Therefore translates the common Hebrew conjunction. Since it functions here to introduce a logical consequence of verse 10, it may also be translated “So” (Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

The LORD brought upon them the commanders of the army of the king of Assyria: Brought is literally “caused to come.” It may be more naturally translated “sent” (New Living Translation), “let … invade” (Good News Translation), or “made … invade” (God’s Word). The pronoun them refers to Manasseh and the people of Judah.

Who took Manasseh with hooks: An Assyrian inscription on a baked clay prism records that Manasseh was one of twenty-two vassal kings summoned to Nineveh by King Esarhaddon of Assyria, son of Sennacherib. The Hebrew noun for hooks means “thorn” (see 2 Chr 25.18, where it is rendered “thistle”), but it is used here metaphorically for a hook. Exactly what these objects were and how they were used is uncertain. Revised English Bible says “they captured Manasseh with spiked weapons.” A relief from Zenjirli, in northern Syria, shows King Esarhaddon holding two prisoners by ropes passed through rings in their noses. This is the basis for the NET Bible rendering “put hooks in his nose.” New Revised Standard Version and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh say “who took Manasseh captive in manacles [that is, handcuffs],” but we do not recommend this interpretation.

And bound him with fetters of bronze: The word fetters refers to shackles or chains for the feet. The Hebrew noun here refers to copper or bronze and is sometimes used of fetters made of bronze (see Jdg 16.21; 2 Sam 3.34; 2 Chr 36.6; Jer 52.11; see also WTH, page 225|fig:WTH.chain.223-225.html). Some versions do not indicate that the chains were made of bronze (so New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). But there is no good reason to omit this information in translation.

And brought him to Babylon: The Hebrew verb here may be translated either brought or “took” (Good News Translation, New International Version). In English brought normally indicates action toward the person telling the story, whereas “took” indicates action away from where the author is located. Some translations avoid this issue by translating the whole clause as “and led him away to Babylon” (New Living Translation) or “and led him off to Babylon” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). At this time in Judah’s history, the city of Babylon was under Assyrian authority.

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 .

So Hilkiah and those whom the king had sent went to Huldah …: The Masoretic Text is literally “And Hilkiah went and those whom the king to Huldah….” The Revised Standard Version reading follows the Vulgate and the Syriac. The Septuagint says “And Hilkiah and those to whom the king had spoken went to Huldah….” Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {C} rating to the Masoretic Text here. But most languages will have to supply words such as “had sent” or “had spoken.” Even King James Version adds the words “had appointed” in this verse, and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh supplies the words “had ordered” but places them in square brackets to show that they were not a part of the original text. Following the Septuagint, Revised English Bible says “Hilkiah and those whom the king had instructed went to Huldah….”

Huldah the prophetess performed the same functions as a male prophet. Although Good News Translation says “prophet,” the Hebrew noun here is feminine, as reflected in the Revised Standard Version rendering prophetess. Archaeological evidence confirms the existence of female prophets in the ancient Near East. Huldah is the only female prophet mentioned in 1-2 Chronicles. The first part of her prophecy came true (verse 28a), but her prophecy that Josiah would die in peace (verse 28b) did not come true (see 2 Chr 35.23-24).

The text provides a detailed explanation of who Huldah was in terms of her husband Shallum, with details about his lineage (the son of Tokhath, [who was] son of Hasrah) and his occupation (keeper of the wardrobe). The parallel text in 2 Kgs 22.14 has the name “Tikvah” instead of Tokhath. A number of versions follow the parallel text in reading “Tikvah” here also (so Good News Translation, Revised English Bible). Revised English Bible changes to “Tikvah” on the assumption that the name Tokhath is not the original reading here. In the case of Good News Translation, it seems that the translators have simply used the same form of the name as in 2 Kings for the sake of consistency.

Instead of Hasrah, the parallel text in 2 Kgs 22.14 has the variant spelling “Harhas,” which is the form used here also in some versions (so Good News Translation, Moffatt).

