So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel: So renders the common Hebrew conjunction. Here it shows the logical connection between David’s decision and the LORD’s action. Another possible logical connector is “Therefore” (New American Bible). However, some modern versions simply begin a new paragraph here without any overt transition word (for example, Revised English Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). The Hebrew verb translated sent is literally “gave.” But the context favors a translation like sent. New Jerusalem Bible says “unleashed.” Pestilence may be rendered “plague” (New International Version, New Living Translation, God’s Word) or “terrible disease” (New Century Version). See the comments on verse 12.

And there fell seventy thousand men of Israel is literally “it fell from Israel seventy thousand men.” This structure will likely be reversed in many languages so that seventy thousand men of Israel becomes the subject of the verb fell, which means “died” (Good News Translation) in this context. As in the previous verse, men does not seem to refer to males in distinction from females. For this reason some versions render men of Israel as “people of Israel” (Good News Translation; similarly New Revised Standard Version, New Living Translation), and others say “Israelites” (Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, American Bible, Bible en français courant, La Bible du Semeur, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje).

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 .

David also commanded all the leaders of Israel: Also renders the common Hebrew conjunction. Here it may be better translated as a temporal connector such as “then” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version, New Century Version, New Jerusalem Bible), or it may be left untranslated (so Good News Translation, Revised English Bible). Leaders renders the Hebrew word often translated “princes” (King James Version), but this is not to be taken in the literal sense of the English word. It has also been translated “chiefs” (Bible en français courant, Parole de Vie, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), “officers” (Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), and “ministers” (Nouvelle version Segond révisée).

To help Solomon his son, saying: Since Solomon has already been identified in this chapter as David’s son (see verses 5 and 11), Good News Translation omits this information here for reasons of English style. The word saying is not in the Hebrew text. Revised Standard Version has added it in order to introduce David’s words in verses 18-19.

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 echoes Num 18.3-5, except this verse ends with reference to the service of the house of the LORD rather than “the service of the tent.”

Thus (also Parole de Vie) renders the common Hebrew conjunction. Revised Standard Version and Parole de Vie interpret it as a logical connector here. New International Version similarly says “And so.” Many other versions leave it untranslated (so Good News Translation).

They shall keep charge of the tent of meeting and the sanctuary, and shall attend the sons of Aaron …: Revised Standard Version does not reflect the exact wording of the Hebrew in this verse. A more literal translation here reads “they shall keep the mishmereth of the tent of meeting and the mishmereth of the holy [place] and the mishmereth of the sons of Aaron….” The Hebrew noun mishmereth has a range of meanings, including “what is to be held in trust,” “guard,” “obligation,” “service,” and “duty.” Revised Standard Version does not translate this word the same way in each occurrence in this verse. Since the Levites were subordinate to the priests, it seems unlikely that the writer would have said that the Levites were to keep guard over, or be responsible for, the priests.

Braun argues that the translation keep charge of may be misleading since the Levites were subservient to the priests. He proposes that the Hebrew noun translated charge should be rendered “regulations/directives,” so he renders this verse as “They would follow the prescribed regulations of the tent of meeting and the holy things and the directives of the sons of Aaron….” New American Bible similarly reads “They shall observe what is prescribed for them concerning the meeting tent, the sanctuary, and the sons of Aaron….” Compare also “the Levites carried out their responsibilities for the Tent of Meeting, for the Holy Place and, under their brothers the descendants of Aaron, for the service of the temple of the LORD” (New International Version).

For the tent of meeting, see the comments on 1 Chr 6.32. Some interpreters consider this phrase to be a reference to the Tabernacle at Gibeon (1 Chr 16.39). But it may be figurative language here for the Temple if the Hebrew word for sanctuary refers to purification rites or food and vessels used in Temple worship. Or more likely, the writer used an anachronistic expression and then clarified its meaning by saying “that is, the sanctuary.”

The sanctuary is literally “the holy.” The Hebrew word here has a wide range of uses, and may refer to things that are holy, such as food and vessels used in worship, or to holy areas such as the Temple. Translations reflect this ambiguity, with some saying “the holy things” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Braun) or “the sacred objects” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Knoppers), and others saying “the Temple” (Good News Translation) or “the sanctuary” (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente alternative translation). If the Hebrew word refers to the Temple here, it is not clear in the Hebrew whether the sanctuary is in apposition to the tent of meeting or whether the sanctuary refers to the Temple that is not yet built. Contemporary English Version refers to both the Tabernacle and the Temple by rendering this verse as “They were once in charge of taking care of the sacred tent; now they are responsible for the temple and for helping Aaron’s descendants.”

The sons of Aaron, their brethren may be rendered “their relatives, the priests descended from Aaron” (Good News 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 .

The thirty (verse 6): See the comments on 1 Chr 11.25. New Living Translation says “David’s elite military group known as the Thirty.”

Ammizabad his son was in charge of his division (verse 6): The Hebrew is literally “and his [Benaiah’s] division was Ammizabad his son.” The meaning of this clause in Hebrew is not clear, and the many different translations of it reflect the difficulty of knowing what the intended meaning is. The Septuagint changed the text to read “and Ammizabad his son was over his division.” But Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {C} rating to the Masoretic Text, arguing that the Septuagint changed the text to agree with the form of the following verses. Even if someone follows the Masoretic Text here, as Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament recommends, a literal translation will be confusing or without meaning.

The difficulty in giving a clear translation is that the intended meaning is not immediately obvious. Probably more is intended than simply “His son was Ammizabad” (God’s Word). In the Masoretic Text this clause almost certainly means at the least that “his son Ammizabad was in his division” (so An American Translation, Moffatt, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, La Bible Pléiade, El libro del Pueblo de Dios, Nueva Versión Internacional, Reina-Valera revisada, Osty-Trinquet, Peregrino.

But the clause “his division was Ammizabad his son” may mean more than simply that Ammizabad was in his father’s division. In agreement with the Septuagint, it may mean that Ammizabad was in charge of the division of 24,000 men while his father was in charge of the elite corps of “The Thirty” (so Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New Century Version, Revised English Bible, New American Bible, Bible en français courant, La Bible du Semeur, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). Bible en français courant, for example, renders the last half of verse 6 as “when he became leader of them [the Thirty], it was his son Ammizabad who took charge of his division” (similarly Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente), and Revised English Bible has “was a chief among the thirty … but his son Ammizabad commanded his division.”

On the other hand, this clause may mean that Ammizabad became the leader of the elite corps after his father died (so Good News Translation, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje).

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 .

All this he made clear …: Before discussing the details of the various problems in this verse, two matters need to be clarified: (1) The expression All this refers to the whole plan for the Temple which David gave in verses 11-18. New Century Version makes this somewhat clearer by translating “All these plans.” (2) The referent for the pronoun he is Yahweh, and for this reason some versions will translate “the LORD” in place of the pronoun.

There are numerous difficulties in translating this verse, and these difficulties are reflected in the considerable differences found in the existing English versions. Klein states, “This short verse is difficult to translate and therefore difficult to interpret” (page 527). A rather literal translation of this verse in the Masoretic Text reads as follows: “The all in writing from the hand of the LORD upon me has made wise, all the works of the plan.” The problems are the following:

• (1) David spoke to Solomon in verses 9-10, but verses 11-18 are narrative, telling that David gave Solomon the plans for the Temple. Now suddenly in verse 19, it appears that David must be speaking again since we find the words “upon me.” (These words are in the Masoretic Text but not in Revised Standard Version since the Revised Standard Version rendering is based on a slight correction of the Masoretic Text.) The Septuagint paraphrases this verse under the influence of verse 11 in order to avoid the difficulty created by the unexpected presence of the first person pronoun “me.” (Some interpreters think the Hebrew suffix pronoun for “me” is a rare third person singular rather than first person singular, but few scholars accept this view.) Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, which gives a {B} rating to the reading in the Masoretic Text, argues that the Masoretic Text reading is the harder reading and is therefore more likely original. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament also notes that the writer of 1 Chronicles unexpectedly inserts the first person pronoun in 23.5 in a context in which the writer is speaking about David. But whatever textual decision someone makes here, a literal translation of the Masoretic Text will probably be confusing to many readers. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, for example, says “All of this is found in a writing from the hand of the LORD, who made me understand all the works of the plan,” but this sounds as if the writer of the story is referring to himself.

If translators follow the MT here, there are various ways to translate “upon me.” Unlike Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, An American Translation encloses the entire verse in quotation marks and reads “The whole in writing is from the hand of the LORD to me, causing me to understand, even all the works of the pattern.” New Revised Standard Version similarly puts the verse in quotation marks, saying “All this, in writing at the LORD’s direction, he made clear to me–the plan of all the works.” But such literal translations will not help the person who only hears the text read and cannot see the quotation marks. For this reason Good News Translation adds the words “King David said” to introduce the quote (similarly New International Version, New Living Translation, Revised English Bible, Moffatt, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

Some interpreters correct the Masoretic Text to read “upon him” (New American Bible) or “upon it” instead of “upon me.” This is the basis for the Revised Standard Version rendering concerning it.

• (2) The meaning and subject of the Hebrew verb hiskil (“he has made wise”) is not certain. The normal meaning of this Hebrew verb is “teach” or “cause to understand,” but Revised English Bible takes it to mean “consider.” Additionally, what is the subject of this verb? According to Good News Translation, for example, it was David who made Solomon understand. But according to New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, it was God who made David understand.

• (3) In the punctuation of the Masoretic Text, the verb hiskil is connected to the preceding Hebrew word ʿalay (“upon me”) and comes at the end of the first half of this verse. Revised English Bible follows the punctuation in the Masoretic Text, saying “my part [ʿalay] was to consider [hiskil].” However, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh takes the word ʿalay (“upon me”) with the preceding Hebrew words for “from the hand of LORD,” referring to divine inspiration. For this whole verse New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “All this that the LORD made me understand by His hand on me, I give you in writing–the plan of all the works.” Compare Moffatt, which says “ ‘All this,’ said David, ‘all these plans have I been inspired to write down by the Eternal, who has instructed me.’ ” New International Version similarly says “ ‘All this,’ David said, ‘I have in writing from the hand of the LORD upon me, and he gave me understanding in all the details of the plan.’ ” Like New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Revised Standard Version does not follow the punctuation in the Masoretic Text, but rather connects alay (“upon me”) with the preceding words by saying from the hand of the LORD concerning it.

• (4) Regarding the words “in writing,” who did the writing? David (Good News Translation) or God (Revised Standard Version)?

(a) With Revised Standard Version, the sense may be “ ‘Every part of this plan,’ David told Solomon, ‘was given to me in writing from the hand of the LORD’ ” (New Living Translation). The same sense is found in La Bible du Semeur, which reads “All of this, David said, is found in a writing from the hand of the Eternal who caused me to understand all the details described in the plan” (similarly Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch similarly reads “And David said, ‘For all of this work, which is necessary for the completion of the building, the LORD has given me written instructions, which come from his hand.’ ”
(b) Or with Good News Translation, the sense may be “ ‘Every part of this plan,’ David told Solomon, ‘was written under the direction of the LORD’ ” (New Living Translation alternative translation; similarly Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje). Compare “All this [do I give thee] in writing, as the LORD hath made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern” (Jewish Publication Version). New American Bible is similar with “He had successfully committed to writing the exact specifications of the pattern, because the hand of the LORD was upon him.”

The above translations show that scholars disagree in many details regarding the interpretation and translation of this verse. In any case, the writer is saying that just as God gave Moses a pattern for building the Tabernacle (Exo 25.9, 40), so he also gave specific instructions to David for the Temple. The writers of this Handbook recommend the following Revised English Bible translation as most likely to represent the intended meaning: “ ‘All this was drafted by the LORD’s own hand,’ said David; ‘my part was to consider the detailed working out of the plan.’ ”

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 content of this verse provides background information, which is indicated in several translations by the use of parentheses (so Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), square brackets (so Anchor Bible), or long dashes (so Menge). It is a kind of flashback referring to a time prior to that of the immediate context. The purpose of these words is to explain to the reader that, although the Tabernacle was still in Gibeon, Solomon’s father, David, had previously removed the Covenant Box from the town of Kiriath Jearim and placed it in Jerusalem in a tent specially prepared for it (see 2 Sam 6.1-17; 1 Chr 13.1-14; 15.25–16.1). It is possible to understand both verses 4 and 5 as parenthetical (so NET Bible). If this interpretation is followed, then the statement in verse 5 that Solomon and the assembly sought the LORD refers to a practice that had been repeated in the past and does not refer to the current trip to Gibeon mentioned in verse 3.

But David had brought up the ark of God from Kiriath-jearim to the place that David had prepared for it: The Hebrew conjunction rendered But (also King James Version) has a contrastive sense here, as it does also in 2 Chr 19.3 and 33.17. Good News Translation expresses the contrast with the connector “however” (also NASB, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, El libro del Pueblo de Dios). The contrast is between the location of the Covenant Box and that of the Tabernacle mentioned in the previous verse. The Tabernacle was still in Gibeon at that time. Because this verse is a kind of flashback, the verb tense is especially important in English. Revised Standard Version uses the past perfect tense: had brought up … had prepared … had pitched. New Living Translation emphasizes the pastness of these actions by adding the adverb “already.” For the ark of God, see the comments on 1 Chr 6.31. Kiriath-jearim was located about 13 kilometers (8 miles) northwest of Jerusalem in the central hill country. The name Kiriath-jearim means “city of forests.” The words to the place are not found in the Hebrew text; Revised Standard Version has added them to complete the sense. This implicit information is also supplied by other versions such as New International Version and Revised English Bible. Something similar may be required in other languages.

