Along with all their villages which were round about these cities as far as Baal: Baal is the reading of the Masoretic Text, but some Septuagint manuscripts read “Baalath” along with the parallel text in the Masoretic Text of Josh 19.8, which calls the town “Baalath-beer.” A number of modern versions follow the Septuagint here (so Good News Translation, New International Version, New Century Version, New Jerusalem Bible, American Bible, Bible en français courant, Parole de Vie). Good News Translation adds “southwest,” but since the exact identification of Baal, or “Baalath,” is unknown, it is probably better not to add an indication of direction.

They kept a genealogical record is literally “to keep a record for them.” The Hebrew verb here is used frequently in the books of 1–2 Chronicles as well as in Ezra (2.62; 8.1, 3) and Nehemiah (7.5, 64). One possible translation for this clause is “they wrote the history of their family” (New Century Version). Others may say “they wrote down lists of the names of their family members.” Some interpreters think that the intended meaning here is that they kept a list of those eligible for military service (see the comments on verse 38). The Hebrew does not say that the descendants of Simeon kept a record of the places where they lived, as Good News Translation, states. It says only that they kept a record of the families.

The following verses seem unrelated to the context, and perhaps for this reason some translations begin a new paragraph with the clause they kept a genealogical record and connect it with verse 34. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, for example, takes this as an introduction to the following verses, translating as follows: “Registered in their genealogy were: 34 Meshobab…” (similarly Revised English Bible, Peregrino, Klein).

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 Kohath …: This verse is almost the same as Exo 6.18. Once again there is no verb in Hebrew, and this is reflected in Revised Standard Version. Many modern versions provide possible models for those languages that require a verb in such a context.

Four sons of Kohath are listed, but it is the descendants of Amram who are listed in the following verses. Kohath’s four sons are listed again in verse 18.

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 Tola …: The single sentence of Revised Standard Version for this verse, which has no main verb, is divided into three separate sentences in Good News Translation. This may be a helpful model for many other languages. New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible provide other possible models with only two sentences in each case.

The Hebrew name transliterated Shemuel is the same one for “Samuel.” Most translations say Shemuel here, perhaps to avoid confusion with the name of the prophet Samuel, but some do have “Samuel” (New International Version, New Century Version, An American Translation, American Bible, Nouvelle Bible Segond, Braun).

Heads of their father’s houses, namely of Tola: Biblia Dios Habla Hoy says “the leaders of the families of Tola.” Other translations include “chiefs of their families” (Moffatt) and “they were leaders of their families” (New Century Version). But the sense is not that Tola’s sons were heads of their immediate families but rather “Each of them was the leader of an ancestral clan” (New Living Translation). For heads of their father’s houses, see the comments on 1 Chr 5.24.

Mighty warriors of their generations: For mighty warriors, see the comments on 1 Chr 5.24. An American Translation has “distinguished warriors,” while New Century Version speaks of “fighting men.” The Hebrew expression translated of their generations is attached to the preceding words in the Masoretic Text, which is followed by Revised Standard Version. Compare also “mighty warriors in their generation” (Moffatt). It is possible, however, to attach this expression to what follows, as in La Bible Pléiade, which says “whose numbers according to their genealogies were, at the time of David, twenty-two thousand six hundred” (similarly Traduction œcuménique de la Bible).

Their number in the days of David being twenty-two thousand six hundred: 1 Chr 21 tells of a census of Israel taken while David was king. Since this census seems to be behind the phrase in the days of David, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente says “In the census taken at the time of David, their descendants were twenty-two thousand six hundred.” The number twenty-two thousand six hundred refers to the descendants of Tola, and not to all of Issachar’s descendants. Although the Hebrew does not state in this verse that the 22,600 were available for military service, the numbers in verses 2-5 appear to come from a military census (see verses 7, 9, 11). New Living Translation is probably correct in rendering the last half of this verse as “At the time of King David, the total number of men available for military service from these families was 22,600.” Compare also “In the family history of Tola’s descendants, twenty-two thousand six hundred men were listed as fighting men during the time David was king” (New Century Version) and “During the reign of David, the descendants of Tola listed as fighting men in their genealogy numbered 22,600” (New International Version).

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 Ulla …: As in verses 36 and 38, Good News Translation renders sons as “descendants.” None of the persons named in this verse appear elsewhere in the Old Testament in lists of Asher’s descendants, so it is impossible to know whether the three sons were brothers or descendants in linear fashion. Some interpreters think that Ulla originally had the Hebrew equivalent of the letter “m” in the middle of the name, and that Ulla is in fact “Amal,” the fourth son of Hotham (see the comments on verses 36-37). If so, then verses 36-39 list the sons of Hotham’s four sons.

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 .

Now the first to dwell again …: See Neh 7.73. Some interpreters have understood the following list to refer to people who settled in Jerusalem after David conquered it (see the additional comments at the end of this verse). But nearly all modern scholars understand these words as referring to the return of the people from captivity in Babylonia to the land of Israel. Many languages will require a more explicit translation of what is implied by the first; for example, “the first exiles,” “the first inhabitants” (Jewish Publication Version), or “the first people” (Contemporary English Version, New Century Version). Revised Standard Version has added the word again (also Peregrino, which is not in the Hebrew. Since verse 1 shows that this chapter is dealing with those Israelites who returned from exile, the sense of the Hebrew clearly permits the addition of the word again. New Century Version conveys the same meaning by adding a verb indicating the return of these Israelites from exile: “The first people to come back and live….”

In their possessions: The general Hebrew term translated possessions refers to “lands” (New Century Version) or “property” (Good News Translation, New International Version) in this context.

In their cities: This phrase specifies the location of the land or property. It was in the cities that had previously belonged to the people of Israel.

Israel here refers to the people or “citizens” (Good News Translation) of Israel. Since the remainder of the verse speaks of religious workers, it is clear that the reference in this case is to those who were not a part of the religious establishment. For this reason Moffatt translates “the laity of Israel,” and An American Translation speaks of “Israelite laymen.” Another acceptable rendering is “lay Israelites” (Revised English Bible, New American Bible).

The priests: The term priest refers to the person who offers sacrifices. In the Old Testament the office of the priesthood was limited to the tribe of Levi, and more specifically to one family of that tribe, the family of Aaron. The priests served as intermediaries between God and the people of Israel. Regulations with regard to the qualifications of priests are given in Lev 21.16-23. In some cultures there is an organized priesthood that is involved in ritual matters involving healing or consulting the spirits of ancestors. In some cases the word used for this office may be used to translate priest. But if the term is considered unacceptable, translators may use a descriptive expression such as “offerer of sacrifices” or “sacrifice-making person.” If at all possible, the church’s term for priest should be avoided since it probably refers to someone whose tasks are very different from those of priests in the Old Testament.

The Levites included all of the Temple personnel from the tribe of Levi who were not priests.

And the temple servants: The Hebrew term rendered temple servants is transliterated “Nethinim” in older translations such as King James Version, Nouvelle version Segond révisée and Crampon, but scholars generally agree that the reference is to people other than priests and Levites who worked in the Temple. This class of subordinate worker is mentioned elsewhere only in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, where they are one of the five divisions of Temple personnel along with the priests, Levites, singers, and gatekeepers. The Hebrew word nethinim literally means “those who have been given.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh translates “the given ones” (similarly La Sainte Bible: La version Etablie par les moines de Maredsous), but such a literal translation will probably have no meaning for the reader. New Living Translation refers to them as “Temple assistants.” On the basis of parallels in other ancient Near Eastern cultures, some interpreters think that the Hebrew word refers to Temple slaves. This is the basis for the translation “temple slaves” (New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible). More likely, the Hebrew word refers to a cultic guild of Temple personnel, and a translation such as “Temple servants” is recommended (so Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

As noted above, some interpreters think this chapter concerns the population of an ideal Jerusalem at the time when David was king. In support of this view, as noted above, is the fact that the Masoretic Text does not have the word again. Johnstone follows this interpretation by translating verse 2 literally as “The original inhabitants, who were in their holding in their cities, were Israel, the priests, the Levites and the nᵉtînîm.” According to this alternative interpretation, chapter 9 is not a “fast forward” to the exile and the return of the people after the exile. It rather picks up from 1 Chr 8.28 and 32, and it prepares for the time of David and the monarchy.

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 .

Rephaiah is called “Raphah” in the parallel text of 2 Chr 8.37 (see the comments there).

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 renders the common Hebrew conjunction and not the temporal adverb used twice in verse 16. It is merely a transition marker, but in this context some may find it natural to translate it “So” (New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) since what happens next is a result of the situation described in the two previous verses. Revised English Bible and New Jerusalem Bible make the connection by beginning this verse with “At this.” New American Bible has “Thereupon,” which is hardly common language, but it does capture the meaning of the transition needed in this context.

The three mighty men refers to the three men mentioned in verse 12.

Broke through the camp of the Philistines: The Hebrew verb rendered broke through means “to split” or “to force an opening,” and often has a nuance of violence. Translations such as Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation correctly indicate that a fierce battle took place. International Children’s Bible similarly says that the three soldiers “fought their way through the Philistine army,” and American Bible has “broke into the Philistine garrison.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says they “got through the Philistine camp.” Some interpreters think it is more likely that this was a secret operation at night, so Contemporary English Version has “sneaked through the Philistine camp.” This may also be expressed as “infiltrated the Philistine camp.” Revised English Bible has a somewhat more neutral rendering: “made their way through the Philistine lines.” However, translations such as “sneaked through” or “made their way through” do not seem to be forceful enough to represent the Hebrew verb, although the connotation of violence is not always present in the use of this Hebrew verb. Both interpretations are possible. While the latter interpretation seems more logical, the former one is probably more in keeping with the vocabulary used in the Hebrew text.

And drew water out of the well of Bethlehem which was by the gate, and took and brought it to David: As noted in the comments on verse 15, the distance between Bethlehem and David’s location near Adullam was about 20 kilometers. It will be unwise in some languages to imitate Revised Standard Version‘s literal translation in the use of the two verbs took and brought when a single verb will serve the same purpose.

But David would not drink it: But renders the common Hebrew conjunction, but there is a clear need for a connector that marks contrast since David’s response was not what the reader would expect. American Bible has “however.” David would not drink of it is literally “David was not willing to drink them.” Revised Standard Version uses the singular pronoun it as English requires. Several French versions render this clause as “he did not want to drink it.” In some languages it may be more natural to say “he refused to drink it” (New Century Version, Revised English Bible).

He poured it out to the LORD is literally “he poured them out to the LORD.” Once again Revised Standard Version uses the singular pronoun it. The vocabulary used here is that of a “libation” (New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible; compare Gen 35.14). Although David wanted very much to drink the water, he offered it to the LORD as a sacrifice. Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente specifies that he poured it out “on the ground.”

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 .