Now hear me: These words are intended to cause the listeners to pay closer attention to what follows. Contemporary English Version omits this clause, but it should be kept.

And send back the captives from your kinsfolk whom you have taken: For kinsfolk see the comments on 2Chr 28.8. For this whole clause Contemporary English Version has “Send these prisoners back home—they are your own relatives.”

For the fierce wrath of the LORD is upon you: Oded tells the people of the northern kingdom to send back their Judean prisoners to avoid God’s anger. Fierce wrath (literally “burning of the nose/anger”) translates two Hebrew nouns that refer to anger and are joined together to intensify the meaning. So translators should seek words that express a very strong emotion of anger. New American Bible says “burning anger,” and Anchor Bible has “violent wrath.” Instead of saying that God’s anger is upon people, it will be more natural in some languages to say that God is extremely angry at them or with them. For this whole clause New Century Version has “because the LORD is very angry with you.” Both Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version supply the implied information that God will “punish” the Israelites “in his anger.”

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 he-goats for the sin offering were brought to the king and the assembly: The common Hebrew conjunction rendered Then may be translated “Finally” (Good News Translation) since this is the last step in a series of events. The he-goats refers to the seven goats in verse 21. The Hebrew verb rendered were brought is literally “they caused to approach,” that is, “they presented.” It is an active verb with the priests as the subject. Instead of the assembly, it will be more natural in some languages to speak of “the people who had gathered.” For this whole clause New Century Version has “Then the priests brought the male goats for the sin offering before the king and the people there.”

And they laid their hands upon them: New Century Version makes clear the referents of the pronouns in this clause by saying “After the king and the people put their hands on the goats.” By laying their hands on the goats, they identified with the fate of the goats (see Lev 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 .

And Hezekiah spoke encouragingly to all the Levites: Spoke encouragingly to literally “spoke to the heart of.” This idiomatic expression is used again in 2 Chr 32.6. Knox attempts to keep some of the form of the Hebrew with “spoke to hearten.” But the meaning may be more naturally conveyed by saying “congratulated” (Anchor Bible) or “encouraged” (Dillard). Contemporary English Version says simply “thanked.”

Who showed good skill in the service of the LORD is literally “who understood good understanding to Yahweh.” The Hebrew clause here has a verb and noun that come from the same root. The Hebrew verb may mean either “to understand” or “to achieve success,” depending on the context. Likewise, the meaning of the noun may be either “understanding” or “success.” The precise meaning of this clause is not clear. It could mean any of the following: (1) the Levites did a good job in teaching people about God; (2) the Levites sang songs to God with good skill, that is, they did a very satisfactory job in leading the service of worship (so Good News Translation, Moffatt); or (3) the Levites had a good understanding regarding matters of God. Renderings that follow the last interpretation are “who had shown true insight in the service of the LORD” (Revised English Bible) and “who had such understanding of Yahweh” (New Jerusalem Bible).

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 is a great deal of redundancy in the first part of Hezekiah’s speech to the assembled army officers. But where adequate synonyms exist, it is best to retain the terms that are similar in meaning since they have a cumulative effect.

Be strong and of good courage: This exhortation recalls passages in Deuteronomy (31.6, 7, 23) and Joshua (1.6, 9, 18; 10.25) as well as 1 Chr 22.13 and 28.20 (see the comments there).

Do not be afraid or dismayed before the king of Assyria and all the horde that is with him: The words Do not be afraid or dismayed are also found in Josh 10.25 and are similar to those in Deut 31.6. The Hebrew verbal expressions for Do not be afraid and Do not be … dismayed are similar in meaning; but the first one has to do with fear, while the second one involves discouragement and the tendency to give up hope (see the comments on 1 Chr 22.13). Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for horde is rendered “multitude” (Gen 17.4; 2 Chr 13.8; 20.2) or “troops” (Jdg 4.7). Here it clearly refers to the large army led by the Assyrian king.

For there is one greater with us than with him: The Hebrew conjunction rendered for introduces the reason why the leaders of Judah’s army should not be afraid or discouraged. There is one greater with us is a clear reference to God, as the next verse makes explicit. God’s Word says “Someone greater is on our side,” and New Living Translation has “there is a power far greater on our side.”

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 .

Manasseh seduced Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem means he led the people astray spiritually. The Hebrew verb translated seduced is literally “caused to go astray.” The English word seduced often has sexual connotations, but since the meaning of the Hebrew term here is much more general, a different verb should be used, such as “misled” (New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible), “led … astray” (New International Version, Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), or “made … go wrong” (Moffatt). For the sake of clarity Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem may have to be reworded as “the people living in Jerusalem and in the rest of Judah.”

So that they did more evil than the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the people of Israel: The comparison between the people of Judah and the pagan nations who were driven out before the Israelites as they entered the land shows the Judeans to be extremely pagan in themselves. Some interpreters understand before the people of Israel to mean that God destroyed the pagan nations “in favour of the Israelites” (Revised English Bible) or “for the Israelites” (New Jerusalem Bible). However, as in verse 2, the sense is more likely “at the coming of the Israelites” (New American Bible) or “when the people of Israel entered the land” (New Living Translation).

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 .

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 .

The sons of Cush: Cush is translated “Ethiopia” by Contemporary English Version and Moffatt. This may be justified in other contexts, but it is not recommended here since it is clearly the name of an individual and not of a country (see the comments on the previous verse). Furthermore, the modern state of Ethiopia does not correspond exactly to the territory known as Cush in Hebrew. The biblical term included both Upper Egypt (the southern part of modern Egypt) and part of modern Sudan. In other contexts Traduction œcuménique de la Bible refers to the land known by the name Cush as “Nubia” (see, for example, 2 Kgs 19.9) and the inhabitants as “Nubians” (2 Chr 12.3; 14.8; 16.8). In the present context translators may choose to keep the name “Cush” in the text and state in a footnote that this corresponds to the northeastern corner of Africa. Another possible solution is to say “Cush” in the text and then include “Cush” in a glossary (so Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

Seba is mentioned after Egypt and Cush in Isa 43.3 and 45.14 and was probably located in northeastern Africa or in southern Arabia. Since this name and the following ones are almost certainly place names, it will be important to speak of “the people of” (Good News Translation) or “the inhabitants of” these areas. Otherwise readers will take them as names of individuals.

Havilah was located in southwestern Arabia, in the area of modern Yemen.

The exact locations of Sabta and Sabteca are unknown, but they were most likely somewhere in southern Arabia or Ethiopia.

The context in which Raamah is mentioned in Ezek 27.22 suggests that the reference is to a place in southern Arabia. Some scholars identify Raamah with the capital city of an oasis located in the southwestern part of modern-day Saudi Arabia. The spelling difference in Revised Standard Version between Raama and Raamah is difficult to explain since there is no difference in the Hebrew in this verse. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, this name is spelled “Raamah.” This minor inconsistency is carried over into New Revised Standard Version as well. But translators should not attempt to reflect this difference in the receptor language.

Sheba refers to the land and the people in southern Arabia in the area of modern Yemen. Dedan has been identified as a town located at an oasis in northwestern Arabia (compare Gen 10.7). Verse 22 lists Sheba as a descendant of Joktan, one of the descendants of Noah’s son Shem; verse 32 lists Sheba and Dedan as sons of Jokshan, another descendant of Shem. Here in verse 9 Sheba and Dedan are listed as descendants of Noah’s son Ham. It is possible that the three descendants of Ham and Shem who were named Sheba lived in southern Arabia.

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 .