Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 19:16

And: the conjunction here seems to show that the action of Shimei was more or less simultaneous with that of the men of Judah described in the previous verse.

On Shime-i see 16.5-13, where he is described as having cursed David when David was fleeing from Jerusalem. In view of his previous actions, it is surprising that he hurries to see the king whom he had previously cursed. But perhaps he felt that if he quickly asked forgiveness David might be merciful, and Shimei might avoid the punishment that would have inevitably come if he kept himself hidden. Shime-i is described in terms of his parentage, his tribe, and his village of origin. The order of these elements in the receptor language should follow what is most natural. Translators should avoid blindly following the order of the Hebrew or of any English version.

Bahurim: compare 3.16; 16.5; 17.18.

Come down: that is, to the area of the Jordan River. It may be wise to make this clear in translation, as Good News Translation has done.

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 .

Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 20:9

And: it will not be necessary in some languages to translate the conjunction in this case. It serves merely to join together the description of Joab’s attire and his encounter with Amasa.

The report of Joab’s behavior toward Amasa was considered perfectly normal at the time. He asks first about Amasa’s welfare, using the common word for “peace” often found in greetings in the Middle East to this day. And he calls his cousin Amasa my brother, using the term in its broadest sense. In languages where this very general meaning is likely to be misunderstood in a stricter sense, it will be better to use a different word such as “my friend” (Good News Translation) or something similar. Contemporary English Version and New Living Translation say “my cousin.” In some languages it will be more natural to put this address before the question about welfare (or greeting) rather than after it. The translation will then read something like “My brother [or, friend], is everything all right with you?”

The action of taking someone by the beard was not considered unusual in such a setting. It was a friendly gesture commonly used between men when they were greeting each other. So translators should avoid giving the impression that this was an obviously hostile action.

Kiss: see 15.5.

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 .

Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 21:17

But: since the sentence that follows represents a turnaround in the story, the common conjunction is properly translated by a contrastive conjunction like But or “However” in this case.

Came to his aid: that is, Abishai came to help David, not the giant. There should be no doubt who is meant. If there is, the name “David” should appear in the translation.

Adjured him: the pronoun him refers to David and not to Abishai. Several English versions render this rather high-level verbal expression “swore to him” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and New American Bible). Others show equally clearly that the idea of an oath is involved: “declared to him on oath” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh); “swore the following oath to him” (New Jerusalem Bible). The Good News Translation rendering seems somewhat off the mark, since it makes David, rather than his men, the subject of the verb. The Hebrew text says clearly enough that it is David’s men who take the oath.

Lest: this word may be better rendered by beginning a separate sentence with “If you don’t stay home…” or something similar.

Quench the lamp of Israel: the English verb quench means “extinguish” or “put out a fire.” The figurative language used here may not be properly understood if translated literally. The same metaphor of a lamp referring to the continuing rule of David’s family occurs in 1 Kgs 11.36; 15.4; 2 Kgs 8.19. Neither Revised Standard Version nor Good News Translation adequately expresses the meaning of this metaphor, although Good News Translation attempts to capture the meaning by use of the words “the hope of Israel.” In chapter 7 God promises David that his rule will endure for ever (verses 15-16). David’s soldiers are expressing more than a concern that David might be killed. They are expressing a concern that the dynasty that God has promised to David and to his descendants will come to an end if David is killed. For this reason Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente says “in order to avoid the danger that your dynasty might be extinguished in Israel.” Compare also Bible en français courant, “in order that the royalty might not be extinguished in Israel” (Bible en français courant).

A possible model is:

• You are like a light for the nation of Israel. If you die and leave none of your descendants to continue your rule, we will be living in darkness.

Or, dropping the image of light, translators may prefer to say:

• We have hope for our nation because God has promised that your descendants will rule for ever; but if you are killed in battle, that hope would come to an end.

A translation such as “If you were killed, Israel would lose its greatest leader” (New Century Version) misses the point completely and should not be taken as a model.

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 .

Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 22:37

The verb phrase give a wide place for may mean to provide space for military maneuvers, or else to provide freedom so that one will not be captured. Probably the latter is more suitable here. Compare the way in which the related noun “a broad place” is used in verse 20.

