The sons of Hebron …: Hebron was Kohath’s third son (verse 12), as Good News Translation makes explicit in order to help the reader relate this verse back to the previous reference.

Jeriah the chief, Amariah the second, Jahaziel the third, and Jekameam the fourth: Revised Standard Version follows the form of the Hebrew in indicating that Jeriah (literally “Jeryahu”) was the firstborn, Amariah, the second born, and so forth. As in the next verse also, Good News Translation leaves this information implicit since English style usually lists children in order of birth. Translators will need to decide which form will express this information clearly in the receptor language. But as noted above, the word chief (literally “head”) in this context probably indicates more than “firstborn.” It means “head of the clan.” Braun correctly begins this verse with “the sons of Hebron had Jeriah as chief.” Good News Translation does not make this clear.

In 1 Chr 24.23 the longer form of the name Amariah is used, which is “Amaryahu” (so La Bible Pléiade, Chouraqui), but nearly all versions use the shorter form both here and in chapter 24.

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 .

Verses 26-30a list the Merarites (see 1 Chr 23.21-23). God’s Word places these verses together and makes it explicit that they refer to Levi’s descendants through Merari (see the comments at verse 20 on the God’s Word translation of verses 20-25, which list descendants of Kohath).

The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. The sons of Ja-aziah: Beno: Revised Standard Version gives a literal translation of the Hebrew here. However, there are three difficulties in understanding this verse: (1) what is the meaning of Beno, (2) who is Ja-aziah (literally “Jaaziyahu”), and (3) why does the text say sons of Ja-aziah when only one son is named? Knoppers expresses the view of nearly all interpreters by saying “There is significant textual confusion in vv. 26-27” (page 830). Similarly, a footnote in Traduction œcuménique de la Bible states “Verses 26 and 27 seem to repeat, with variants that make the text difficult … It is difficult to reconstruct what must have been the original text.”

The difficulty in translating this verse, as well as verse 27, lies in the fact that the Hebrew word transliterated as the name Beno may also be understood as the Hebrew word translated “his son” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Furthermore, according to Exo 6.19 and 1 Chr 23.21, Merari had only two sons: Mahli and Mushi. Neither a son named Beno nor a son named Ja-aziah is listed there. In fact, none of the other lists of the Merarites in the Old Testament mention Ja-aziah. The relationship between Ja-aziah and Merari is simply not clear in the Masoretic Text.

Some versions change sons of Ja-aziah to the singular “son of Jaaziah” (New International Version, NET Bible; similarly Revised English Bible) as the context seems to require. Some interpreters think that the words The sons of Ja-aziah: Beno were mistakenly added to the text from the next verse and therefore omit these words here (so Klein).

So how should this verse be translated?

• (1) One way is illustrated by La Bible Pléiade, which inserts empty square brackets and reads “Sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi [ ].” A footnote in La Bible Pléiade then explains that the words “sons of Jaaziah his son” do not belong in the original text but were mistakenly repeated here from verse 27.

• (2) Another solution is to regard the name Ja-aziah as a scribal error and to follow the Septuagint, which has the name “Uzziah” in verses 26 and 27. This interpretation is reflected in New American Bible, which has “The descendants of Merari were Mahli, Mushi, and the descendants of his son Uzziah.” But this translation still does not solve the historical question of whether Merari had more than two sons. Others translations read “Uzziah” only in verse 27 in place of Ja-aziah (so Menge).

• (3) Some translations make Ja-aziah one of Merari’s sons. Good News Translation and Bible en français courant read the Hebrew word beno as “his son” and simply do not translate the words the sons of. But translators should try to make sense of the text rather than simply omit difficult words.

• (4) Another solution has been to understand Ja-aziah not as a son of Merari but as a descendant whose exact relationship to Merari is not stated. This is the basis for the Berkeley rendering of verses 26-27, which is “26 The sons of Merari were Mahli and Mushi; and among the sons of Jaaziah was Beno; 27 in fact, Merari’s descendants through Jaaziah were Beno, Shoham, Zaccur, and Ibri.”

• (5) One other solution has been to correct the Masoretic Text by changing the Hebrew word beney (“sons of”) to wegam (“and also”). The three consonants in beney and wegam are somewhat similar in shape in Hebrew. This correction is the basis for the Revised English Bible rendering, which reads “The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi and also Jaaziah his son.”

• (6) If translators follow the Masoretic Text and the interpretation found in Revised Standard Version (also New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, Nueva Versión Internacional), in which beno is taken as a man’s name, they may choose to add a footnote explaining that the Hebrew may also be translated “his son.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, which follows the Masoretic Text for verses 26-27, reads “26 The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. The sons of Jaazaiah his son 27 –the sons of Merari by Jaazaiah his son: Shoham, Zakkur, and Ibri.” La Bible du Semeur also seems to be an attempt to make sense of the Masoretic Text by rendering verse 26 as “The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi, and the sons of Jaaziah, his son.”

• (7) Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente represents another attempt to make sense of the Masoretic Text, and it is this translation that is recommended by Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. For verses 26-27 it reads “26 Sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi (in reality they were born from his son Jaaziah and were therefore 27 descendants of Merari through his son Jaaziah), then Shoham, Zaccur and Ibri.” Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente takes The sons of Ja-aziah: Beno to mean that Mahli and Mushi were the sons of Jaaziah (and not the sons of Merari), and that Ja-aziah was Merari’s son (beno). Then continuing into verse 27, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente takes “the sons of Merari” as referring to Mahli and Mushi, and takes beno to mean that Ja-aziah was Merari’s son. Then the next three names in verse 27 are other sons of Merari. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch gives a similar interpretation of the Hebrew text as that in Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, reading “26 The descendants of Merari were Mahli and Mushi–they were sons of Merari’s son Jaaziah. 27 Other descendants of Merari by Jaaziah were: Shoham, Zaccur and Ibri” (similarly Traduction œcuménique de la Bible).

The wide variety of translations of this verse and the beginning of verse 27 show that it is impossible to know for sure how this verse should be interpreted and translated. Even Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, after recommending option 7, states “The following translation of vv. 26-27 is a possible interpretation of the MT, which is probably not the original” (page 432).

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 .

There should not be a paragraph break here.

The sons of Jehieli, Zetham and Joel his brother …: Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation are contradictory in this verse. Revised Standard Version has Zetham and Joel as sons of Jehieli, but Good News Translation has them as brothers of Jehieli. Revised Standard Version follows the Masoretic Text, which apparently says Zetham and Joel were sons of Jehieli. The difficulty with this statement is that 1 Chr 23.8 says Jehiel, Zetham, and Joel were brothers and all three were the sons of Ladan. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament acknowledges that the Masoretic Text here conflicts with 23.8, but since the textual evidence here in verse 22 strongly favors the reading in the Masoretic Text, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text and recommends that translators follow it. But it may be helpful to add a footnote dealing with the contradiction.

Some interpreters are convinced that the Hebrew has an error here, so they change the text to agree with 23.8. Good News Translation and Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje, for example, have corrected the text to agree with 23.8 by making Zetham and Joel sons of Ladan rather than sons of Jehieli. In a similar way Revised English Bible corrects the Hebrew at the end of verse 21 and the beginning of verse 22 to read “Jehiel 22 and his brothers Zetham and Joel.” In an effort to harmonize this verse with 23.8, others have suggested that the Hebrew should be read as “The sons of Jehieli [together with] Zetham and Joel his [Jehieli’s] brother,” but such a translation is not the most natural reading of the Hebrew.

Another possible interpretation of the Masoretic Text is that an unnamed brother of Jehieli was in charge of the Temple treasuries. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, for example, renders the whole verse as “The sons of Jehieli: Zetham and Joel; his brother was over the treasuries of the House of the LORD.” According to New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Zetham and Joel were sons of Jehieli, but an unnamed brother of Jehieli was in charge of the treasuries. According to this interpretation his brother means Jehieli’s unnamed brother. In Revised Standard Version his brother means Zetham’s brother Joel.

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 .

Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje introduces this verse with “And David continued,” and in verse 8 it begins with “David also said.” Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje adds these words to indicate that David is still the speaker.

He said to me …: See 1 Chr 22.10 for God’s words in this verse. Some versions replace the pronoun He with the phrase “The LORD” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New Century Version, Parole de Vie, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). In the Hebrew text David is quoting the words that God spoke to him. Therefore the pronouns my and I refer to God.

It is Solomon your son who shall build my house and my courts: Courts does not refer to a building where legal cases are tried, but rather to the Temple “courtyards” (New Living Translation). See the comments on 1 Chr 23.28. For this whole clause International Children’s Bible says “Your son Solomon will build my Temple. And he will build the area around it.” Good News Translation combines my house and my courts into the single expression “my Temple” (also Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje). Often the references to the Temple include the courtyards as well. But since the writer here mentions both the Temple and its courtyards, translators should not collapse the two into one as Good News Translation has done. For the people of Israel the courtyards of the Temple were the place where festivals were celebrated (see Psa 84.2).

For I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father: See the comments on 1 Chr 17.13. The Hebrew particle rendered for introduces why Solomon will build the Temple. It is because God has adopted him. This reason reinforces what has already been said about God’s choice of Solomon.

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 .

This verse ends the quotation that began in verse 10.

Grant to Solomon my son: The word translated Grant is the ordinary word for “give” in Hebrew. It is in the imperative form, but some languages may require that it be softened somewhat in translation in order to avoid giving the impression that David is giving an order to God. This is frequently done by simply adding something like “please” or “I pray.”

With a whole heart: See the comments on 1 Chr 29.9.

He may keep thy commandments, thy testimonies, and thy statutes: Finding appropriate renderings for the synonyms commandments, testimonies, and statutes is a problem for some languages. Good News Translation combines these three nouns, saying “everything that you command.” It may be possible to find a different noun in the receptor language for each of the Hebrew nouns, but it is not necessary to do so since a clear distinction does not seem intended in this context. Testimonies renders a Hebrew noun based on a root meaning “to bear witness.” In his laws God bears witness to his purpose. The Hebrew word rendered statutes refers to authoritative statements, pronouncements of some kind (see the comments on 1 Chr 22.13). The same synonyms are found together in a number of other Old Testament passages, including Deut 6.17; 1 Kgs 2.3; and 2 Chr 34.31.

Performing all: Most versions take these words with what precedes; that is, David wants Solomon to perform all of God’s commandments. In some languages the idea here may be moved earlier in the translation; for example, Parole de Vie renders the first half of this verse as “Give to my son Solomon a heart entirely ready to respect all your commandments, your teachings and your laws, and to obey them.” But in the Hebrew text the words rendered performing all may also be linked to the last part of the verse; for example, the alternative translation in La Bible du Semeur for this verse reads “Give to my son Solomon an undivided heart that he may obey your commandments, your ordinances and your laws, and that he may carry out everything [necessary] to build the palace for which I have made all these preparations.” New American Bible is similar with “Give to my son Solomon a whole-hearted desire to keep your commandments, precepts, and statutes, that he may carry out all these plans and build the castle for which I have made provision.”

For palace see the comments on 1 Chr 29.1.

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 now is literally “And now.” Solomon’s request here is a logical result of his desire to build a great Temple. Another possible logical connector is “therefore” (New International Version). Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch says “And now my request” since what follows constitutes the actual request of Solomon as opposed to the introductory remarks that precede it.

