And they shouted it with a loud voice in the language of Judah to the people of Jerusalem: The pronoun they refers to the messengers of King Sennacherib, which is made clear in New Century Version (“the king’s officers”) and New Living Translation (“The Assyrian officials”). Shouted … with a loud voice is a redundant expression, so Good News Translation says simply “shouted.” The language of Judah is “Hebrew” (so Good News Translation, New International Version, New Century Version, Revised English Bible, Moffatt, Bible en français courant). An American Translation says “the Jewish language.” The international language used for politics at that time was Aramaic. This verse assumes readers have knowledge of the story in 2 Kgs 18.26-28. So a footnote referring the modern reader to that passage will be essential; for example, one possibility is “Instead of speaking to them in the international language of Aramaic at that time, they spoke to them in their own ethnic language of Hebrew. See the parallel account in 2 Kgs 18.26-28.”

Who were upon the wall: The writer paints a picture of observers watching from a position on the city wall of Jerusalem as the official representatives of King Hezekiah received the message from Sennacherib’s officials. It was not uncommon for people to stand or sit on the wall around the city to witness important events taking place on the ground below (compare 2 Kgs 6.26-30). The height and thickness of city walls varied, depending on how much protection the citizens of a city thought that they needed. An early seventh-century B.C. wall in Jerusalem was 7 meters (23 feet) thick.

To frighten and terrify them: The Assyrian messengers shouted in Hebrew in order to spread fear throughout the civilian population. As is often the case when synonyms are used, the use of the two verbs frighten and terrify is intended to intensify the meaning. Some may prefer to say “spread panic.”

In order that they might take the city: The pronoun they refers to the Assyrian messengers, who were supported by their entire army.

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 he did not humble himself before the LORD: The common Hebrew conjunction rendered And is better translated “But” (Good News Translation, New Living Translation, La Bible Pléiade, La Bible des Communautés Chrétiennes) since there is a contrast here, comparing Amon unfavorably to his father who, in spite of his wrongdoing, repented. For humble himself, see the comments on 2 Chr 7.14.

As Manasseh his father had humbled himself: See verse 12.

But this Amon incurred guilt more and more: This Amon is literally “he Amon.” The pronoun “he” is emphatic. Revised Standard Version attempts to express this emphasis by saying this Amon. Incurred guilt more and more is literally “increased guilt.” The sense is clearly expressed in renderings such as “his guilt was much greater” (Revised English Bible) and “he was even more sinful than his father had been” (Good News Translation). Amon’s greater guilt came from his failure to worship God alone as his father had done.

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 Josiah took away all the abominations …: Josiah was last mentioned by name in the Hebrew text in verse 1. Good News Translation adds “King” before his name here for clarity. The fourfold repetition of the word all in this verse is probably intended to underline the thoroughness with which Josiah undertook his reform program. The abominations refers to “the disgusting idols” (Good News Translation) of the pagan nations that were in the land before the arrival of the people of Israel. For the Hebrew word translated abominations, see the comments on 2 Chr 28.3, where it is rendered “abominable practices.”

The territory that belonged to the people of Israel probably refers to the whole land of Israel and not just to the northern kingdom here.

New Living Translation provides a helpful model for the first sentence of this verse, saying “So Josiah removed all detestable idols from the entire land of Israel and required everyone to worship the LORD their God.”

All his days may be rendered “as long as he lived” (Good News Translation) or “during all his reign” (Moffatt).

They did not turn away from following the LORD the God of their fathers: New Century Version uses a positive expression here, saying “the people obeyed the LORD, the God of their ancestors.”

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 .

Nebuchadnezzar also carried part of the vessels of the house of the LORD to Babylon: The Masoretic Text does not have a word corresponding to the word also in Revised Standard Version, but many versions add also since this verse tells additional things that Nebuchadnezzar did. He also took some of the Temple equipment (see 1 Chr 28.14-18 and 2 Chr 4.19-22). The Hebrew word for vessels is a general term that may be translated “equipment,” “utensils” (God’s Word), or “articles” (New International Version) in this context. Here it refers to items or objects for use in the Temple (see the comments on 1 Chr 28.13).

And put them in his palace in Babylon: Palace translates a Hebrew noun that often refers specifically to the central room of the Temple (see the comments on 2 Chr 4.7, 22). As in some other Old Testament passages, the Hebrew noun seems to refer to the palace of a king here. Since it sometimes refers to the Temple or its central room in Jerusalem, some translators think it refers here also to a temple rather than a palace; for example, New International Version and An American Translation render his palace as “his temple,” and the alternative translation of Bible en français courant has “the temple of his gods.”

