Go, inquire of the LORD for me and for those who are left in Israel and in Judah: The imperative verbs rendered Go and inquire are plural in Hebrew since the king is addressing more than one person. New Living Translation renders Go as “Go to the Temple” to make explicit what is implied. For inquire of the LORD, see the comments on 1 Chr 21.30 and 2 Chr 18.4. Israel here refers to the people of the northern kingdom.

Concerning the words of the book that has been found refers to the message or teachings of the book (or, scroll) that had been found. Revised English Bible renders the words of the book as “the contents of the scroll.” But New International Version may provide a better model with “what is written in this book.” The passive expression that has been found may be made active by saying “that Hilkiah has found” (see verse 14).

For great is the wrath of the LORD that is poured out on us: The connector for introduces the reason why King Josiah was instructing this delegation to confer with Yahweh. It was because the king believed that Yahweh was angry with the people of Judah and Israel.

That is poured out on us is the reading in the Masoretic Text. The Septuagint says “that is kindled against us,” which means “that has set us on fire.” The Septuagint reading seems to emend the text to harmonize it with the parallel text in 2 Kgs 22.13. New American Bible follows the Septuagint by saying “has been set furiously ablaze against us.” However, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives an {A} rating to the Masoretic Text here in 2 Chronicles. Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, and most other modern versions follow the Masoretic Text. In any case, even though the imagery is different between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint here, the sense of both is that God is very angry with his people. Instead of saying great is the wrath of the LORD that is poured out on us, it may be more natural to say “the LORD is very angry with us” or “the LORD is furious with us.”

Because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD …: The transition word because introduces the reason for the LORD’s anger. In view of the long and complicated sentence that begins in verse 21, it may be better to begin a new sentence at this point, reminding the reader that this is an explanation of why Yahweh was angry with his people. Good News Translation provides a good model for this restructuring.

As is often the case, the word fathers means “ancestors,” and this should be made clear in translation.

All that is written in this book may be rendered “all that this book contains.”

Revised English Bible transforms the first half of this quotation into indirect discourse, but some languages may need to use it for the whole quotation. A possible model for this is:

• The king asked them to go and seek guidance of the LORD on his behalf and on behalf of all who still remained in Israel and Judah, about the contents of the book that Hilkiah had discovered. He explained that the wrath of the LORD was really great and the LORD was pouring it out on them, because their forefathers did not observe the LORD’s command and do all that was written in that book.

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 .

Nevertheless translates the common Hebrew conjunction, but in this context a strong marker of contrast is required. NASB has “However,” but Good News Translation and most other versions use “But.”

Josiah would not turn away from him is literally “Josiah did not turn away his face from him” (similarly An American Translation). In spite of Neco’s conciliatory message and suggestion that Josiah stop his aggression, Josiah was persistent and would not stop fighting. Some other ways of expressing this clause are “Josiah would not stop his attack” (God’s Word) and “Josiah would not be deflected from his purpose” (Revised English Bible).

But disguised himself in order to fight with him: Unlike the story of King Ahab in 2 Chr 18, there is nothing in the context to suggest why King Josiah would disguise himself. Therefore it is not surprising that the ancient versions say that Josiah “strengthened himself” instead of disguised himself. Following the Septuagint here, some versions render this whole clause as “he [Josiah] insisted on fighting him” (El libro del Pueblo de Dios, Osty-Trinquet; similarly Revised English Bible, Luther). Osty-Trinquet further states that the original Hebrew text here has been changed to agree with 2 Chr 18.29, where King Ahab disguised himself as he went into battle. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, following the ancient Targums, says “instead, he donned [his armor] to fight him.” Moffatt has “he presumed to attack him” (similarly An American Translation). However, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a rating of {B} to the Masoretic Text, which says “but he disguised himself to fight against him.” Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament suggests that the Chronicler has deliberately borrowed aspects from the story of Ahab’s death in battle, including that he disguised himself. This interpretation fits the context well since the writer seems to be drawing parallels between the wicked ways of Ahab and the failure of Josiah to obey the warning from God given through King Neco. The notion of disguise is difficult to express in some languages. But New Century Version provides the following model that may be helpful: “He wore different clothes so no one would know who he was.” See also the comments on 2 Chr 18.29.

He did not listen to the words of Neco from the mouth of God: In some languages it will not be appropriate to translate literally from the mouth of God. The meaning is “from God himself” (Parole de Vie). This phrase has been expressed as “inspired by God” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible; similarly La Bible du Semeur) and “to whom God had indeed spoken” (New Living Translation).

But joined battle in the plain of Megiddo: The town of Megiddo was strategically located in the Jezreel Valley and was about 40 kilometers (25 miles) southwest of the southern end of Lake Galilee. Control of Megiddo gave control of important trade routes to the north, south, and east.

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 .

Onam was a grandson of Hezron and was Jerahmeel’s son by his wife Atarah (verse 26). He is not the same person mentioned in 1 Chr 1.40 and Gen 36.23 (one of the sons of Shobal).

Instead of Jada, the Syriac has “Jojada”; and the Septuagint manuscripts also contain variant spellings, but modern versions ignore these variant spellings.

For this verse Contemporary English Version provides a slightly different model that may be helpful to translators in some languages: “Onam was the father of Shammai and Jada. Shammai was the father of Nadab and Abishur.”

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 Masoretic Text reads Eliada for the second name in this verse, but the parallel passage of 1 Chr 14.7 has “Beeliada.” The original name probably was “Beeliada,” but the first part of the name was later changed to “el” since “beel” sounds like the name of the Canaanite god Baal. Some translations read “Beeliada” here rather than Eliada (so Knoppers). However, since there is only a single manuscript of the Septuagint that reads “Beeliada” here, there is insufficient textual evidence here for changing the name.

The number nine at the end of this verse should be translated here if this information has not been moved to the beginning of verse 6. But in some languages a complete sentence may be required to keep it here.

The list of sons in verses 6-8 does not correspond to the list in 2 Sam 5.15-16, so Moffatt has corrected the Hebrew text here to agree with the list there. Moffatt reads “with Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Baaljoda, and Eliphelet.” The reason for the differences here and in 2 Samuel are not clear, but translators should not change the text in order to harmonize with 2 Sam 5.15-16 as Moffatt has done since there is no manuscript support for such a change.

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 Jokim …: In the Masoretic Text this list continues the names of Shelah’s descendants from verse 21. Some translations make this relationship to verse 21 more explicit by beginning with “Shelah was also the ancestor of Jokim…” (Bible en français courant) or “To the descendants of Shelah belonged also Jokim…” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

And the men of Cozeba may refer to all the inhabitants of the town of Cozeba (so New Living Translation with “the people of…”) or possibly just to the males, as Revised Standard Version would seem to imply. New Revised Standard Version retains the word “men,” perhaps because the Hebrew verb that follows, translated ruled, is taken to mean “marry” in NRSV.

And Joash, and Saraph, who ruled in Moab: The subject of the plural Hebrew verb translated ruled is not clear. There are three possibilities:

• (1) It may be the entire list including Jokim, the men of Cozeba, Joash, and Saraph.

• (2) It may be just Joash and Saraph (so Good News Translation). Contemporary English Version restructures the verse entirely and makes it clear that only these two men married Moabite women. The punctuation of New American Bible seems to imply this interpretation, and the restructuring of New Century Version certainly suggests this meaning. In favor of this understanding, it would be strange to refer to people who returned from Moab to live in Bethlehem (or, Lehem) and include people who lived in the town of Cozeba among the people who lived in Bethlehem!

• (3) It may be the men of Cozeba, who are identified here as Joash and Saraph. Nouvelle Bible Segond follows this understanding by saying “the men of Cozeba, Joash and Saraph, who ruled over Moab.”

Most versions are ambiguous but seem to imply that the entire list of names should be taken as the subject of the verb.

The Hebrew verb rendered ruled comes from the root meaning “lord.” Depending on the context, the Hebrew verb may mean “to rule over” (so Revised Standard Version, Peregrino, “to hold property” (so New American Bible), or “to marry” (so Good News Translation). In the ancient Israelite culture, men were considered to be the “lord” or “owner” of their wives. A number of versions render ruled in Moab as “married Moabite women” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente; similarly New Revised Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Revised English Bible understands the verb here to mean “fell out with [Moab],” but this is not recommended. The most probable meaning in this context is “married.”

And returned to Lehem: This clause in Masoretic Text is “and Jashubi Lehem.” Some translations take the Hebrew words Jashubi Lehem as the name of a man (so New International Version, New Century Version, King James Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Nouvelle version Segond révisée, Nouvelle Bible Segond), who is another descendant of Shelah. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, however, recommends a slight change in the spelling of Jashubi so that this name becomes a third person plural verb meaning “they returned” (so Revised Standard Version). Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {C} rating to this correction, which is supported by both the Targums and the Vulgate. Since Lehem (also New Revised Standard Version, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) here probably refers to Bethlehem, it is better to use the well-known name (so Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Osty-Trinquet).

Now the records are ancient is literally “and the words [or, matters] [are] old.” The Hebrew adjective translated ancient occurs also in Isa 28.9, where it means “removed [from the breast]”; that is, weaned. Here it describes a list that has been moved on from generation to generation. These records were apparently already old by the time the book of 1 Chronicles was written. The precise meaning of this statement is not clear, but it probably refers to the records about the people who married Moabite women (or, ruled over Moab). Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation take this statement as a parenthesis (also New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). In those languages where this kind of punctuation is used for a remark that departs from the main theme of the discourse, this statement should probably be enclosed in parentheses.

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 .

Ahi the son of Abdi-el, son of Guni, was chief in their fathers’ houses: The list of names continues from the previous verse, but the connection of this verse with what precedes it is not clear. Klein says, “This verse is one of the most problematical sections in all the genealogies” (page 165). One of the problems involves the name Ahi, which means “my brother” in Hebrew. So should Ahi the son of Abdi-el be rendered “brother of the son of Abdiel”? Some translators follow part of the Septuagint tradition and omit the name Ahi (so Knoppers). Good News Translation, New International Version, Revised English Bible, and most other modern versions begin a new sentence at the beginning of this verse, which may be the best solution. According to this way of understanding the Hebrew, Ahi was chief of the Gadite clans. The pronoun their refers to the Gadite clans mentioned in verses 12-13. Ahi … was chief in their fathers’ houses may be translated “Ahi … was head of these clans” (Good News Translation) or “Ahi … was chief in their clans” (similarly New Revised Standard Version). Compare verse 13.

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 .

Contemporary English Version combines verses 29 and 30 into a single sentence, saying “Merari’s descendants included Mahli, Libni, Shimei, Uzzah, Shimea, Haggiah, and Asaiah.” This may serve as a possible model for other languages.

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 .