Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 8:17

The way the English versions are worded, there is a danger that on first reading one may think that Ahitub and Ahimelech were the mother and father of Zadok, and that Abiathar was his grandfather. The translation should make it clear that there were two priests: (1) Zadok, who was the son of Ahitub, and (2) Ahimelech, who was the son of Abiathar. In some languages this may mean restructuring as follows:

• There were two priests. One was the son of Ahitub and his name was Zadok. The other was the son of Abiathar and his name was Ahimelech.

Zadok later anointed Solomon as king (1 Kgs 1.32-40), and his influence continued for centuries (compare 1 Sam 2.35; 1 Kgs 4.2; 2 Chr 31.10).

Ahimelech the son of Abiathar: there is considerable confusion in the Old Testament texts as to which of these men was the father of the other one. In 1 Samuel (22.20; 23.6; and 30.7) Abiathar is presented as the son of Ahimelech, but here and in 1 Chronicles (18.16 and 24.6) Ahimelech is said to be the son of Abiathar. It is possible that the original order was “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, and Zadok” and that this text was deliberately rearranged in the form found in the Masoretic Text, which is followed by Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation; and Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament favors the reading of the Masoretic Text. Probably some scribe was surprised that Abiathar, descendant of Eli’s evil sons, was listed first, and that Zadok had no ancestors listed, while Abiathar had both a father and grandfather mentioned.

This supposition about the original form of the text has clearly influenced the translators of New Jerusalem Bible, which reads “Zadok and Abiathar the son of Ahimelech son of Ahitub were priests.” Revised English Bible is almost identical with New Jerusalem Bible, and Moffatt has essentially the same meaning, although the word order is different: “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech (the son of Ahitub) and Zadok were priests.” Both Anchor Bible and Contemporary English Version also propose “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech.” This is in keeping with the second listing of David’s high officials in 20.25, which states clearly that the priests were “Zadok and Abiathar” (see also 1 Kgs 4.4, which names Zadok and Abiathar as priests under King Solomon). Since there is no manuscript support for these suggested corrections of the Masoretic Text, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives an {A} evaluation to the Masoretic Text and suggests that translators use a footnote to indicate what the original text may have been. This is, in fact, what Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch does. But it seems better to follow the correction as found in Moffatt and indicate in a footnote what the Masoretic Text says.

Secretary: although the precise meaning of this term is not settled, it is certain that the office involved more than that of a modern secretary in the usual sense of the English word. This person may have been responsible for the king’s official correspondence or may have served as an ambassador. The meaning is closer to that of the cabinet-level offices in the administration of the U.S. government that are called “Secretary of…” followed by a term indicating their specific responsibility. The verbal root on which this noun is based is “to count” or “to number.” Both New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and Anchor Bible use the word “scribe,” but a scribe in the time of David held a very important position. He was a man of great learning and was highly respected. For this reason Anderson’s “royal scribe” is better. While Revised English Bible has “adjutant-general,” this modern terminology is unlikely to help translators in most areas of the world. Some languages may require an explanatory phrase like “the assistant to the king in charge of writing matters” or “the learned one who wrote down things for the king.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted