Therefore translates the common Hebrew conjunction. Since it functions here to introduce a logical consequence of verse 10, it may also be translated “So” (Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

The LORD brought upon them the commanders of the army of the king of Assyria: Brought is literally “caused to come.” It may be more naturally translated “sent” (New Living Translation), “let … invade” (Good News Translation), or “made … invade” (God’s Word). The pronoun them refers to Manasseh and the people of Judah.

Who took Manasseh with hooks: An Assyrian inscription on a baked clay prism records that Manasseh was one of twenty-two vassal kings summoned to Nineveh by King Esarhaddon of Assyria, son of Sennacherib. The Hebrew noun for hooks means “thorn” (see 2 Chr 25.18, where it is rendered “thistle”), but it is used here metaphorically for a hook. Exactly what these objects were and how they were used is uncertain. Revised English Bible says “they captured Manasseh with spiked weapons.” A relief from Zenjirli, in northern Syria, shows King Esarhaddon holding two prisoners by ropes passed through rings in their noses. This is the basis for the NET Bible rendering “put hooks in his nose.” New Revised Standard Version and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh say “who took Manasseh captive in manacles [that is, handcuffs],” but we do not recommend this interpretation.

And bound him with fetters of bronze: The word fetters refers to shackles or chains for the feet. The Hebrew noun here refers to copper or bronze and is sometimes used of fetters made of bronze (see Jdg 16.21; 2 Sam 3.34; 2 Chr 36.6; Jer 52.11; see also WTH, page 225|fig:WTH.chain.223-225.html). Some versions do not indicate that the chains were made of bronze (so New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). But there is no good reason to omit this information in translation.

And brought him to Babylon: The Hebrew verb here may be translated either brought or “took” (Good News Translation, New International Version). In English brought normally indicates action toward the person telling the story, whereas “took” indicates action away from where the author is located. Some translations avoid this issue by translating the whole clause as “and led him away to Babylon” (New Living Translation) or “and led him off to Babylon” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). At this time in Judah’s history, the city of Babylon was under Assyrian authority.

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 .

So Hilkiah and those whom the king had sent went to Huldah …: The Masoretic Text is literally “And Hilkiah went and those whom the king to Huldah….” The Revised Standard Version reading follows the Vulgate and the Syriac. The Septuagint says “And Hilkiah and those to whom the king had spoken went to Huldah….” Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {C} rating to the Masoretic Text here. But most languages will have to supply words such as “had sent” or “had spoken.” Even King James Version adds the words “had appointed” in this verse, and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh supplies the words “had ordered” but places them in square brackets to show that they were not a part of the original text. Following the Septuagint, Revised English Bible says “Hilkiah and those whom the king had instructed went to Huldah….”

Huldah the prophetess performed the same functions as a male prophet. Although Good News Translation says “prophet,” the Hebrew noun here is feminine, as reflected in the Revised Standard Version rendering prophetess. Archaeological evidence confirms the existence of female prophets in the ancient Near East. Huldah is the only female prophet mentioned in 1-2 Chronicles. The first part of her prophecy came true (verse 28a), but her prophecy that Josiah would die in peace (verse 28b) did not come true (see 2 Chr 35.23-24).

The text provides a detailed explanation of who Huldah was in terms of her husband Shallum, with details about his lineage (the son of Tokhath, [who was] son of Hasrah) and his occupation (keeper of the wardrobe). The parallel text in 2 Kgs 22.14 has the name “Tikvah” instead of Tokhath. A number of versions follow the parallel text in reading “Tikvah” here also (so Good News Translation, Revised English Bible). Revised English Bible changes to “Tikvah” on the assumption that the name Tokhath is not the original reading here. In the case of Good News Translation, it seems that the translators have simply used the same form of the name as in 2 Kings for the sake of consistency.

Instead of Hasrah, the parallel text in 2 Kgs 22.14 has the variant spelling “Harhas,” which is the form used here also in some versions (so Good News Translation, Moffatt).

Keeper of the wardrobe: There is no explicit indication of whose clothing Shallum was responsible for. In light of 2 Kgs 10.22, the wardrobe may refer to special garments used at religious functions. Some interpreters think that he was in charge of the priests’ clothes that they wore while on duty in the Temple. This is the basis for the translation “was in charge of the Temple robes” (Good News Translation, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy; similarly Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). But other commentators seem to agree that he was in the employ of the king and was in charge of the king’s wardrobe; for example, Contemporary English Version says “who was in charge of the king’s clothes,” and Knox has “that once kept the royal wardrobe.” If translators choose to make explicit one of these two interpretations, the alternative interpretation may be stated in a footnote.

Now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter: The text further describes Huldah in terms of the place where she lived. Her residence was in a part of Jerusalem called the Second Quarter (Mishneh in Hebrew). In addition to the parallel passage in 2 Kgs 22.14, this section of Jerusalem is mentioned also in Zeph 1.10. The Hebrew term Mishneh is often said to refer to a district on the northern side of the city which had been built more recently than many other parts. However, some scholars believe it was located on the western hill of Jerusalem. In any case, it refers to a newer part of the city, so Good News Translation renders in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter as “in the newer part of Jerusalem.” Similarly, New Jerusalem Bible says “in Jerusalem in the new town.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh transliterates the Hebrew word for Second Quarter, saying “in Jerusalem in the Mishneh,” but this is not recommended since it will have no meaning for the average reader.

The order in which the various elements describing Huldah are given in translation will depend on what is natural in the receptor language. One possible approach is to use two sentences based on the following model of New Century Version: “She was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, who took care of the king’s clothes. Huldah lived in Jerusalem, in the new area of the city.”

And spoke to her to that effect: After a rather lengthy description of who Huldah was, the text finally says that the delegation from Josiah spoke to her. In some languages a different verb may be required. Some English versions use “consulted” (Revised English Bible) or “told” (Knox). In those languages in which the pronouns “him” and “her” are identical, it may be wise to substitute the proper name “Huldah” for the pronoun her. To that effect is literally “like this,” which refers to the task given to them by the king. One possible model for this clause is “They talked to Huldah about the king’s request.”

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 the archers shot King Josiah: The archers who shot the arrows at King Josiah were Egyptians. Good News Translation expresses this information by saying “Josiah was struck by Egyptian arrows.”

And the king said to his servants: The servants involved in warfare with Josiah would be his “bodyguard” (Revised English Bible) or possibly some of his “officers” (New International Version, God’s Word).

Take me away, for I am badly wounded: This direct quotation reflects the Hebrew, but some languages will prefer indirect discourse here. A possible model is “he instructed his protectors to take him out of the battle because of his severe injury.” Another possible model is found in Revised English Bible, which reads “he was severely wounded and told his bodyguard to take him away.”

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 .

Cush was the father of Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth: It is not clear why the writer inserts this information about Nimrod, who was the founder of Assyria (see Gen 10.8-12). The prophet Micah refers to Assyria as “the land of Nimrod” (Micah 5.6). The Mesopotamian descendants of Nimrod became Israel’s great enemies during the time when the Assyrians and the Babylonians ruled the ancient Near East. Good News Translation indicates the special character of this verse by placing it within parentheses, but this is probably not necessary.

As the footnote in New International Version correctly states, the word father here and in verses 11, 13, 18, and 20 may mean “ancestor” or “founder.” However, few modern versions adopt this understanding of the text.

According to Gen 10, Nimrod was a great hunter. All that the writer of 1 Chronicles says is he was a mighty one in the earth. The Hebrew noun translated mighty one refers to people or animals that are vigorous and strong. In this verse it is usually rendered “warrior” or something similar. In the earth means “on the earth.” In ordinary English it may be expressed as “in the world.” Translations for a mighty one in the earth include “the world’s first great conqueror” (Good News Translation, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje), “the first great ruler of the earth” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), “the world’s first soldier” (Peregrino, “the first warrior on the earth” La Bible: Nouvelle Traduction, El libro del Pueblo de Dios), “a mighty warrior on [the] earth” (New International Version, New Century Version), and “the first to be a hero on the earth” (Nouvelle Bible Segond). The American Translation (An American Translation) has “an outstanding man in the earth,” but this rendering seems to be too general. For mighty one, American Bible has “tyrant.” As Johnstone (volume 1, pages 30-31) points out, Nimrod and Nebuchadnezzar are the first and last Babylonian tyrants to be mentioned in 1–2 Chronicles (1 Chr 1.10; 2 Chr 36.6-13), so perhaps the word “tyrant” or “despot” (Moffatt, La Sainte Bible: La version Etablie par les moines de Maredsous) better expresses the author’s intended meaning than does a more general word such as “warrior” or “ruler.”

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 .

His daughter-in-law Tamar also bore him Perez and Zerah: See Gen 38.12-30 for the details of how Tamar, the widow of Er, became the mother of Judah’s sons Perez and Zerah. The pronoun His refers to Judah. Translators in some languages will need to make this clear by rendering this pronoun as “Judah’s” (New Century Version). The hyphenated English term daughter-in-law is translated in a wide variety of ways in receptor languages. Some may have special technical terms, while others will convey the meaning by saying “son’s wife.” Revised Standard Version has added the word also because of the context. Good News Translation expresses this same idea with the words “two more sons.” Perez was the twenty-fourth generation in the line of descent that began with Adam.

Judah had five sons in all: Good News Translation moves this clause forward to the beginning of verse 3 in order to present the information in a more logical way in English.

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 Hebron: Good News Translation adds the idea that Hebron had “four” sons. This addition is acceptable if it is natural to do so in the receptor language, but it may not be considered necessary in many languages.

Tappuah, also called Beth-tappuah in Josh 15.53, was a town located a few kilometers west-northwest of Hebron.

It is not clear whether Rekem is a clan name or a place name.

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 Shecaniah: Shemaiah. And the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah, and Shaphat, six: As in the previous verse, this verse also is difficult in the Masoretic Text, which reads as follows: “And the sons of Shecaniah: Shemaiah. And the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush and Igal and Bariah and Neariah and Shaphat, six.” The Masoretic Text is followed by Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Segond and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, but the difficulty is that the Masoretic Text says “six” but lists only five sons of Shemaiah. So many interpreters have proposed various solutions, including the following:

• (1) The words And the sons of Shemaiah are a later insertion and should be omitted in translation. The result of this omission is that the number six now refers to the six sons of Shecaniah instead of Shemaiah. New American Bible, for example, reads “The sons of Shecaniah were Shemiah, Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah, Shaphat–six” (similarly Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Einheitsübersetzung, Luther, Osty-Trinquet, and La Bible Pléiade, which has empty square brackets after the first mention of the name Shemaiah). Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {C} rating to the Masoretic Text, but states that the words And the sons of Shemaiah are probably a scribe’s addition. But if the Masoretic Text contains a very early addition, it will be better to omit this addition in translation. A good model is “Shecaniah had six sons, Shemaiah, Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah and Shaphat” (Bible en français courant; similarly Moffatt, La Bible du Semeur, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente).

• (2) Various solutions to this difficulty are found in the ancient versions. One part of the ancient Greek manuscript tradition reads “Shaphat and Shophat” at the end of the verse in order to have six names. Some modern scholars suggest that a sixth name was accidentally omitted by a scribe, and this suggestion is, of course, possible.

• (3) Some manuscripts of the Vulgate transliterate the Hebrew word for “six” as a man’s name, “Sessa,” and then translate the word again as “six” in order to have six names.

• (4) It is, of course, possible that the writer intended the number six to refer to both Shemaiah and the five sons of Shemaiah. This seems to be the basis for the translations found in Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version and Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje, which take the last five names as the “grandsons” of Shecaniah and omit the word six. This also seems to be the interpretation behind the translation “Son of Shecaniah: Shemaiah. Sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah and Shaphat; six in all” (Peregrino; similarly Reina-Valera revisada). Compare also “Shecaniah’s descendants were Shemaiah and his sons, Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah, and Shaphat–six in all” (New Living Translation).

• (5) Berkeley takes a different approach by suggesting that the list here includes only some of the six sons as follows: “Shecaniah’s son being Shemaiah. Shemaiah had six sons, including Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah, and Shaphat.” By adding the word “including,” this translation indicates that the author did not intend to list six persons. But this translation is not recommended since the Masoretic Text does not indicate that the author intended to list only some of the six sons.

The most likely solutions here are numbers 1 and 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 .

The names of Adi-el and Jesimiel (verse 36) are omitted in one manuscript of the Septuagint, and others give the second of these two names as “Ishmael,” as is also the case in some Hebrew manuscripts. But most modern versions retain the names as found in Revised Standard Version and 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 .