Keeper of the wardrobe: There is no explicit indication of whose clothing Shallum was responsible for. In light of 2 Kgs 10.22, the wardrobe may refer to special garments used at religious functions. Some interpreters think that he was in charge of the priests’ clothes that they wore while on duty in the Temple. This is the basis for the translation “was in charge of the Temple robes” (Good News Translation, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy; similarly Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). But other commentators seem to agree that he was in the employ of the king and was in charge of the king’s wardrobe; for example, Contemporary English Version says “who was in charge of the king’s clothes,” and Knox has “that once kept the royal wardrobe.” If translators choose to make explicit one of these two interpretations, the alternative interpretation may be stated in a footnote.

Now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter: The text further describes Huldah in terms of the place where she lived. Her residence was in a part of Jerusalem called the Second Quarter (Mishneh in Hebrew). In addition to the parallel passage in 2 Kgs 22.14, this section of Jerusalem is mentioned also in Zeph 1.10. The Hebrew term Mishneh is often said to refer to a district on the northern side of the city which had been built more recently than many other parts. However, some scholars believe it was located on the western hill of Jerusalem. In any case, it refers to a newer part of the city, so Good News Translation renders in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter as “in the newer part of Jerusalem.” Similarly, New Jerusalem Bible says “in Jerusalem in the new town.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh transliterates the Hebrew word for Second Quarter, saying “in Jerusalem in the Mishneh,” but this is not recommended since it will have no meaning for the average reader.

The order in which the various elements describing Huldah are given in translation will depend on what is natural in the receptor language. One possible approach is to use two sentences based on the following model of New Century Version: “She was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, who took care of the king’s clothes. Huldah lived in Jerusalem, in the new area of the city.”

And spoke to her to that effect: After a rather lengthy description of who Huldah was, the text finally says that the delegation from Josiah spoke to her. In some languages a different verb may be required. Some English versions use “consulted” (Revised English Bible) or “told” (Knox). In those languages in which the pronouns “him” and “her” are identical, it may be wise to substitute the proper name “Huldah” for the pronoun her. To that effect is literally “like this,” which refers to the task given to them by the king. One possible model for this clause is “They talked to Huldah about the king’s request.”

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 the archers shot King Josiah: The archers who shot the arrows at King Josiah were Egyptians. Good News Translation expresses this information by saying “Josiah was struck by Egyptian arrows.”

And the king said to his servants: The servants involved in warfare with Josiah would be his “bodyguard” (Revised English Bible) or possibly some of his “officers” (New International Version, God’s Word).

Take me away, for I am badly wounded: This direct quotation reflects the Hebrew, but some languages will prefer indirect discourse here. A possible model is “he instructed his protectors to take him out of the battle because of his severe injury.” Another possible model is found in Revised English Bible, which reads “he was severely wounded and told his bodyguard to take him away.”

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 name of Abishur’s wife was Abihail, and she bore him Ahban and Molid: Abishur was one of the sons of Shammai (verse 28), a grandson of Onam and great-grandson of Jerahmeel. The Revised Standard Version rendering for this verse reflects the order of the Hebrew, but it supplies the verb was, which is not in the original. Good News Translation restructures the verse, providing the verb “married” and translating she bore him as “they had.” Good News Translation also specifies “two sons” before naming them. Some of these changes may be useful in other languages, but it is certainly not necessary to follow Good News Translation in all of these changes.

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 .

All these were David’s sons, besides the sons of the concubines: The demonstrative pronoun these refers to the sons of David mentioned in verses 1-8. All these were David’s sons is literally “All David’s sons.” King James Version says “These were all the sons of David,” which gives the wrong impression that David had no other sons. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch is better with “They all were fully legitimate sons of David,” which means they had the full rights of sonship. The sons born by the wives of David had a status higher than that of the sons born by his concubines. For concubines see the comments on 1 Chr 1.32. This verse does not indicate how many other sons David had by his concubines.

And Tamar was their sister: Tamar was the sister of David’s sons, not a sister of the concubines, as the Revised Standard Version rendering might seem to suggest. If a literal translation results in ambiguity or misunderstanding, it may be necessary to restate the relationship as in Good News Translation (also New Living Translation, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje). In some languages it may be better to say “David also had a daughter named Tamar.”

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 .

These were the potters and inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah: It is not clear to whom the demonstrative pronoun These refers, but it should probably be seen as referring backward and not forward. It is not clear whether the pronoun includes the people mentioned in both verses 21 and 22 or only verse 22. In some languages there exists a pronoun that refers to “the ones just mentioned previously.” It would be appropriate here. Contemporary English Version begins this verse with “The members of these clans….”

The Hebrew waw translated and may also be rendered “namely.” The sense of this whole clause would then be “These were the potters, namely, the inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah.” The ancient versions and the Targums express this sense by saying “They were the potters who lived in Netaim and Gederah.” But it is also possible to understand the Hebrew to mean that even though all of the people in the previous verse were potters, only some of them were the king’s potters: those who lived in Netaim and Gederah. Revised English Bible, for example, renders this verse as “They were the potters, and those who lived at Netaim and Gederah were there on the king’s service.”

The two names Netaim and Gederah almost certainly refer to towns or villages in spite of the fact that King James Version takes the Hebrew words rendered Netaim and Gederah to mean “plants and hedges.” Jewish Publication Version and Reina-Valera revisada are similar with “plantations and hedges.” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible reads “the plantations and the enclosures” in the text and gives “Netaim and Gederah” as an alternative translation in a footnote. Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente does just the reverse of Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, translating the Hebrew as place names in the text and giving the alternative translation “the plantations and the enclosures” in a footnote. Netaim was probably a town in Judah; and, according to Josh 15.36, Gederah was a town in the foothills of Judah.

They dwelt there with the king for his work may mean that these people worked on land owned by the king as they worked for him. More likely it means that the king provided the financial support for them to make jars and other kinds of pottery for him. This statement does not mean that they lived in the royal palace. The specific work of these people was making pottery, but this was done in the service of the king. Bible de Jérusalem translates this clause as “They remained there with the king, attached to his workshop.” New Living Translation says simply “They all worked for 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 .

And they dwelt in Gilead, in Bashan and in its towns: The pronoun they refers to the clans of Gad mentioned in the previous verses. If this will be unclear in the receptor language, this pronoun is better rendered “These clans,” “The Gadites” (New Living Translation), “The descendants of Gad” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente), or “The Gadite people” (International Children’s Bible). Interpreters have noted that the phrase in Gilead, in Bashan seems odd since Gilead refers to the southern territory and Bashan refers to the northern territory east of the Jordan River. Gilead was not in Bashan. Furthermore, the pronoun its in Hebrew is feminine. Cities in Hebrew are grammatically feminine but regions are not. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia suggests that the Hebrew word translated in Bashan should be corrected to read “in Jabesh.” Knoppers has accepted this correction of the Masoretic Text and translates the beginning of this verse as “They lived in Gilead, in Jabesh and its dependencies.” This is an appealing conjecture, but it has no basis in the manuscripts, so should not be accepted. The Hebrew for in Gilead, in Bashan should be understood to mean “in Gilead and in Bashan.” Towns is literally “daughters.” The Hebrew term here indicates a relationship of dependency on a larger or more important unit, in this case Bashan and Gilead (see the comments on 1 Chr 2.23). “Daughters” has been translated “towns,” “villages” (Revised English Bible), “surrounding settlements” ( NET Bible), “outlying villages” (New International Version), and “dependencies” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). Another possible rendering for “its daughters” is “regions that depended on them [Bashan and Gilead].”

And in all the pasture lands of Sharon to their limits: The Hebrew word for pasture lands refers to open land normally used as places where cattle and flocks of sheep and goats could feed on the grass. Sharon is not the better-known plain on the Mediterranean coast south of Mount Carmel, but some place east of the Jordan River. The Mesha Inscription (also called the Moabite Stone) shows that a region or city named Sharon existed east of the Jordan River. But there is another way of interpreting the text here. Some interpreters change a letter in the Hebrew name Sharon and read “Sirion” (so New American Bible), since “Sirion” is another name for Mount Hermon in Deut 3.9 and 4.48. Menge provides a possible model for this interpretation by translating “Sharon” in the text and then stating in a footnote, “Probably should read ‘Sirion,’ that is, Hermon.” Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives a {B} rating to the text of the Masoretic Text. But since there is no manuscript evidence for “Sirion,” Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, which is the final report of Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, does not discuss the problem because it is considered a historical problem and not a textual problem.

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 .