Send me a man skilled to work: Solomon wants Hiram to send him a craftsman. New American Bible says “send me men skilled at work.” However, the Hebrew word for man is singular not plural, and King Hiram’s reply in verse 13 favors understanding the singular here in verse 7 as referring to one person who will oversee the project, rather than taking the Hebrew as a collective, that is, singular in form but plural in meaning. The Hebrew word translated skilled has a wide range of meaning. It may refer to someone who has skill in technical matters or to someone who has wisdom gained from experience and is therefore clever or shrewd. For a man skilled to work, King James Version says “a man cunning to work,” but such a translation may incorrectly suggest in modern English that the person is to be sly or tricky. Translations that more accurately express the correct meaning in this context are “an artisan skilled to work” (New Revised Standard Version), “a craftsman to work” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “a man skilled at working” (New Jerusalem Bible), and “a skilled craftsman, one who is able to work” (Revised English Bible). Some languages have to translate this idea by saying something like “a man who knows well the work,” adding the kind of work the person is skilled at.

For bronze see the comments on 1 Chr 15.19 and 2 Chr 1.5.

In purple, crimson, and blue fabrics: The sense is either (a) that he is a craftsman who knows how to sew and work with yarn and cloth of these colors (so Bible en français courant) or (b) that he is skilled in knowing how to make the dyes used in coloring cloth (so Beaumont). Some translations clearly follow the second interpretation; for example, Moffatt says “in handling purple, crimson, and blue dyes,” and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente has “a capable dyer of cloth in colors violet, crimson and purple” (similarly La Bible du Semeur). Similar is “someone who is expert at dyeing purple, scarlet, and blue cloth” (New Living Translation). It is not clear whether Good News Translation means that he is to weave together cloth that is already dyed or whether he is to make the different colored dyes. Since 2 Chr 3.14 says that the curtain in front of the Most Holy Place was made of blue, purple, and crimson fabrics and fine linen, the sense here in verse 7 may well be that the person should know how to make designs out of cloth of these colors rather than know how to make the different colored dyes.

Purple, crimson, and blue were very expensive colors to make. The purple and blue dyes were made from secretions produced by several snails from the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The dye was made by boiling parts of the mollusk, or shellfish, in a salt solution for about three days. Twelve thousand shells produced only about two grams (.07 ounces) of dye, so the process was very expensive. Since it was so costly to make this dye, reference to purple in the Old Testament usually indicates wealth and luxury. Crimson dye was made by drying and crushing a certain tiny insect. Seventy thousand insects were needed to produce one-half kilo (one pound) of dye. Contemporary English Version translates purple, crimson, and blue fabrics as “brightly colored cloth,” but such a reduction is not recommended since the Hebrew specifies certain colors. Yet in languages where such detailed color distinctions are not made, it may well be necessary to follow Contemporary English Version. However, in order to convey the sense of luxury implied in the use of these terms, translators may have to say “expensive cloth that is brightly colored.”

Purple translates an Aramaic noun, which is spelled nearly the same as the Hebrew noun for “purple.” Nearly all versions render the Aramaic noun here as “purple,” but New Jerusalem Bible has “scarlet.” Crimson is deep red. God’s Word says “dark red.” The Hebrew word for blue covers a wide color scope of blue, violet, purple, and even green; and for that reason some translations say “violet” (Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Dillard).

Trained also in engraving is literally “and one who knows to engrave engravings.” In addition to biblical texts, archaeological evidence shows that people in the Old Testament world carved in wood, stone, ivory, clay, bronze, silver, gold, and glass. This clause may be translated “a person who is also skilled in engraving decorations.”

To be with the skilled workers who are with me in Judah and Jerusalem, whom David my father provided: Before he died, King David provided these skilled craftsmen to help Solomon build the Temple. David also provided materials to be used in the construction of the Temple (see 1 Chr 22.14-16). Skilled workers translates the same Hebrew word rendered skilled earlier in the verse. As there, it refers to someone who has practical experience or who has technical knowledge and skill. It is often translated “skillful.”

