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 .

Instead of Ramoth, the parallel text in Josh 21.29 has the name “Jarmuth” in the Masoretic Text. But the Septuagint text of Josh 21.29 reads “Ramoth.”

Instead of Anem, the parallel list of cities in Josh 21.29 has “En-gannim.” Some scholars think that the name Anem arose through several scribal errors from the original name “En-gannim.” Others think that Anem is either an abbreviation or shortened form of “En-gannim.” Still others think that the two names refer to two distinct towns. New American Bible and Einheitsübersetzung correct the Masoretic Text here to read “Engannim” and “En-Gammin” respectively, but all other translations here read Anem.

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 .

Their possessions and settlements were Bethel and its towns …: The pronoun Their refers to the descendants of Ephraim. The Hebrew noun translated possessions may refer to property in general, including slaves. But in this context, as in 1 Chr 9.2, it refers to “lands” (New Jerusalem Bible) that had been allotted to their tribe and were to remain in the possession of that tribe.

Bethel was located about 16 kilometers (10 miles) north of Jerusalem, on the border between the tribes of Ephraim and Benjamin.

The words its towns (literally “its daughters” [Osty-Trinquet]) may be translated “the towns around it” (Good News Translation), “its surrounding villages” (New International Version), or “the neighboring villages” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). Other renderings include “its dependencies” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, American Bible) and “its dependent villages” (Revised English Bible). Compare 5.16.

Naaran, located near Jericho, is called “Naarah” in Josh 16.7. But virtually all modern versions retain the difference in spelling.

Gezer was a city of refuge in the territory of Ephraim (see the comments on 1 Chr 6.67). Shechem to the north in the hill country of Ephraim was another city of refuge for the central tribes (see the comments on 1 Chr 6.67; see also Josh 20.7).

Some interpreters consider Ayyah to be the same as Ai (Gen 12.8; 13.3; Josh 7.2), located in the south very near Bethel, but not all scholars agree on this. Ayyah may be a variant spelling for Aija, mentioned with Bethel in Neh 11.31, and Aija also may be a variant spelling for Ai. Some ancient translations in Latin and Aramaic support the name “Gaza” instead of Ayyah, and this is the basis for the rendering “Gaza” in some translations (King James Version, Revised English Bible) and “Azzah” in others (An American Translation, Moffatt). Menge reads “Ayyah (or: Gaza?),” but such uncertainty regarding the text is better placed in a footnote rather than within the text. The name “Gaza” probably arose from a misreading of the middle Hebrew letter in Ayyah. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text. So translators should maintain the name Ayyah.

Since many readers will not know the locations of these towns, the meaning of this verse may be expressed more clearly as in New Living Translation: “The descendants of Ephraim lived in the territory that included Bethel and its surrounding towns to the south, Naaran to the east, Gezer and its villages to the west, and Shechem and its surrounding villages to the north as far as Ayyah and its towns.” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch likewise makes explicit that Shechem and Ayyah were in the north. However, if Ayyah is identified with the city of Ai in the south, then the translation should read “… Bethel and Ayyah and their surrounding towns to the south, Naaran to the east, Gezer and its villages to the west, and Shechem and its surrounding villages to the north.”

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 .

Zecher is called “Zechariah” in the parallel passage of 1 Chr 9.37. Some common language translations use the same name in both places, either by writing “Zechariah” here (Good News Translation, New Living Translation) or “Zecher” in 9.37 (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). If such an adjustment is not made in the text, a footnote may be used to inform the reader that the same person is intended.

A number of translations add the name “Mikloth” at the end of this verse on the basis of the Septuagint and the parallel in 9.37 (so Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Osty-Trinquet, Luther, Peregrino. It is possible that a scribe accidentally omitted the name in verse 31 if it occurred here at the end of this verse as well as at the beginning of the next verse. La Bible Pléiade and La Sainte Bible: La version Etablie par les moines de Maredsous place the name “Mikloth” within square brackets to show that it is not in the Masoretic Text.

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 in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia: This expression is ambiguous. Cyrus began ruling over Persia in 559 B.C.; but as the Good News Translation footnote indicates, he took control of Babylon only in 539 B.C. So the meaning here seems to be “In the first year that King Cyrus of Persia ruled over the whole empire, including Babylonia.” God’s Word says “in Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia,” which is not correct. The first year does not refer to his first year as king of Persia, but to his first year as emperor of the Babylonian Empire. A helpful model for this whole phrase is “In the first year that Cyrus of Persia was emperor of Babylonia” (similarly Good News Translation).

That the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled: God wanted his prophecy through Jeremiah to take place. Before the exile of the Jews to Babylonia, Jeremiah had announced that they would return to Judah from Babylonia after 70 years (see er 29.10; 2 Chr 36.21). For by the mouth of Jeremiah, see the comments on the previous verse. For this whole clause New Century Version has “This happened so that the LORD’s message spoken by Jeremiah would come true.”

The LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus: The LORD acted within the spirit of Cyrus in such a way that the king acted as God wanted him to act. For stirred up the spirit, see the comments on \jmp 1 Chr 5.26. Some other ways of expressing this clause are “the LORD inspired King Cyrus” (New American Bible) and “the LORD moved King Cyrus” ( NET Bible).

So that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing: Cyrus made a proclamation is literally “caused to pass over a voice.” In the Persian Empire royal messages were communicated through heralds who proclaimed the messages orally to the people. In addition, Cyrus’s message was put in writing. This was an official royal document. It was probably written in Aramaic, the official language of the Persian Empire. Revised Standard Version supplies the verb put; it is not in the Hebrew text.

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 .