For he had pitched a tent for it in Jerusalem: See the comments on 1 Chr 15.1. Translators should ensure that readers understand that the tent mentioned here is different from the one in verse 3. In some languages it may even prove necessary to speak of “another tent” or “a different tent” in this verse.

Good News Translation restructures the information in this verse by making “the Covenant Box” the subject of the sentence and by using the passive verb “kept” (similarly Revised English Bible). However, in those languages where passive constructions are rare, this will not be a good model. Good News Translation also renders the second occurrence of the name David as a pronoun, which may sound more natural 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 .

These are Solomon’s measurements for building the house of God: In the Masoretic Text this clause is literally “And these [were] the founding [or, to found] of Solomon for building the house of God.” The exact meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version have followed the ancient Syriac in reading measurements instead of the Hebrew infinitive meaning “to found.” Anchor Bible also has the word “measurements” and makes a slight change in the form of the Hebrew verb by rendering this clause as “Now these are the measurements which Solomon fixed for the building of the house of God.”

Others understand the Hebrew to be referring not to the measurements of the whole building but rather to the layout of the foundation. Translations based on this interpretation include “Now these are the foundations which Solomon laid for the building of the house of God” (An American Translation), “Here is the ground-plan drawn up by Solomon for building the temple of God” (Moffatt), and “These are the foundations which Solomon laid for building the house of God” (Revised English Bible). Since the author of 2 Chronicles omits most of the height measurements found in the parallel passages in 1 Kings, this understanding seems preferable to that in Revised Standard Version. Good News Translation avoids the difficulty by not translating literally. It is not clear whether the Hebrew words translated the house of God refer (1) only to the central room (the nave), (2) to the nave and the Most Holy Place, or (3) to the entire Temple.

If the first interpretation is followed, then the nave was 60 cubits long, the Most Holy Place at the back was an additional 20 cubits by 20 cubits, and the vestibule at the front was also an additional 20 cubits by 20 cubits.

If the second interpretation is followed, the Temple (nave + Most Holy Place) was 60 cubits long, and the vestibule was 20 cubits long. This interpretation is most likely the intended meaning of the difficult Hebrew of this verse.

If the third interpretation is followed (so Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), then the Temple consisted of three parts (vestibule + nave + Most Holy Place), each 20 cubits wide and 20 cubits long.

The length, in cubits of the old standard, was sixty cubits, and the breadth was twenty cubits: Regarding the modern equivalents of the cubit, see the comments on 1 Chr 11.23. There were two different lengths of the cubit. One was equivalent to about 45 centimeters (18 inches), and the other was equivalent to about 50 centimeters (20 inches). See Ezek 40.5 and 43.13, where the cubit used is a handbreadth longer than the shorter cubit. Some interpreters claim that the old standard refers to the shorter cubit, while others state that it refers to the longer cubit. The historical evidence is simply insufficient to provide a definitive answer. Therefore equivalents in modern measurements of meters and feet will differ, depending on whether translators think cubits of the old standard refers to the shorter or longer cubits. According to the shorter cubit, the Temple measured approximately 90 feet by 30 feet as in Good News Translation, but according to the longer cubit, it measured about 100 feet by 33 feet. Assuming the shorter cubit is intended here, the approximate equivalents for sixty cubits and twenty cubits in meters are “27 meters” and “9 meters” (GNT British edition, Nueva Versión Internacional, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje).

Good News Translation does not keep the information that the measurement was according to the old standard, which was no longer in use when the author wrote 2 Chronicles. However, this information should not be omitted. El libro del Pueblo de Dios manages to keep the form of the Hebrew while at the same time giving modern equivalents: “the length measured thirty meters, that is, sixty cubits in the old measure, and the width was ten meters.” Bible en français courant gives another model for providing this information by using meters in the translation and then stating the following in a footnote: “The author, who gives the dimensions in ‘cubits,’ states that the usage is in the old ‘cubit,’ shorter than that in use in his time.” Either of these solutions is preferable to that of Good News Translation, which simply omits this element.

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 .