr 28.3. Manasseh burned his sons to death as a sacrifice to the pagan gods in direct violation of the strict prohibition of such a practice in Deut 18.10. Other passages in the Old Testament reveal that children were burned in the worship of the god Molech, a god of the Ammonites, in Hinnom Valley (see 2 Kgs 23.10; Jer 32.35). While the Chronicler has his sons, the parallel text of 2 Kgs 21.6 has the singular “his son.” New Revised Standard Version and God’s Word harmonize the two passages, using the singular here, but such harmonization is not recommended in this case since there is no significant textual evidence to support the singular here.

For the valley of the son of Hinnom, see the comments on 2 Chr 28.3.

And practiced soothsaying and augury and sorcery, and dealt with mediums and with wizards: The precise meanings of the Hebrew terms used here are unknown. These terms, as well as other terms in the same semantic category, often are used together and denote various kinds of magic and divination. All these activities were forbidden by the Law of Moses (see Lev 19.26; Deut 18.9-14).

The Hebrew verb rendered practiced soothsaying comes from a root meaning “to cause to appear,” but there is not agreement among scholars as to exactly what the word really means. If there is a relationship between the Hebrew word here and the noun for “cloud,” as some scholars think, this may suggest that Manasseh studied the clouds in order to understand the future. A soothsayer was probably one who observed the times and looked for signs of things to come and who practiced magic.

The exact meaning of the Hebrew verb translated practiced … augury is also difficult to determine with certainty. It probably has to do with predicting or foretelling the future based on signs and omens. Some prefer to translate it “practiced … divination” (New International Version, Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). The English word augury was originally related to birds. A Roman “augur” was an official who was thought to be able to foretell the future by observing the behavior of birds. But the English word has now taken on the broader meaning of “divination” or discovering secret knowledge by consulting spirits. The precise methods used in the Old Testament times are unknown.

The Hebrew verb translated practiced … sorcery has to do with witchcraft and the practice of magic. It may have concerned the use of evil spirits to control events and to bring about desired goals.

The Hebrew nouns for mediums and wizards refer to people who claimed to have insight into the spiritual world by dealing with ghosts and other spiritual beings. These two nouns almost always appear together (see, for example, Lev 19.31, where it is prohibited to consult such persons, and 1 Sam 28. 3, 9). Mediums were individuals who consulted the spirits of dead people (see the comments on 1 Chr 10.13). Some versions use the technical term “necromancers” (New American Bible, La Bible de Jérusalem: Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée, El libro del Pueblo de Dios), that is, people who consult the spirits of the dead in order to reveal the future or influence future events. The Hebrew noun for wizards comes from the verb meaning “to know” and seems to refer to persons who had the knowledge to consult the spirits of dead persons. It seems to focus more on their ability to foretell the future. The precise distinctions between these two words is not clear. Nouvelle version Segond révisée, normally a rather literal translation, renders these two terms as “people who invoked the dead and who predicted the future.”

He did much evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger: This statement about the reign of Manasseh provides a summary of what has already been said in verses 2-6a and then declares the result of his sinful actions: his corrupt and immoral lifestyle caused the LORD to become very angry. For provoking him to anger, see the comments on 2 Chr 28.25.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Then Shaphan the secretary told the king: Then translates the common Hebrew conjunction. It merely indicates the continuation of the story. Shaphan was identified in verse 15 as the secretary. Since he began speaking to the king in verse 16, it seems stylistically heavy in some languages to repeat the name and his position again so soon in verse 18. Good News Translation renders this whole clause simply as “Then he added.” Contemporary English Version omits this clause so that there is no break in Hilkiah’s message to the king.

Hilkiah the priest has given me a book: As in verse 14, it may be more natural to omit the words the priest (so Good News Translation). It is appropriate to say a book since the king had no previous knowledge of the discovery of the book as described in verse 14. The Hebrew has no definite article.

And Shaphan read it before the king: This clause does not mean Shaphan read the book silently to himself in the presence of the king. Rather, he “read it aloud to the king” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation), as the next verse makes clear. Read it is literally “read from it” (New International Version, Revised English Bible, New American Bible, La Bible Pléiade), which may mean that he read parts of it but not all of it. The parallel text of 2 Kgs 22.10 says simply he “read it.” New Jerusalem Bible says he “read extracts from it.” But it is doubtful that the Hebrew grammar supports such a distinction. La Bible du Semeur says he “began to read it,” but this rendering does not seem to express the meaning of the Hebrew.