The phrase in Judah and Jerusalem should not be translated in such a way as to give the impression that these were two totally different places. Jerusalem was the capital of Judah and located within its bounds. So it will be appropriate to say “in Jerusalem and in all the rest of Judah” or “all of Judah, including its capital, Jerusalem.”

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 .

He also made ten lavers in which to wash: Good News Translation uses the plural pronoun “They” instead of He, but this is confusing since there is no clear antecedent in the preceding verses. If the subject is taken to be Solomon, it will be possible to use that proper name here as in New Century Version and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente. However, if the workmen contracted by Solomon are thought to be in view, then it may be preferable to begin this verse with “The artisans” or something similar. The fact that Huram is specifically mentioned in verses 11 and 16 of this chapter convinces some interpreters that the pronoun He refers to this master craftsman (so God’s Word, Parole de Vie). Yet it is also clear that Huram is working on Solomon’s instructions.

The English word lavers is not common American English, so many versions use the more common term “basins” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible) or “small bowls” (Contemporary English Version). Moffatt says “pots.” If the same word is used of the larger tank in the previous verses, then these objects may have to be called smaller in size (so New Century Version with “smaller bowls” and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch with “smaller basins”). The Tabernacle in the wilderness had only one such basin. A much more detailed description of these basins is given in 1 Kgs 7.27-39. See also WTH, pages 244-245|fig:WTH.4.3.3.Temple – movable stand, cart.244-245.html.

And set five on the south side, and five on the north side: The south side … the north side is literally “[the] right … [the] left.” It was assumed that the person was facing east, so the right side would have been the south side, and the left side would have been the north side. Many versions follow the form of the Hebrew here (so New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, La Bible du Semeur, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente), but in languages where directions are expressed as “north” and “south” rather than as “right” and “left,” it will be better to use the points of the compass (so Good News Translation, New International Version, New Century Version).

Like the Hebrew, many versions say only that the basins were placed on the north and on the south, without indicating the point of reference. Other versions add the words “of the Temple” (Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, Parole de Vie), but this may give the incorrect impression that five basins were on the south side of the Temple building and five on the north side. More likely, the basins were placed east of the Temple (that is, in front of the Temple) on the south and north sides of the entrance to the Temple, which faced east. Contemporary English Version and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch say that they were on the left and right sides of the large bronze tank, which was southeast of the Temple (verse 10); and this interpretation is also possible.

In these they were to rinse off what was used for the burnt offering: For burnt offering, see the comments on 1 Chr 16.1 and 2 Chr 1.6. In a burnt offering animals were burned, which Good News Translation makes explicit with the addition of the words “the parts of the animals.” What was washed in these ten basins?

• (1) Some interpreters understand this clause to mean that it was the sacrificial animals that were rinsed off in the ten basins; for example, God’s Word says “The priests rinsed the meat prepared for the burnt offerings in them” (so also Good News Translation, New American Bible, Bible en français courant, Bible de Jérusalem, Berkeley). According to various passages, parts of the sacrificial animals were to be washed before they were burned (see, for example, Exo 29.17; Lev 1.9, 13).

• (2) Others understand the Hebrew to mean that the utensils or tools used in making burnt offerings were washed in these basins. Anchor Bible, for example, says “they were to rinse the articles for the burnt offering in them” (so also New International Version, La Bible du Semeur). Dillard also follows this interpretation, translating “The implements for the burnt offerings were rinsed in these.”

And the sea was for the priests to wash in: The sea refers to the large tank mentioned in verses 2-5. See Exo 30.17-21, where Aaron and his sons are instructed to wash their hands and feet in the water of the bronze basin before offering sacrifices. Failure to do so meant that they would die. A literal translation of this clause may incorrectly cause readers to think that the priests bathed their entire bodies in this tank. For this reason Contemporary English Version says “and the priests used the water in the large bowl to wash their hands.”

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 .