But: While the Hebrew text has only the common conjunction here, the information that follows is contrary to the reader’s expectation after having read the previous verse. For this reason it may be necessary to use a conjunction marking contrast, as in Revised Standard Version, or a statement like the one in Good News Translation, which reads “Only Ahaziah’s son Joash escaped.” Most versions have “But” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version), but it is also possible to say “However” or “Nevertheless.” Knox, using a different construction, has the word “except.”
Good News Translation also restructures the verse by providing the essential information first and then giving the details of how Joash managed to escape death. This restructuring may also be a good model for many other languages.
King Joram: It is recommended that the name “Jehoram” (Good News Translation, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Contemporary English Version) be used for this king. See the comments at 2 Kgs 1.17 and 8.16.
Sister of Ahaziah: Ahaziah and Jehosheba were children of Jehoram. Josephus (k Jewish Antiquitiesk* 9.7.1) claimed that Jehosheba was the daughter of Jehoram but not of Athaliah. But nowhere does the biblical text say that Jehoram had another wife besides Athaliah. This tradition is apparently the basis for the Good News Translation rendering “half sister” (also Contemporary English Version); that is, according to Good News Translation, Jehosheba and Ahaziah had the same father, but not the same mother. Since the biblical text itself does not indicate that Jehosheba was only a half sister, translators should not follow Good News Translation here. Jehosheba would have been the aunt (so Good News Translation) of the child whose life she was attempting to save. She is also said to have been the wife of Jehoiada the priest in 2 Chr 22.11. But in that passage her name is spelled slightly differently as “Jehoshabeath.” The name should be spelled the same way in both cases. Since Jehosheba was the wife of the priest named Jehoiada, she had access to the private rooms set aside for the exclusive use of the priests.
Stole … away: This somewhat archaic expression is rendered in more modern language by New American Bible as “spirited him away.” New Jerusalem Bible says “surreptitiously rescued.” Even though New Jerusalem Bible uses high-level language here, it captures the meaning well. A more common language way of saying this might be “secretly took … away” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Hobbs uses the English word “kidnapped,” and this is indeed the meaning of the Hebrew verb rendered stole … away in certain other Old Testament contexts (Gen 40.15; Exo 21.16; Deut 24.7).
The king’s sons may be rendered “the king’s other sons” since Joash was also a son of the king.
Who were about to be slain: This clause translates a single word in Hebrew. The form of the word in the Masoretic Text is probably the result of a scribal error, and for this reason most translations like Revised Standard Version are based on the reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text. But translations differ in whether this word should be translated “who were about to be killed” (so New Revised Standard Version; similarly New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible) or “who were being killed” (so Moffatt; similarly Revised English Bible). Either translation is acceptable. The passive idea will have to be rendered actively in many languages. Some other ways of translating this idea are “when the other sons of the king were dying” or “when they [indefinite] were killing the members of the king’s family.” In Bible en français courant the verse is restructured so that this clause comes at the beginning and is rendered “at the time of the massacre.”
And she put him and his nurse in a bedchamber: Instead of she put him, the traditional Hebrew text has only the pronoun “him” at this point and does not have a verb. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text and suggests that the words him and his nurse are both the objects of the earlier verb stole … away. Provan argues that the Masoretic Text makes sense and should be understood to mean that Jehosheba stole Joash and his nurse from the bedroom; that is, the bedroom is not the place where they were hidden but the place from which they were stolen. But this interpretation is not the most natural reading of the Hebrew preposition rendered in.
In spite of the recommendation of Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, virtually all modern versions find it necessary to translate in a way that agrees with the parallel passage in 2 Chr 22.11 by including the verb “put,” which must have dropped out at some point in the transmission of the text of 2 Kings. Even if it is agreed that the shorter text is the better text, the longer reading may have to be followed for translation reasons.
The Hebrew word rendered nurse is a participle that comes from the causative form of the verb “to suck” (see the comments at 2 Kgs 3.21). So this word should not to be taken here in the sense of a person with special medical training, but rather should be understood as a “nursemaid.” Some other passages where the term appears are Gen 24.59; 35.8 and Exo 2.7. Such women were hired to take care of small children, and in some cases even to nourish them with their own milk. But in other cases the term refers simply to an intimate female “personal servant” (Contemporary English Version).
Bedchamber probably refers to one of the private bedrooms in the Temple area which were destined for use only by the priests and their families. Because Jehosheba was the wife of a priest, she was apparently able to hide her nephew in one of the private rooms that were normally used only by the priests. In Hebrew bedchamber is literally “inner room of beds,” so some interpreters believe this refers not to a bedroom but rather to a room where the covers and cloths for the beds were kept. This interpretation is the basis for the NET Bible rendering “the room where the bed covers were stored.”
So that he was not slain: Instead of the passive form here, it will be more natural in certain languages to retain Athaliah as the subject of the clause and say “so that she [Athaliah] could not kill him” or “in order that they [indefinite] would not be able to kill him.”
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .