1 Tawarikh 27:25-34

Royal Officials

27:25 Azmaveth son of Adiel was in charge of the king’s storehouses;

Jonathan son of Uzziah was in charge of the storehouses in the field, in the cities, in the towns, and in the towers.

27:26 Ezri son of Kelub was in charge of the field workers who farmed the land. ¹ 

27:27 Shimei the Ramathite was in charge of the vineyards;

Zabdi the Shiphmite was in charge of the wine stored in the vineyards. ² 

27:28 Baal-Hanan the Gederite was in charge of the olive and sycamore trees in the lowlands; ³ 

Joash was in charge of the storehouses of olive oil.

27:29 Shitrai the Sharonite was in charge of the cattle grazing in Sharon;

Shaphat son of Adlai was in charge of the cattle in the valleys.

27:30 Obil the Ishmaelite was in charge of the camels;

Jehdeiah the Meronothite was in charge of the donkeys.

27:31 Jaziz the Hagrite was in charge of the sheep.

All these were the officials in charge of King David’s property.

27:32 Jonathan, David’s uncle, was a wise adviser and scribe; ⁴ 

Jehiel son of Hacmoni cared for ⁵  the king’s sons.

27:33 Ahithophel was the king’s adviser;

Hushai the Arkite was the king’s confidant. ⁶ 

27:34 Ahithophel was succeeded by Jehoiada son of Benaiah and by Abiathar.

Joab was the commanding general of the king’s army.

1 Tawarikh 27:2

27:2 Jashobeam son of Zabdiel was in charge of the first division, which was assigned the first month. His division consisted of 24,000 men.

Kolose 1:7

1:7 You learned the gospel ⁷  from Epaphras, our dear fellow slave ⁸  – a ⁹  faithful minister of Christ on our ¹⁰  behalf –

[27:26]  ¹ tn Heb “with respect to the work of the land.” The phrase refers to agricultural labor; see HALOT 776-77 s.v. עֲבֹדָה.

[27:27]  ² tn Heb “and over [that] which is in the vineyards, with respect to the storehouses of the wine, [was] Zabdi the Shiphmite.”

[27:28]  ³ tn Or “foothills”; Heb “the Shephelah.”

[27:32]  ⁴ tn Heb “was an adviser, a man of insight, and a scribe.”

[27:32]  ⁵ tn Heb “[was] with” (so KJV, ASV); NASB “tutored”; NRSV “attended”; NLT “was responsible to teach.’

[27:33]  ⁶ tn Heb “friend.”

[1:7]  ⁷ tn Or “learned it.” The Greek text simply has “you learned” without the reference to “the gospel,” but “the gospel” is supplied to clarify the sense of the clause. Direct objects were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

[1:7]  ⁸ tn The Greek word translated “fellow slave” is σύνδουλος (sundoulo"); the σύν- prefix here denotes association. Though δοῦλος is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.

[1:7]  ⁹ tn The Greek text has “who (ὅς, Jos) is a faithful minister.” The above translation conveys the antecedent of the relative pronoun quite well and avoids the redundancy with the following substantival participle of v. 8, namely, “who told” (ὁ δηλώσας, Jo dhlwsa").

[1:7]  ¹⁰ tc ‡ Judging by the superior witnesses for the first person pronoun ἡμῶν (Jhmwn, “us”; Ì⁴⁶ א* A B D* F G 326* 1505 al) vs. the second person pronoun ὑμῶν (Jumwn, “you”; found in א² C D¹ Ψ 075 33 1739 1881 Ï lat sy co), ἡμῶν should be regarded as original. Although it is possible that ἡμῶν was an early alteration of ὑμῶν (either unintentionally, as dittography, since it comes seventeen letters after the previous ἡμῶν; or intentionally, to conform to the surrounding first person pronouns), this supposition is difficult to maintain in light of the varied and valuable witnesses for this reading. Further, the second person is both embedded in the verb ἐμάθετε (emaqete) and is explicit in v. 8 (ὑμῶν). Hence, the motivation to change to the first person pronoun is counterbalanced by such evidence. The second person pronoun may have been introduced unintentionally via homoioarcton with the ὑπέρ (Juper) that immediately precedes it. As well, the second person reading is somewhat harder for it seems to address Epaphras’ role only in relation to Paul and his colleagues, rather than in relation to the Colossians. Nevertheless, the decision must be based ultimately on external evidence (because the internal evidence can be variously interpreted), and this strongly supports ἡμῶν.