Son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, son of Israel (verse 38): Verses 1-2 list Levi as the father of Kohath and Kohath as the father of Izhar. Instead of Israel, Good News Translation uses the name “Jacob,” because the reference is to the individual who was the ancestor of the Israelites (see the comments on 1 Chr 1.34 and 5.1).

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 .

And beyond the Jordan at Jericho, on the east side of the Jordan …: The phrase beyond the Jordan is from the point of view of a writer who is west of the Jordan River. So the meaning may be expressed as “to the east of the Jordan River” or “on the east side of the Jordan” (Revised English Bible), which is actually what the text says in the words that follow. In translation it is probably best not to use a word like “beyond” since the point of reference of the reader today will not be the same as that of the writer.

Bezer in the steppe: Bezer is mentioned as a city of refuge in Deut 4.43 and as a Levitical city assigned to the Merarites in Josh 21.36. The Hebrew word translated steppe is more often rendered “desert” in Revised Standard Version (see, for example, 1 Chr 5.9). A steppe is a high desert plateau, which is also sometimes called “tableland” in English. Contemporary English Version says “flatlands.”

The name Jahzah is almost certainly a variant of “Jahaz” (New Living Translation, Einheitsübersetzung), which is found in Josh 13.18; 21.36; Jdg 11.20; and Isa 15.4.

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 .

Shemer: As noted in the comments on verse 32, some translations, as well as some ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, read “Shomer” here (so Good News Translation, New International Version, New Living Translation, New Century Version, Revised English Bible, La Bible Pléiade). Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text here, which reads Shemer. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project suggests that translators use a footnote to indicate that Shemer is the same person as “Shomer” in verse 32. But the same purpose will be served without a footnote by using the same spelling in the two verses.

His brother: Rohgah is literally “ʾachi and-Rohgah.” The Hebrew word ʾachi may be a proper name “Ahi,” or it may be the Hebrew word meaning “my brother.” Since “my brother” makes no sense in the context (whose brother?), a number of translations take ʾachi as a person’s name; for example, New International Version renders the whole verse as “The sons of Shomer: Ahi, Rohgah, Hubbah and Aram” (similarly New Living Translation, King James Version, Revised English Bible, New American Bible, Nouvelle Bible Segond, La Bible du Semeur, La Bible Pléiade).

If, however, the Hebrew letter waw (“and”) is not connected to the beginning of the name Rohgah as in the Masoretic Text, but is added to the end of the word ʾachi as a third person masculine suffix, then the translation becomes “The sons of Shemer his brother: Rohgah…” as in Revised Standard Version. That is, Shemer is Japhlet’s brother (see verse 32). New Century Version makes this interpretation explicit by saying “Japhlet’s brother was Shomer. Shomer’s sons were Rohgah….” Revised Standard Version corrects the Masoretic Text to read his brother (also Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, Osty-Trinquet). Although there is no manuscript evidence for this correction, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project regards it as the reading in the original text. So Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends using a footnote to state that the original text read “and the sons of Shemer his brother: Rohgah….” However, translators may put this rendering in the text itself.

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 .

Most interpreters understand this verse to mean that Raphah was the son of Bine-a, Ele-asah was the grandson of Bine-a, and Azel was the great-grandson of Bine-a. However, it is also possible to understand the Hebrew as meaning that Bine-a, Raphah, Ele-asah, and Azel were brothers and all were sons of Moza.

Raphah is called “Rephaiah” in 1 Chr 9.43. New Living Translation uses the name “Rephaiah” in both verses.

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 is virtually the same as 1 Chr 8.32 (see the comments there). Shime-am is called “Shime-ah” there, and Good News Translation uses the same spelling here.

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 was with David at Pas-dammin when the Philistines were gathered there for battle: The pronoun He refers to Eleazar, which New Century Version makes explicit. In 2 Sam 23.11 it was Shammah, not Eleazar, who was with David at Pas Dammin. It is possible to understand the pronoun here in 1 Chronicles as referring to Shammah, but this is not the most natural way of understanding the Hebrew. The pronoun in Hebrew may be understood as emphatic, and for this reason some begin this verse with “He is the one who was with David…” or “It is he who was with David…” (Parole de Vie, Nouvelle version Segond révisée, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible).

Pas-dammim is a variant of the name “Ephes-dammin” (1 Sam 17.1), an area located west of Bethlehem toward the Philistine coast. It probably is the same as modern Damun, which is about 6 kilometers (3.5 miles) northeast of Socoh. La Bible Pléiade reads “Ephes-Dammin” here.

There was a plot of ground full of barley: The Hebrew words translated a plot of ground sometimes refer to a plot of land given to an individual out of the whole land belonging to a community. That is, the noun rendered plot refers to a part of something larger. Here it apparently refers to a field (so most translations), but it could refer to a smaller area within a larger field. NET Bible, for example, says “In an area of the field that was full of barley.” Compare also “and there was a section of the field full of barley” (Knoppers) and “A portion of the field was full of barley” (Klein).

Instead of barley, the parallel text in 2 Sam 23.11 has “lentils,” which are the flat seeds of a small, pea-like plant. The Hebrew words for barley and “lentils” are similar enough in spelling that the writer or a scribe may have miscopied one of the nouns. This may be dealt with in a footnote if considered necessary, but there is no legitimate reason to harmonize the two texts. Translators should refer to barley in this verse. Barley is a grain that was used for making bread, porridge, and beer. It was also used to feed horses, donkeys, and cattle. Barley could grow in places of low rainfall and poor soil where wheat could not grow, so it was a very important grain in Israel. Since barley is unknown in many parts of the world, the term is often borrowed from the dominant language in the area. In this context some translators may prefer to use a more general word for “grain.”

And the men fled from the Philistines is literally “the people fled…” (so New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible). But the Hebrew word for “people” is often used in such a context to refer to a military group. Here it apparently refers to David’s soldiers. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh is correct in translating “the people” as “the troops.” But in order to ensure that the reader knows which side is in view, others may wish to say more specifically “the Israelites” (Good News Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), “the Israelite army” (Bible en français courant), or “the Israelite soldiers” (Contemporary English Version).

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 .

Tizite probably refers to a place, but the location is not known. Some interpreters suggest that it could be the name of a clan called the “Tizites.” The reference may be to someone of foreign origin.

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 David was angry: This clause describing David’s anger is not exactly the same as the expression used of the LORD’s angry reaction to Uzzah’s action. The previous verse says literally that “the LORD’s nose burned,” while here the text says simply that “David burned” without mentioning his “nose.” However, it may not be possible or natural to try to make this fine distinction in the receptor language. The Hebrew does not say at whom David was angry, but the context clearly indicates that he was angry at God.

Because the LORD had broken forth upon Uzzah is literally “because the LORD had breached a breach [gap] against Uzzah.” The basic meaning of the Hebrew verb rendered had broken forth is “to break through [a wall in an attack on a city].” The verb is used by extension to mean “to punish,” which is how Good News Translation translates the verb. The Old Testament does not hesitate to speak about the anger and punishment of God. God is consistently portrayed as a holy God who rejects everything that is not holy. To modern readers God’s anger and punishment sometimes seem extreme for the offence committed, but the Old Testament also shows God as slow to anger, merciful, and gracious (Num 14.18; Neh 9.17; Psa 86.15; 103.8; Nah 1.3). However, the point of this story is the sacred character of the Covenant Box; it must not be touched by anyone who is not authorized to do so no matter what the reason may be. See also Num 4.15 and 1 Sam 6.19.

And that place is called Perez-uzza to this day is literally “and he called that place Perez Uzzah to this day.” Some interpreters think the subject of the verb called is David; for example, Revised English Bible says “and he called the place Perez-uzza, the name it still bears” (similarly Contemporary English Version, Moffatt). However, others think the Hebrew verb here is an indefinite third person singular verb. This second interpretation is the basis for the passive verb in Revised Standard Version. The passive expression is called will have to be translated actively in those languages where the passive is unnatural or non-existent. In such cases translators may consider the following models: “they [indefinite] call the place…” and “the name of that place is….”

The Hebrew name Perez-uzza means “punishment of Uzzah” or more literally “breaking out against Uzzah.” The meaning of the name is crucial in this passage, and the reader should somehow be made aware of this meaning and its relationship to what happened to Uzzah in that place. This may be done in one of the following ways:

• (1) A footnote may be used to give the meaning of the Hebrew name as in Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, and Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje.

• (2) The meaning of the name may be given in square brackets (so An American Translation, Osty-Trinquet) or parentheses (so Nouvelle Bible Segond, La Bible du Semeur, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) after a transliteration of the name; for example, An American Translation has “Perez-uzza [Breach of Uzza],” and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente says “Perez-Uzza (Punishment of Uzza).”

• (3) A direct translation of the name’s meaning may be given in the text. Knox captures the meaning of the whole verse well by saying “Great grief it was to David, this ruin the Lord had brought on Oza, and he called the place by the name it bears still, Oza’s Ruin.”

• (4) Translators may also transliterate the name in the text and then give the meaning also; for example, Moffatt says “Perez-Uzza or ‘Breaking of Uzza’ ” (similarly El libro del Pueblo de Dios).

To this day: See the comments on 1 Chr 4.41.

Good News Translation has reversed the sentences in this verse to follow a more logical pattern in which David’s anger is mentioned after the naming of the place. This may be a good model to follow in 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 .