Despised the word of the LORD: some observers have pointed out that, in the affair with Bathsheba, David had violated three of the ten commandments (those forbidding murder, lying, and adultery). He apparently considered himself above the law of God and therefore held it in contempt. The verb here has been translated “flouted” (Revised English Bible), “spurned” (New American Bible), “show contempt for” (New Jerusalem Bible), and “ignore” (New Century Version). Many scholars, including the editors of Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, think that the word of was added by later scribes because of their horror of the very idea of “despising the LORD” (see also comments on verse 14 below). Certain manuscripts say simply “despised the LORD,” and this is reflected in the renderings of New American Bible, “spurned the LORD,” and New Jerusalem Bible, “show contempt for Yahweh.” Both Anderson and Anchor Bible also adopt this position. Whichever textual decision is made, translators should note that it is the LORD who is speaking here. It will therefore be unnatural in many languages to have him refer to himself in the third person. So the translation should read “despised my word” or “despised me,” depending on which textual evidence is followed. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, in fact, recommends the shorter reading, “despise the LORD,” giving it a {B} rating.

To do what is evil in his sight: once again, since it is Yahweh who is being quoted directly, it will be more natural to say “… in my sight” here. The words what is evil, of course, refer to the whole affair with Bathsheba, including the murder of Uriah. Some may have to say “these evil things.”

Smitten … with the sword: since David did not actually take the sword in his own hand and use it against Uriah, it will be both more natural and more accurate to say “you had Uriah killed” (Good News Translation) or “you have put Uriah the Hittite to the sword” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). The expression at the end of the verse, slain him with the sword of the Ammonites, shows clearly that the literal killers of Uriah were the Ammonites, but there is no doubt that it is David who is ultimately responsible. That the word sword is not to be taken literally is clear from the fact that Uriah was actually killed by an arrow from an archer’s bow (11.24) rather than by a sword. Because swords were so prominent in fighting in the time of David, this term came to be used for war in general. It will be better in most languages to drop the biblical image, which is likely to be understood literally, and say something like “killed in the war by the Ammonites.”

Revised Standard Version uses two different verbs, smitten and slain, to translate synonymous verbs in Hebrew. It is not necessary that different verbs be used in the receptor language (compare 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 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

My brother: again Good News Translation drops the reference to kinship, but this is not recommended to translators in most situations. The whole point of Tamar’s response is that their kinship makes sexual relations between them unthinkable. In some languages it may even be wise to say “No, you are my brother!”

Do not force me: the verb used here is repeated three more times in this story (verses 14, 22, and 32). In the form in which it occurs here, it means “to oppress,” “to humble,” and “to abuse” or “to rape.” In the later verses it is often translated “raped” where it occurs in the past tense. In some languages “do not rape me” may be a fitting translation here. Other versions, however, focus on the shame that results from such an action: “do not shame me” (New American Bible); “do not dishonour me” (Revised English Bible); and “do not humiliate me” (Anderson). Either interpretation is an acceptable choice.

For such a thing is not done in Israel: the connecting word for indicates that Tamar is giving the reason for her refusal. The people of Israel distinguished themselves from their Canaanite neighbors, who took incestuous relationships less seriously. Good News Translation cannot be recommended as a model here, because it does not make clear that the people of Israel have standards different from other people. These words may be restated as “That is a serious crime (or, offense) in Israel” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Compare Gen 34.7 and Deut 17.4.

Wanton folly: the Hebrew navalah translated by these two words normally carries the idea of foolishness, but recent studies have shown that such a translation may be too weak. The word refers to a violation of basic principles of society and is often used of wrong behavior related to sex. Prostitution (Deut 22.14), homosexuality (Judges 19.23), rape (Judges 20.5-10), and adultery (Jer 29.23) are all considered folly in this sense. Compare also the comments on 1 Sam 25.25, where there is a play on words between the name Nabal and the word here translated wanton folly. The term may be better rendered “anything so disgraceful” (New Jerusalem Bible), “wicked thing” (New International Version), or “outrage.”

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 .

That the family would attempt to kill a person who had murdered his own brother is in keeping with the law of Moses as found in Num 35.19-21. In other words the family members had the obligation to punish the brother (see the comments on verse 11 below).

And now: the Hebrew text actually begins with the particle often translated “behold.” This serves to focus the attention of the reader or hearer on what follows.

The whole family: the word used here refers to the extended family. Many English versions, including New Jerusalem Bible, New International Version, and New American Bible, have “the whole clan.” See the comment on this Hebrew noun at 1 Sam 9.21.

Against your handmaid: that is, “against me.” See the comments on handmaid in the previous verse.

There is a direct quotation within another quotation here. This may be unnatural in many languages. So the internal quotation may be made indirect as Good News Translation has done.

Give up: the verb used here is actually the ordinary one meaning “give.” Its use in this context seems to imply that the woman had been hiding or protecting her remaining son. Goldman has translated it “deliver,” while others have the English idiom “hand over” (Revised English Bible, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). But many languages may prefer a rather literal rendering like “give us the man…” (Anchor Bible).