If it is necessary to convert the direct quotation of this verse to an indirect statement, the following model may be considered:

• Then Shaphan told the king that Hilkiah had given him a book. So Shaphan read from it [aloud] in the presence of the king.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

No passover like it had been kept in Israel …: It is not clear in what manner this Passover was so different from all others. According to 2 Kgs 23.22-23, this Passover was unlike any other before, because it was celebrated in Jerusalem. But here in 2 Chronicles, Hezekiah had already celebrated the Passover in Jerusalem, so the sense may be that the Levites were more prominent, or that the offerings were offered exactly as the Law required, or that all the tribes of Israel attended. The passive verb had been kept may be made active by making the people of Israel the subject of the sentence as follows: “The people of Israel had never observed a Passover celebration like this….” Another possible rendering is “No one had ever celebrated a Passover like this….”

Samuel lived about four hundred years before King Josiah.

None of the kings of Israel had kept such a passover as was kept by Josiah …: Since Josiah himself was also a king, translators may render none of the kings of Israel as “none of the other kings of Israel.” Good News Translation says “None of the former kings.” The passive expression was kept by Josiah may be stated actively as “Josiah kept/celebrated.”

Judah and Israel refer to the southern and northern kingdoms.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The sons of Gomer: Here the word sons is used in the broader sense of “descendants” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New Living Translation, New American Bible). In the previous verses sons was intended literally, but here it will be better to say “descendants.” Another possibility is to change the focus slightly by beginning this verse with “Gomer was the ancestor of” (Contemporary English Version). The descendants of Gomer consist of three branches.

Ashkenaz is also listed as the first son/descendant of Gomer in Gen 10.3. His descendants lived in the area between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, and later became known as the Scythians.

The Masoretic Text reads Diphath, but many Hebrew manuscripts as well as the Septuagint and the Vulgate read “Riphath,” which seems to be a correction to make the name agree with the one in Gen 10.3. The Hebrew letters for “d” and “r” are similar in shape, so copyists frequently confused them. Since neither name is known apart from their mention in these two verses, there is no way to know whether the correct name is “Diphath” (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, Bible en français courant, La Bible du Semeur, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) or “Riphath” (Good News Translation, New International Version, New Living Translation, Bible de Jérusalem, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, El libro del Pueblo de Dios, Nueva Versión Internacional, Reina-Valera revisada, Osty-Trinquet, Peregrino. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {C} rating to the reading in the Masoretic Text: “Diphath.”

The book of Ezekiel twice refers to the descendants of Togarmah, and the context suggests that they lived north of Israel.

Several times in the remainder of this chapter there are differences in the spelling of some names that have parallels in Genesis. Often the difference is between the Hebrew letters for “d” and “r,” as in the case of Diphath and Riphath in this verse. There was also confusion between the Hebrew letter waw , which could function as a “w,” “o,” or “u,” and the Hebrew letter yod, which could function as a “y,” “i,” or “e.” For example, the first consonant in the Hebrew name for “Ebal” in verse 22 is written with a yod, but the same person’s name begins with a waw in Gen 10.28, so it is spelled “Obal.” Translators will need to decide whether to use the same spelling in the receptor language in both Genesis and 1 Chronicles, or whether to maintain the differences and explain them in a footnote. The decision will be determined by the type of translation being done and the intended audience. Functional equivalent translations are more likely to use the same spelling for Genesis and 1 Chronicles in the receptor language.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Magdi-el is mentioned by the Christian historian Eusebius in the early fourth century A.D. as a place name, so some interpreters regard this as a place name rather than a person’s name.

Iram: Nothing more is known regarding this chief.

These are the chiefs of Edom: Good News Translation leaves out the repetition of this information given in verse 51. But in languages where such repetition is not considered unnatural, this statement may be retained in translation. The Hebrew has no verb in this clause. A better translation may be “these were the chiefs of Edom” (similarly Knoppers).

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Good News Translation restructures verse 36-41 and introduces “Elishama,” the last person in Attai’s family line, from verse 41. This gives the reader an idea of the overall significance of these verses, that is, that they refer to the family line from Attai to Elishama. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch provides another possible model for verses 36-41, saying “Attai begot Nathan, Nathan begot Zabad, Zabad Ephlal, then follow in a direct line Obed, Jehu, Azariah, Helez, Eleasah, Sismai, Shallum, Jekamiah and Elishama.”

The Hebrew name Nathan means “gift.” There are at least six different people who bear this name in the Old Testament, including the prophet who was active at the time of King David. But the reference here is not to that prophet.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .