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 Over a period of time some members of the group of Thirty would probably have died in battle and would have been replaced by others.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 .