The man who struck his brother: the verb struck in this expression means “killed” and should probably be so translated in most languages. Hebrew uses two synonymous verbs in this verse, which Revised Standard Version renders struck and slew (see the comments on 12.9). And the man will be more appropriately translated “the son” or “your son.” If the quotation within the quotation is made indirect, this will be “my son,” since the mother is speaking.

The information regarding the responsibility or obligation of the relatives may not be known to many readers today, and for this reason Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente may provide a good model for the first part of this verse:
“… and they say to me, ‘Turn over the murderer to us. We must kill him in order to vindicate his brother whom he murdered.’ ”

And so they would destroy the heir also: according to Revised Standard Version these words are not a part of the quotation of what the clan members say, but New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and many other modern versions rightly include this as a part of what the avengers say: “ ‘… even if we destroy the heir as well’ ” (New Revised Standard Version). They wanted revenge for the man’s death. In fact some take this to mean that they actually wanted to kill the heir so that they (the other clan members) could take over the family wealth. This seems to be the most likely meaning of the Hebrew text as it stands. The word heir refers to the person who would take over the possessions of the family and also have the responsibility of family leadership.

Quench my coal which is left: this image comes from the practice of starting fires in the morning from hot coals left over from the night before. This figurative expression clearly refers to the destruction of the woman’s only hope for a surviving son to carry on as head of the family. If the figurative expression is likely to be understood in this way, it may be retained. But if readers are likely to understand it in some other way, then a more straightforward translation of the meaning is recommended. In some cases it may be possible to change the form slightly while at the same time retaining a meaningful image. Contemporary English Version, for example, has “Please don’t let them put out my only flame of hope!” Another possible model is that of New Century Version, which spells out clearly the comparison between the son and the fire, “My son is like the last spark of a fire. He is all I have left. If they kill him….”

Neither name nor remnant: the two nouns here do not refer to two different things but rather to the continuation of the family name in the person of a descendant. This may be translated “a person to carry on my husband’s name.” The term used for remnant is found in Gen 45.7 and frequently in the later writings of the Old Testament.

Upon the face of the earth: see the comments on this expression in 1 Sam 20.15.

A number of biblical scholars think that the order of the Hebrew text as we have it today is unacceptable because of a scribal error. According to these experts the text should be corrected by transposing verses 15-17 to this point in the story. This is done by Anderson, Anchor Bible, and Moffatt’s translation. However, this structure is far from certain, and translators are advised to retain the traditional ordering of the text.

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 .

Four years: a majority of the manuscripts of the traditional Hebrew text have “forty years” (King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). But Hebrew Old Testament Text Project and Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament recommend the correction represented by the ancient Greek and Syriac versions (four years) at this point, though giving the recommended reading only a {C} rating. Most modern versions adopt this reading. It is unlikely that it took Absalom forty years to prepare his rebellion. Two manuscripts of the traditional Hebrew text have “forty days,” but no major English version adopts this solution. The four years almost certainly means four years after Absalom had returned to Jerusalem (14.23).

Pray let me …: on this request formula, see 13.6; 14.11; 1 Sam 22.3. Knox has “grant me leave to….” In other languages it will be more natural to begin “I beg you [sir] ….”

Pay my vow: Deut 23.21 imposes a binding obligation on every Israelite that he must not be slack in fulfilling obligations voluntarily undertaken. And in 1 Sam 1.21 the same expression is used of Elkanah. This does not refer to the payment of money. The meaning is to “fulfill a vow” (New American Bible). The idea is that Absalom had made a promise to the LORD that he would worship God in Hebron one day, if the LORD would allow him to return to Jerusalem. The following verse makes this much clearer. Now that Absalom was back in Jerusalem, he wanted to do what he had promised. Or at least this is what he pretended. In some languages this expression will be translated “fulfill a promise I made” or “do what I told God I would do.”

In Hebron: the exact meaning of these words may be a problem for some translators. Do they refer to the place where Absalom supposedly wanted to go to pay his vow, or is it the place where the vow was originally made? The Revised Standard Version rendering may give the impression that it is the place where the vow was originally made. But the clear meaning of the text—especially in the light of the following verse—is rather that it is the place where he wanted to go.

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 .

In the overall context of the conversation between David and Ziba, the words the king said may be better translated “the king asked,” and Ziba said may be more naturally “Ziba answered.”

Your master’s son: as has already been noted (9.9-10), Mephibosheth was actually the grandson rather than the son of Saul. In some languages it may be quite natural to use the word “son” in this way, but in many others the more precise and correct word “grandson” should be used. Similarly, later in the verse my father may be better translated “my grandfather” in order to avoid confusion. If the direct quotation is made indirect, “his grandfather” will be more appropriate.

Behold: see 1.2 and 1 Sam 2.31, as well as the discussion of this term in the introduction, page 18.

The quotation within the larger quotation at the end of this verse should probably be made indirect in many languages for the sake of naturalness and clarity of meaning. Good News Translation provides a model for doing this.

The house of Israel: this, of course, refers to the “people of Israel” or “the Israelites” and should probably be so translated in most languages. More specifically the reference may be to the northern tribes. If this interpretation is followed, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente may serve as a model: “He thinks that now the Israelites of the north will restore to him….” But here, as in 15.2, it is probably better not to be this specific, since Israel may refer to both the southern and northern tribes.

Give me back: the kingdom could not, of course, be literally “given back” to Saul, since he was already dead. And since Mephibosheth had never ruled as king, the words give … back may not be appropriate in some languages. What Mephibosheth meant was that as Saul’s grandson he would be made king and that in this way the kingdom would be restored, or given back, to the family of Saul. Compare Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente: “… restore to him the kingdom that was his father’s.”

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 .

All the men of Israel: that is, all the Israelites who were present at the time.

In some languages the whole direct quotation will be better rendered indirectly. It is possible to say, for example, “Absalom and all the men of Israel with him agreed that the advice of Hushai was better than the advice of Ahithophel.” If the words of Absalom are kept as a direct quotation, it should be made clear, if possible, that the second part of this verse is the writer’s explanation to the reader and not the words of Absalom. This may be especially problematic in languages that have no written or spoken marker for the end of a quotation.

The counsel of Hushai … is better than the counsel of Ahithophel: Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch says “Hushai’s right! His advice is better!” In certain languages it may be necessary to say something like “the words of Hushai … please us more than the words of Ahithophel.”

For: this introduces the writer’s explanation of why the people accepted Hushai’s advice instead of that of Ahithophel. This kind of transition marker may be translated in some languages as in Contemporary English Version, by beginning the sentence “This was because….”

The repetition of the LORD in this verse may be considered stylistically unnatural in some languages. If this is the case, it is acceptable to translate the second occurrence by the third person singular pronoun.

Ordained: the verb used here is elsewhere translated “command” (4.12 and 5.25) or “appoint” (6.21). Here it indicates Yahweh’s firm resolution to ensure that Absalom would be defeated. Some translations are “decided” (Contemporary English Version as well as Good News Translation), “planned” (New Century Version), “resolved” (New Jerusalem Bible), and “it was [the LORD’s] purpose….”

Bring evil: the idea here is not that of moral wrong but rather “bring disaster” (Revised English Bible and New Jerusalem Bible), “bring … to ruin” (New American Bible), or “cause trouble” (Contemporary English Version).

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 .

The Cushite: this term is found in Num 12.1 and eight times in this chapter. In Hebrew the word Cushite has the definite article. But according to Hebrew grammar, the definite article here indicates a person who is a Cushite without necessarily referring to a definite or known person. For this reason some translations say “a Cushite” (New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, New International Version, New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). But if the reference is to a specific Cushite who was David’s personal servant, which seems likely, then translators will need to express this in a clear and natural way in the receptor language. If the Cushite is David’s personal servant, holding an important position in the royal court, as will be argued below and in the discussion of verse 29, then the Good News Translation rendering “his [Joab’s] slave” should not be followed.

The place name “Cush” also occurs frequently in the Old Testament, although it is often rendered “Ethiopia” in Revised Standard Version. In early editions of Good News Translation Cush is understood to refer to Sudan. But this is hotly debated, and many other versions, including the latest edition of Good News Translation, take it to mean Ethiopia (so also Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Nueva Biblia Española, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy). Actually the ancient land of Cush was a region to the south of Egypt that probably included parts of both the modern nations referred to as Ethiopia and Sudan. For this reason many translators prefer to transliterate the term and avoid the argument about which modern name should be used. Others may prefer the solution adopted by Traduction œcuménique de la Bible in most cases where the word occurs, and use the terms “Nubian” and “Nubia.”

Almost certainly this Cushite was dark skinned, and for this reason Stuttgarter Erklärungsbibel calls him a Mohren, that is, “a Moor.” In a note in Stuttgarter Erklärungsbibel this man is called “the Ethiopian servant [or, official] of David.”

According to the interpretation of verse 29 recommended by Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, this same Cushite is identified as “servant of the king.” According to 2 Kgs 22.12, “servant of the king” is a title that refers to a court official; seal inscriptions discovered by archaeologists also show that “servant of the king” was a title for a royal official. For this reason Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch renders this verse “Joab called to the Ethiopian valet [or, personal servant] of David….” Though some translations refer to this man as an “Ethiopian soldier” (Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente), it seems probable that he was more than a soldier. He was one of David’s officials or personal servants.

Bowed: in 1 Sam 1.19 this same verb is rendered “worshiped,” since it is followed by the words before the LORD. But here the idea is that of prostrating oneself before another human being who is considered superior. In 1.2 it is translated “did obeisance.” See also 1 Sam 20.41 and Ruth 2.10.

Ran: the implied information in this verb is that the purpose of running was “to tell David.” In some languages this will have to be made clear.

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 .