If one wishes to follow Good News Translation, “from being captured,” it may be necessary to avoid the passive construction. For example, translators may say “You have not let anyone capture me” or “You have not allowed my enemies to catch me.” On the other hand some translators may wish to keep the parallelism between steps and feet.

The relation between lines a and b is that of consequence, which both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation translate with the conjunction and at the beginning of line b. It is possible to make the consequence even more clear by sacrificing the imagery and saying, for example, “Because you kept me from being captured, I…” or “You have kept my enemies from taking me; therefore, they have never defeated me.” Translators should, however, attempt to keep the images or supply other images.

The word for feet (or, more precisely, “ankles” as in New Jerusalem Bible and Anchor Bible) occurs only here and in Psa 18.36. The idea expressed by my feet did not slip is that David was always able to keep standing and to keep fighting his enemies. In addition to the model provided by Good News Translation, some other possibilities are “I won’t stumble” (Contemporary English Version), “ankles that never weaken” (New Jerusalem Bible), and “unwavering was my stride” (New American Bible).

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 .

Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 23:24 - 23:39

While this group was called the thirty (verse 23), the list is said to include a total of thirty-seven (verse 39). But when the names are counted, there are only thirty-one or thirty-two, depending on how certain textual problems are resolved. The parallel in 1 Chr 11.41-47 gives sixteen additional names. Over a period of time some members of the group of Thirty would probably have died in battle and would have been replaced by others. This very likely accounts for the fact that more than thirty warriors are said to be members of the Thirty. There is, however, no explanation for the fact that the list of thirty-one is said to be thirty-seven in all. Even if the Three (Josheb-basshebeth, Eleazar, and Shammah) and Abishai and Benaiah are added, the total comes to only thirty-six.

The way of introducing the list in Revised Standard Version seems awkward, but it does reflect the form of the Hebrew. However, in many languages it will be wise to make the statement about the thirty apply to the roster as a whole rather than merely to the first name on the list. It may also be advisable to use a list format as in Good News Translation, rather than naming the heroes in paragraph form as Revised Standard Version does.

There are a number of textual problems in the list of names as well as problems that arise out of comparison with the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles. Textual problems include the following:

1. In verse 27 the traditional Hebrew text reads Mebunnai, while New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Nueva Biblia Española, Stuttgarter Erklärungsbibel, and Anchor Bible have “Sibbecai,” making it the same as the parallel in 1 Chronicles. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament recommends “Sabeni,” but absolutely no version consulted follows this. Very possibly scribes have confused the shape of the letter k (ך) for n (ן), and the shape of m (מ) for s (ס). If corrected on this basis, Mebunnai becomes “Sibbecai” as in 21.18. Translators should probably retain Mebunnai here.

2. In verse 32 the translation the sons of Jashen is based on the Masoretic Text. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, however, argues that the Hebrew word translated “the sons of” is not original but came into the text when a scribe accidentally repeated the final letters of the name Sha-albon. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament also follows part of the Septuagint tradition and corrects the Masoretic Text from Jashen to “Jashen the Gunite,” giving a {D} rating to the corrected text. This corrected text agrees with the translation “Jashen the Gunite” found in New American Bible, Stuttgarter Erklärungsbibel, and Moffatt, and “Jashen from Gun” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). Others have such diverse reading as “Jashen” (Nueva Biblia Española), “Hashem the Gizonite” (Revised English Bible), and “Jashen of Gimzo [or, the Gimzonite]” (New Jerusalem Bible and Anderson). The problem is very complex. The majority of versions seem to prefer “the sons of Jashen.” The {D} rating in Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament indicates how uncertain the experts are about what the correct reading is here. Translators simply must choose between the various options.

3. Also at the end of verse 32 and beginning of verse 33, what appears to be the names of two different persons, Jonathan, Shammah, may be rather “Jonathan, the son of Shammah” (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Nueva Biblia Española, Stuttgarter Erklärungsbibel, Moffatt and Contemporary English Version). The addition of the word “son of” is preferred by Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, with a {D} rating, on the assumption that the word for “son of” that was in the original must have dropped out of the text.

Problems in this list that arise from comparison with the parallel list in 1 Chr 11 are as follows:

1. In verse 25 the name Shammah is very likely a variant spelling of “Shammoth” in 1 Chronicles. Since it is essentially the same name and refers to the same person, it is reasonable to use the same form in both cases in the receptor language.

2. Also in verse 25 there is mention of Elika of Harod, but this is omitted from the account in 1 Chronicles. It is quite possible that the copyist’s eye jumped from the first occurrence of Harod to the second and thus eliminated this reference in 1 Chronicles. But the name should be retained in 2 Samuel.

3. In verse 26 the name Paltite contrasts with “Pelonite” in 1 Chr 11.27. This is a relatively minor difference in Hebrew, but there is no reliable textual information that allows translators to harmonize the two accounts at this point. So Paltite should be retained here and should probably be understood as referring to the city of Beth-Pelet in the territory of Judah, mentioned in Josh 15.27. This may be translated as “Helez from Pelet” (Good News Translation, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente), “Helez from Beth-Pelet” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), or “Helez from the town of Beth-Pelet.”

4. In verse 28 the name Zalmon is significantly different from “Ilai,” which is found in the same place in the parallel in 1 Chronicles. But there is no apparent reason to harmonize them.

5. In verse 29 the difference between the names Heleb and “Heled” is slight, and the two may be variant forms of the same name. A few Hebrew manuscripts as well as the Latin Vulgate have “Heled” in 2 Samuel. For this reason some versions such as New International Version have harmonized the two names here. There is likewise little difference between Ittai and “Ithai,” so these are also harmonized in New International Version.

6. In verse 30 the difference between the names Hiddai in 2 Samuel and “Hurai” in 1 Chr 11.32 is based on a pair of commonly confused consonants in Hebrew. And some manuscripts of the ancient Greek version have “Hurai” in 2 Samuel. But the textual evidence is insufficient to harmonize these names here.

7. In verse 31 the name Abi-albon should probably be kept distinct from “Abiel” (1 Chr 11.32) in the receptor language. The names Bahurim and “Baharum” differ only in the vowels and for this reason are sometimes harmonized.

8. With regard to verse 32, the account in 1 Chronicles qualifies Jonathan as “the son of Shagee the Hararite,” while 2 Samuel lists as a separate person Shammah the Hararite. A harmonization of the two passages on this matter cannot be justified.

9. In verse 33 there is a difference between the name of the father of Ahiam. He is called Sharar here but “Sachar” in 1 Chronicles. While some Septuagint manuscripts have “Sachar” in 2 Samuel, the evidence that this was the original reading is insufficient to alter the text here.

10. In verse 34, while the names are similar, Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai of Maacah is not the same as “Eliphal, son of Ur” in 1 Chr 11.35. The differences between the two accounts will have to be reflected in translation. Also, the Chronicler omits any reference to Eliam the son of Ahithophel of Gilo, while 2 Samuel lacks the words “Hepher the Mecherathite, Ahijah the Pelonite.” This distinction between the two lists will have to be maintained.

11. In verse 35 there is considerable difference between Paarai the Arbite in 2 Samuel and “Naarai the son of Ezbai” in the Chronicles account. And no reason can be found to attempt to reconcile the two accounts in this matter.

12. In verse 36 there is very little difference in Hebrew between Igal here and “Joel” in 1 Chronicles. In 2 Samuel Igal is said to be the son of Nathan, while Joel is described as “the brother of Nathan” in 1 Chronicles. Based on the available evidence, these differences cannot be reconciled and should therefore be translated as they exist in the currently available texts. The place name Zobah probably refers to the independent city-state or kingdom in southern Syria (see the comments on 8.3 and 1 Sam 14.47).

On Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba, see chapters 11 and 12.

Thirty-seven in all: it may be better in many languages to make this summary statement into a separate sentence complete with a form of the verb “to be,” and have it serve as a reminder that the list involved warriors or soldiers. Depending on the way in which certain textual problems are decided, the list may in fact have only thirty-six names. But some have supposed that Joab was also counted as a part of the group although he is not named. As the overall commander of David’s forces, he was almost certainly considered over the Three and the Thirty.

The Chronicler provides considerably more information than 2 Samuel at the end of the passage but offers no end total to correspond to the other account. These differences will, of course, have to be reflected in the receptor language.

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 .

Translation commentary on 1 Samuel 1:16

Do not regard your maidservant as a base woman: in some languages it may be confusing or unnatural for a speaker to refer to herself in the third person as Hannah does here. Numerous translations substitute the first person singular pronoun “I” or “me” for the word maidservant in order to make clear that Hannah is referring to herself (Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, German common language version [Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch], Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Revised English Bible). Such a substitution may lose the element of humility that the speaker is expressing in relationship to the person being spoken to. If a literal translation risks being misunderstood or confusing for the reader, perhaps one can say something like “Do not regard me, your maidservant, as a base woman.” Another possibility is to make two separate sentences saying “I am your servant. Do not consider me to be a base woman.”

As a base woman: the Hebrew construction at the beginning of this phrase is not translated literally in Revised Standard Version. It includes the Hebrew preposition l- plus the noun “face,” forming a complex construction that functions here as a comparative preposition and is correctly rendered as.

Base woman is literally “a daughter of Belial.” See also 2.12; 10.27; 25.17; 30.22. The words “daughter of” (like “son of”) plus a noun often function in Hebrew as an adjective stating the nature or character of the person being described. The exact meaning of the Hebrew word belial is not clear, though it is clearly a term of contempt. Perhaps it is formed from two words meaning “without” and “worth.” In the Old Testament this word is used in contexts that suggest the idea of “evil”; by the time of the New Testament, it had become the name of the prince of evil (see 2 Cor 6.15). A literal translation (so King James Version) will have zero meaning. A translation such as “worthless” (Good News Translation, New Revised Standard Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) or “so devoid of shame” (Revised English Bible) seems correct in this context.

Speaking: not to Eli (verses 15-16) but to God (verses 10-13). Perhaps in some languages it will be wise to make this explicit. Several modern versions do so by using the word “praying” (New International Version, New Century Version, Good News Translation).

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on 1 Samuel 2:24

No, my sons is a literal translation of the Hebrew. The sense may be more clearly expressed by substituting a command for the “No,” as in “Do stop it now, my sons” (Revised English Bible).

The second half of this verse repeats the same idea as contained in the last part of verse 23. For this reason Contemporary English Version translates the idea only once and combines verses 23 and 24 as follows:
“Why are you doing these awful things?” he asked them. “I’ve been hearing nothing but complaints about you from all of the LORD’s people.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on 1 Samuel 4:2

The Philistines drew up in line against Israel: the Hebrew verb suggests an orderly formation in lines. Revised English Bible says “The Philistines drew up their lines facing the Israelites,” and New American Bible says “The Philistines then drew up in battle formation against Israel.” Good News Translation does not capture the precision of the Hebrew, nor does the Hebrew state that the Philistines were in fact the ones who attacked first. Some languages may translate this verb “arranged themselves in lines to fight” or, as in Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, “took [their] positions.”

When the battle spread: the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain here. New Revised Standard Version and Revised English Bible say “and when the battle was joined.” Others accept a slight change in the Hebrew verb and understand these words to mean that “the fighting was fierce” (New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Osty-Trinquet). This also seems to be the meaning translated by Good News Translation.

Slew about four thousand men on the field of battle: literally “slew on the battle line on the field about four thousand men.” The word “battle line” is a technical military term, referring to soldiers fighting in orderly rows (the same term occurs in 17.8). The noun “battle line” comes from the same Hebrew root as the verb drew up in line at the beginning of this verse. Anchor Bible renders this “about four thousand being slain from the ranks in the field.” New Jerusalem Bible says “about four thousand men in their ranks were killed on the field of battle.” In languages where technical military terms exist and are well known, it is best to keep the imagery of the Hebrew rather than to generalize as Good News Translation has done. But in many languages such technical terms do not exist.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .