To the rest of the Kohathites were given by lot …: Verses 54-60 dealt with the cities given to the descendants of Aaron, who were part of the Levite clan of Kohath. Verse 61 deals with the cities given to the rest of the Kohath clan. Verses 62-81 deal with the cities given to the Levite clans of Gershon and Merari.

By lot refers to the practice of using pieces of wood or stone (called “lots”) to find out what God wanted people to do. It is not clear what material was used in the Old Testament period, but linguistic and historical parallels suggest that the lots were made of wood or stone. This practice was quite common in the Old Testament (see, for example, Lev 16.8; Josh 18.6, 8, 10; 1 Chr 24.31; 25.8; 26.13-14; Neh 10.34; 11.1; Job 6.27; Psa 22.18; Joel 3.3; Oba 11; Jonah 1.7), and was also used in New Testament times as in the case of deciding what to do with the clothing of Jesus after his crucifixion (Luke 23.34; John 19.24) and in the case of selecting someone to replace Judas after his betrayal (Acts 1.26). It may be helpful to include a verb to give some indication of what was actually done. New Century Version, for example, speaks of “throwing lots.” The Masoretic Text does not have a verb with the words by lot. Revised Standard Version has added were given (Good News Translation “were assigned”) as the sense requires. This passive expression may be made active by beginning this verse with “The rest of the Levite clan of Kohath received by throwing lots…” (similarly Contemporary English Version).

Out of the family of the tribe, out of the half-tribe, the half of Manasseh: What is meant by this expression? The Masoretic Text seems to contain errors here. Some scholars correct the text here to read “from the tribe of Ephraim and from the tribe of Dan and from the half tribe of Manasseh” on the basis of Josh 21.5, which reads “And the rest of the Kohathites received by lot from the families of the tribe of Ephraim, from the tribe of Dan and the half-tribe of Manasseh, ten cities.” This correction is recommended in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; and several translations, in fact, correct the text here to agree with Josh 21.5 (so New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Osty-Trinquet, Herder, Knoppers). But the tribe of Dan is not mentioned in other places in 1 Chronicles where we would expect Dan to be mentioned (for example, in chapters 2–8, but see the comments on verse 69 and 7.12). So the omission of the tribe of Dan here may be deliberate rather than the result of a scribal error in copying. The half of Manasseh refers to the descendants of Manasseh who lived west of the Jordan River, what Good News Translation calls “West Manasseh” (see 1 Chr 7.14-19).

The other members of the Kohath clan received ten cities in the territory of West Manasseh.

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 Machir took a wife for Huppim and for Shuppim …: The meaning of this verse is no clearer than the previous one. Some translations propose major changes in the Hebrew text. Among the various interpretations and translations are the following:

• (1) Some interpreters think that the Hebrew text as it now exists has lost some words of the original. La Bible Pléiade, for example, uses ellipses where words seem to be missing, saying “Machir took a wife for Huppim and Shuppim … The name of his sister was Maacah … [the name of the first was] … and the name of the second was Zelophehad. And Zelophehad had only daughters.”

• (2) Other interpreters have suggested that the names Huppim and Shuppim should be omitted, claiming that they have been incorrectly copied here from verse 12. As noted below, Moffatt follows this solution. Braun likewise corrects the text to read “(he took a wife whose name was Maacah), and whose second (son) was named Zelophehad. (He had only daughters.)” According to this translation, Zelophehad was the second son of Manasseh, and Machir married Maacah. Compare the following two similar translations: “Machir married a woman whose name was Maacah. The second son was named Zelophehad, and Zelophehad had daughters” (Revised English Bible; similarly Peregrino and “Machir took a wife whose name was Maacah; his sister’s name was Molecheth. Manasseh’s second son was named Zelophehad, but to Zelophehad only daughters were born” (New American Bible).

• An American Translation also omits the names Huppim and Shuppim, reading “and Gilead took a wife whose name was Maacah, and the name of his sister was Hammolecheth and the name of his brother Zelophad, and Zelophad had daughters.” According to An American Translation, Maacah was the wife of Gilead, and Hammolecheth was the sister of Gilead (see verse 18) and Zelophehad was Gilead’s brother. But since there is no basis in the manuscripts for such a correction, it is not recommended.

• (3) As noted in the comments on the previous verse, King James Version takes the first half of this verse as the continuation of a parenthetical statement and reads “and Machir took to wife the sister of Huppim and Shuppim, whose sister’s name was Maachah;) and the name of the second was Zelophehad: and Zelophehad had daughters.”

• (4) Since verse 16 says Maacah was the wife of Machir, Moffatt corrects the text of verses 14 and 15 to read as follows: “14 The children of Manasseh, borne to him by an Aramite concubine, were Machir the father of Gilead 15 (who married a wife named Maakah), his sister named Hammoleketh, and his brother Zelophehad; Zelophehad had daughters.” According to Moffatt, Manasseh’s children included Machir, Hammoleketh (see verse 18), and Zelophehad. And Maakah was the wife of Machir (see verse 16). Moffatt omits the first part of verse 15.

• (5) Revised Standard Version keeps the names Huppim and Shuppim, and says that Machir found a wife for each of them (so also Good News Translation, New Living Translation, Bible en français courant, La Bible du Semeur, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente).

• (6) The Hebrew may also be read to mean that Machir took a wife for himself from the families of Huppim and Shuppim, who were from the tribe of Benjamin (verse 12). Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, for example, has “Machir married Maacah, a woman from the family of Huppim and Shuppim.”

• (7) Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch is perhaps a better translation of the Masoretic Text: “Machir took as wife a sister of Huppim and Shuppim, her name was Maacah.” In keeping with their translation of the names in verse 12, New International Version and International Children’s Bible are similar with “Makir took a wife from the Huppites and Shuppites.”

The name of his sister was Maacah: The pronoun his may refer to Machir, as in Revised Standard Version and most other versions (Good News Translation, New Living Translation, New Century Version, Bible en français courant), or it may refer to Shuppim. Biblia Dios Habla Hoy does not translate this part of the verse, apparently because Maacah is considered to be the sister of both Huppim and Shuppim.

And the name of the second was Zelophehad: The meaning of the words the name of the second is not clear. Since Zelophehad is a man’s name, these words do not refer to a second sister or second wife. But whose son was Zelophehad He was probably Machir’s son (Good News Translation, New Century Version, Bible en français courant, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente), but others take Zelophehad to be the second son of Manasseh, the first being Asriel in verse 14 (so King James Version) or Machir (so Revised English Bible, New American Bible). According to Num 26.33 and Josh 17.3, however, Zelophehad was a son of Hepher and a grandson of Gilead and a great-grandson of Machir. A literal translation such as Revised Standard Version represents the form of the Hebrew, but such a translation will have little meaning. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch says simply “His second son was Zelophehad” in the text and adds in a footnote that it is not clear whose son he is. The paragraphing in New International Version seems to indicate that Asriel was the first son of Manasseh and that Zelophehad is intended as the second son of Manasseh. But since verse 14 lists two sons for Manasseh, Zelophehad would be the third son. Perhaps for this reason, instead of saying the name of the second was Zelophehad, New International Version says “Another descendant was named Zelophehad.”

And Zelophehad had daughters means that he had no sons, as Num 26.33 clearly states.

Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives an {A} rating to the Masoretic Text here. Furthermore, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament claims that the Hebrew preposition translated for should be understood as indicating origin. Since Huppim and Shuppim are regularly found named together in the Old Testament, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament suggests that the reference is to one person, named “Huppim-and-Shuppim,” and that the singular pronoun in the words his sister refers to the sister of Huppim-and-Shuppim. A translation of the first half of this verse based on the recommendation of Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament will read “And Machir took as wife a sister of a man named Huppim-and-Shuppim, whose name was Maacah.”

As in verse 12, translators must ask how verses 14 and 15 should be translated. The many different ways that these verses have been translated show how difficult it is to make sense of the Hebrew text. Almost certainly the Hebrew text contains errors, and it is impossible to know what the original text said. This information should be stated in a footnote. Translators may choose to follow an interpretation found in existing translations used in the receptor language area.

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 his sons, heads of fathers’ houses: If the referent for the pronoun his is unclear, it may be helpful to follow the model of Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente for this sentence, which reads “These are the heads of families descended from Shaharaim.” God’s Word adopts a similar solution: “All of Shaharaim’s sons became heads of families.” For heads of fathers’ houses, see the comments on 1 Chr 5.24.

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 .

It is not clear whether Shallum in this verse refers to the same person as in verse 17. Good News Translation and New Jerusalem Bible begin a new paragraph here, which slightly suggests to the reader the possibility that a different person is intended.

The Hebrew name Kore means “partridge.” Possibly this was a nickname.

Ebiasaph is spelled “Abiasaph” in Exo 6.24. New Living Translation and Bible en français courant retain the same spelling in all the occurrences in 1 Chronicles (6.23, 37 as well as here).

His kinsmen of his father’s house refers to members of the same clan as Shallum, that is, the Korahite clan.

Were in charge of the work of the service, keepers of the thresholds of the tent: Were in charge of renders a Hebrew preposition that means literally “over.” It clearly indicates custody or responsibility in this context. New International Version and Revised English Bible render it as “were responsible for,” while Nouvelle version Segond révisée says “fulfilled the functions of.” New American Bible translates “had as their assigned task.” The work of the service is explained as keepers of the thresholds of the tent. A threshold is the bottom horizontal part of a door frame. Usually it was made of a large stone block, as wide as the door frame. Sometimes it was made of two or more smaller stones fitted together. In this context the tent refers to the Temple (see the comments on verses 21 and 23), so for this whole part of the verse Contemporary English Version says “guarded the entrance to the temple,” and New Living Translation has “were responsible for guarding the entrance to the sanctuary.”

As their fathers had been in charge of the camp of the LORD, keepers of the entrance: The work of these guards is compared by the writer with that of their ancestors (literally fathers). They were keepers of the threshold, just as their ancestors had been keepers of the entrance to the camp of the LORD, which seems to refer to the Tabernacle.

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 stripped him: Good News Translation equates this action with that of stripping off Saul’s armor. But this refers to stripping off his clothes as well as his protective armor. Compare Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, which reads “Then they took off his clothes.” The text goes on to speak specifically of his armor, which would have included also taking any of his remaining weapons.

And took his head: The parallel text in 1 Sam 31.9 says that they cut off Saul’s head. That information may be made explicit here also (so Good News Translation, New Living Translation, Revised English Bible, Moffatt, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). The practice of cutting off the head of enemy kings was known in other ancient Near Eastern countries also.

And sent messengers throughout the land of the Philistines: Sent messengers is literally “they sent.” Most translations add the direct object messengers, but it is also possible that what was sent was Saul’s head and armor. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, for example, begins this verse with “They stripped him, and carried off his head and his armor, and sent them throughout the land of the Philistines…” (similarly New Jerusalem Bible, Bible en français courant). New Living Translation renders throughout the land of the Philistines as “throughout the land of Philistia.” Some languages may have an idiomatic expression for this phrase; for example, Revised English Bible says “through the length and breadth of their land.”

To carry the good news to their idols and to the people: The people clearly refers to the Philistine people. Good News Translation and several other modern versions make this clear by saying “their people.”

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 .

Tekoa (verse 28) was a town 16 kilometers (10 miles) south of Jerusalem, and Anathoth was a town about 3 kilometers (about 2 miles) northeast of 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 .

Then the Spirit came upon Amasai: Revised Standard Version capitalizes the noun Spirit (also New International Version, English Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible). But since this is not a reference to the Holy Spirit as part of the Christian Trinity, but a reference to a spirit sent by God or to God himself, it will be better to say “God’s spirit” (Good News Translation) or “the spirit” (New Revised Standard Version). The Hebrew noun for Spirit does not have a definite article here, so some translations say “a spirit” (Revised English Bible). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, in fact, takes this as a reference to the human spirit, translating the Spirit came upon as “seized by enthusiasm,” but in this context it seems clearly to refer to a message from God, so in English the sense is better expressed as “God’s spirit.” The Hebrew verb translated came upon is literally “clothed,” as in Jdg 6.34 regarding Gideon (so English Standard Version, American Bible, La Bible Pléiade, Braun). The sense is that God himself was controlling the speech of Amasai. Some other translations of this verb are “took possession of” (Revised English Bible), “took control of” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible), and “seized” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Parole de Vie). The New Century Version rendering “entered” is inadvisable in an Old Testament context. Some interpreters think that Amasai is the same as the person called “Amasa” in 2 Sam 17.25 and 20.4, but this is not certain.

Chief of the thirty: Good News Translation and New Living Translation add that Amasai “later” became commander of the Thirty. However, the Masoretic Text says only that he was the leader of the Thirty. According to the Good News Translation translation of 1 Chr 11.20, Abishai was the leader of the Thirty, so the translators of Good News Translation assumed that Amasai must have later become their leader.

The Masoretic Text says that Amasai was leader of the “thirty” (sheloshim), but the reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text says that he was leader of the “elite guards” (shalishim). As in 1 Chr 11.11, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament suggests that the reading in the margin should be followed here, giving a {C} rating to that reading. Amasai, like Jashobeam, was a member of the Rosh-ha-Shalish, but the author of 1 Chronicles did not understand the sense of Rosh-ha-Shalish, so he changed the singular shalishi to the plural shalishim, with the sense “head of the elite guards.”

And he said: These words are not in the Masoretic Text, but they are clearly implied. The Septuagint, followed by Revised English Bible, includes them, and even some more literal versions supply them (so King James Version, New American Standard Bible).

We are yours, O David; and with you, O son of Jesse! is literally “To you, O David, and with you, O son of Jesse.” There is no first person plural pronoun in the Hebrew, but nearly all translations add the pronoun We, as the context seems to require. In languages that have inclusive and exclusive pronouns, the exclusive form should be used here since it involves a commitment to David to whom Amasai is speaking on behalf of his fellow tribesmen from Judah and Benjamin. The pronouns yours and you are singular in Hebrew, referring to David. The words David and son of Jesse are parallel in reference. Translators should ensure that readers do not get the mistaken idea that two different people are in view.

Peace, peace to you, and peace to your helpers!: The Hebrew word for peace refers not only to the absence of war, but also to prosperity and well-being. Amasai is asking God to make David and his followers successful. A possible model here is “May you and your followers always be successful!” (similarly Contemporary English Version).

For your God helps you: The Hebrew word rendered For may also be translated “Indeed” ( NET Bible). Revised Standard Version uses the present tense in this clause with the verb helps. Good News Translation also does with “God is on your side.” The present tense may be taken as having a habitual meaning, referring to something that happened repeatedly in the life of David. This verb may also be translated in the past perfect, “has helped” (Bible en français courant, Segond), referring to David’s escapes from Saul’s attempts to kill him.

Then David received them, and made them officers of his troops: The Hebrew has a preposition before the word translated officers. Most translations take this preposition to mean “as.” But American Bible translates the last sentence of this verse as “So David accepted them and placed them under the chiefs of the troop.”

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 Benaiah and Jahaziel the priests were to blow trumpets continually …: Benaiah and Jahaziel are qualified as priests following their names. A number of modern versions reverse the order of the information, stating first that these two men were priests and then giving their names (so Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation, God’s Word, Bible en français courant, Parole de Vie, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). This may be more natural in other languages since another person by the name of Benaiah is mentioned in the previous verse.

Were to blow trumpets is literally “with the trumpets.” There is no verb here in the Hebrew text, but the idea of blowing the trumpets is clearly implied. For trumpets see the comments on 1 Chr 13.8. According to Num 10.8, only the priests were allowed to blow the trumpets used in worship. The adverb continually may seem to imply that the priests blew the trumpets without stopping. God’s Word translates “all the time.” But the Hebrew word here is better understood in the sense of “regularly” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New International Version, Revised English Bible). Contemporary English Version says “every day.” This same Hebrew adverb occurs also in verses 11, 37 and 40, where it should also be translated “regularly.”

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 .