Babylon refers to the city in this verse, so Good News Translation says “Babylon.” The repetition of this proper name in Revised Standard Version, as in Hebrew, may be avoided if it is unnatural in the receptor language. Good News Translation provides a possible model for doing this.

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 .

Good News Translation adds a paragraph break here, which is helpful. Verses 3 and 4 are a summary of the stories found in Gen 38. Verse 4 lists two additional sons of Judah and states that he had five sons in all. This information is brought forward to the beginning of verse 3 in Good News Translation.

The sons of Judah …: See Gen 38.2-7. Many languages will require a verb in this introductory statement. Good News Translation adds the verb “had.” Other languages will find it more natural to say “Judah fathered the following sons” or “Judah gave birth….”

Er, Onan, and Shelah: Greater detail about Shelah and his descendants is provided in 1 Chr 4.21-23.

These three Bath-shua the Canaanitess bore to him: Translations are rather evenly divided concerning whether the Hebrew for Bath-shua is a woman’s name (so Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Revised English Bible) or whether it is two words, meaning “the daughter of Shua” (New International Version, Bible en français courant, Nouvelle version Segond révisée, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Reina-Valera revisada). Gen 38.2 identifies Shua as a Canaanite man. Languages vary as to whether it is more natural to mention the mother of the children before naming the children. The Hebrew, as reflected in Revised Standard Version, lists the children first and then states who their mother was. Good News Translation has reversed this, naming Bath-shua first. Contemporary English Version restructures in a different way by beginning this verse with “Judah and his Canaanite wife Bathshua had three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah.” Naturalness in the receptor language will be the most important factor in deciding which kind of structure to use.

Now Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD: For firstborn, see the comments on 1 Chr 1.13. LORD renders the Hebrew personal name for God revealed to Moses (see Exo 3.14-15). This name is transliterated “Yahweh” in New Jerusalem Bible and translated “the Eternal” in Moffatt. The American Standard Version of 1901 used the spelling “Jehovah,” but this is based on a mistaken notion about how the divine name was pronounced. The translation “Lord” is used in Revised Standard Version when the Hebrew word ʾadonai is used to refer to God. Er … was wicked in the sight of the LORD is literally “Er was … wicked in the eyes of the LORD.” Some other possible renderings for this clause are “The LORD considered Er … evil” (God’s Word), “he disobeyed and did what the LORD hated” (Contemporary English Version), and “Er … displeased the Lord so much” (Bible en français courant).

He slew him: Revised Standard Version‘s literal rendering here results in possible ambiguity for the pronouns he and him. Some versions avoid this ambiguity by making it clear that the pronoun he refers to “the LORD” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New International Version, New Living Translation, New Century Version, Revised English Bible). Other versions solve this problem by capitalizing the pronoun, saying “He” (New American Standard Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible), but this solution is not recommended since the hearers of the Scriptures will not be able to tell the difference, and the ambiguity will remain. God’s Word translates both of the pronouns with a noun to make the meaning clearer, saying “the LORD killed Er.” It is also possible to translate this clause as a relative clause for clarity; for example, New Jerusalem Bible has “[Yahweh] who put him to death.” Some other ways of translating the verb phrase slew him are “took his life” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) and “caused him to die” (Bible de Jérusalem, Osty-Trinquet).

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 Hananiah: Pelatiah and Jeshaiah, his son Rephaiah, his son Arnan, his son Obadiah, his son Shecaniah: Hananiah is the fifty-fourth generation from Adam. From here on, it is not clear how the line of descent should be counted. Is Pelatiah the fifty-fifth generation, Jeshaiah the fifty-sixth generation, Rephaiah the fifty-seventh, and so on? Or are Pelatiah and Jeshaiah of the same generation? It is not clear here whether the list of names in this verse covers two, six, or seven generations. The meaning of this verse is fairly clear in both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, but neither translation is a literal translation of the Masoretic Text. A literal translation reads as follows: “And the son of Hananiah Pelatiah and Jeshaiah, the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah, the sons of Shecaniah.” The footnote in Bible en français courant states, “The Hebrew text of this verse is not clear.” This is true for two reasons: (a) The singular “son” in the Hebrew introduces two sons: Pelatiah and Jeshaiah. (b) In the rest of the verse the plural “the sons of” occurs four times instead of the expected singular “his son.” Contemporary English Version avoids the problem somewhat by saying “descendants” instead of sons as follows: “Hananiah’s descendants were Pelatiah, Jeshaiah, Rephaiah, Arnan, Obadiah, and Shecaniah.” But this rendering does not indicate what relationship any of these men had to one another. Other solutions include the following:

• (1) The ancient versions begin with the plural “sons,” followed four times by the singular “his son,” and this is the basis for the Revised Standard Version translation (also New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New Living Translation, Revised English Bible, Reina-Valera revisada, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje). According to this translation, two sons of Hananiah are listed, followed by four generations of Jeshaiah’s descendants. Alternatively, it is possible to understand each occurrence of “his son” as referring to another son of Hananiah, which gives the same meaning as interpretation 4 below; that is, the text refers to Hananiah and his six sons.

• (2) Some translations give basically the same meaning as Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, but they solve the difficulty of the Hebrew text differently. Jewish Publication Version and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, for example, say “And the sons of Hananiah: Pelatiah and Jeshaiah; the sons of [Jeshaiah]: Rephaiah; the sons of [Rephaiah]: Arnan; the sons of [Arnan]: Obadiah; the sons of [Obadiah]: Shecaniah.” But this translation is odd, since after each occurrence of the words “the sons of [X],” only one name follows.

• (3) Another solution is to correct the four occurrences of “the sons of” in the Masoretic Text to “his son” and then to punctuate with a comma after each occurrence of “his son.” This solution requires that the expression “his son” be added after the last name Shecaniah. This produces the following translation: “Sons of Hananiah: Pelatiah; Jeshaiah his son, Rephaiah his son, Arnan his son, Obadiah his son, Shecaniah his son” (New Jerusalem Bible, Osty-Trinquet). According to this translation, only one son of Hananiah is listed, and the following names are descendants of Pelatiah for five generations. Moffatt corrects the text to read “Hananiah was the father of Pelatiah, Pelatiah of Jeshaiah, Jeshaiah of Rephaiah, Rephaiah of Arnan, Arnan of Obadiah, Obadiah of Shecaniah” (similarly La Bible Pléiade), which gives the same meaning as the translation in New Jerusalem Bible. Compare also “The son of Hananiah: Pelatiah, his son Jeshaiah, his son Rephaiah, his son Arnon, his son Obadiah, his son Shecaniah” (Knoppers). This is also the reading of the Septuagint.

• (4) Another approach is to correct the Masoretic Text by omitting all four occurrences of “the sons of” and replacing it with the word “and.” This correction of the Masoretic Text is the basis for the rendering “The sons of Hananiah were Pelatiah, Jeshaiah, Rephaiah, Arnan, Obadiah, and Shecaniah” (New American Bible; similarly Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Einheitsübersetzung). This translation results in six sons of Hananiah.

Since none of these people is mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament (the Obadiah mentioned here is not the prophet who wrote the book of Obadiah), it is impossible to be sure how many generations are intended, whether several from Hananiah to Shecaniah or whether only two or three generations. The differences in the translations quoted above reflect this uncertainty.

Another possibility is that the sons of Rephaiah, of Arnan, of Obadiah, and of Shecaniah were not descendants of Hananiah. They may have been other descendants of David living at the time of Zerubbabel. If this is the case, then Zerubbabel’s descendants are listed for two generations only: his son Hananiah and his grandsons Pelatiah and Jeshaiah. Some translations make no attempt to clarify the relationship of the persons named in the second half of this verse. Compare “The descendants of Hananiah: Pelatiah and Jeshaiah, and the sons of Rephaiah, of Arnan, of Obadiah and of Shecaniah” (New International Version; similarly Segond], La Bible du Semeur, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Nueva Versión Internacional).

Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives only a {D} rating to the Masoretic Text, suggesting that perhaps the precise genealogy was not known to the author. If the Masoretic Text is to make any sense, the meaning may be “Descendants of Hananiah: Pelatiah and Jeshaiah, as well as the sons of Rephaiah, Arnan, Obadiah and Shecaniah” (Bible en français courant; similarly New Century Version). Such a translation allows for the possibility that Rephaiah, Arnan, Obadiah, and Shecaniah all lived at the same time. Translators must simply choose one of the possible ways of understanding and translating this text and may state in a footnote that the translation is uncertain.

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 .