Nevertheless: that is, in spite of the Jebusites’ firm belief that David and his army were unable to capture the city, and in spite of their resistance. This introduces the summary statement of the verse, but the event is described in greater detail in verses 8 and 9. This whole verse is, in fact, a parenthetical summary of what follows. As such it may be placed within parentheses as in Good News Translation. Since the same information is given in the two verses that follow, Contemporary English Version and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch combine verses 7-9 and translate the idea once. However, it is probably better to retain this summary statement separately, unless it will be unnatural to do so in the receptor language.

Stronghold: on the term in general, see Judges 6.26 and 1 Sam 22.4. Here (and in 1 Chr 11.5) the expression refers specifically to the city of Jerusalem, which was strongly fortified and very difficult to capture.

Zion: this is the first mention of this name in the Bible, but it is used frequently in the Psalms and certain of the prophets. The exact meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain, but it may mean “fortress” or “citadel” and always refers to the city of Jerusalem or to a part of it. As used here it refers to the southeast hill of Jerusalem. The name Zion is used in the New Testament in quotations from the Old Testament (John 12.15; Rom 9.33, for example) or in a figurative sense (Heb 12.22; Rev 14.1).

That is: since the readers were quite familiar with the expression “the city of David,” this was added to make it clear that Jerusalem was intended. But because it was not referred to in this way at the time of its capture, Good News Translation fills in the information that this was a later name by saying “it became known as ‘David’s City.’ ” In the Old Testament the “city of David” refers to a specific part of what later became the larger city of Jerusalem, the long, narrow, triangular-shaped ridge located below what later became the Temple mount on the southern end of the eastern ridge (see, for example, Neh 3.15). The eastern ridge and the western ridge of Jerusalem are divided by the Tyropoean Valley.

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 note in Good News Translation states that the Hebrew of this verse in unclear. The exact meanings of the verb and noun translated let … get up and the water shaft in Revised Standard Version are uncertain. Also there is a textual problem as to whether David is the subject or the object of the word hated. Each of these difficulties will be discussed below. The other major difficulty is that something seems to be missing from the verse. A rather literal translation of the Hebrew reads “Whoever would smite the Jebusites, let him go up the water shaft the lame and the blind….” Revised Standard Version supplies the verb “to attack.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh supplies a verb within brackets: “Those who attack the Jebusites shall reach the water channel and [strike down] the lame and the blind….” Other translations place three dots in the text to indicate that the text is missing something (so New Jerusalem Bible, Nueva Biblia Española, Osty-Trinquet, and Anderson).

It would be misleading to translate the conjunction and at the beginning of this verse, since David’s statement is not in addition to what was said in the previous verse. Note that New Revised Standard Version and most other modern versions omit it.

David said: in many languages it will be necessary to indicate to whom the following quotation was addressed. The translation may be “said to his soldiers” or “instructed his army.”

On that day: New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “on that occasion,” and Anchor Bible says “at that time.” It is not essential that the word day be translated literally.

Whoever: this should not be taken in the most general sense of anyone at all, but rather of anyone among David’s soldiers. It has been rendered “Those who…” by New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and “All who…” by New American Bible.

Get up the water shaft: this Revised Standard Version rendering represents the traditional understanding of a difficult Hebrew term found only here and in Psa 42.7, where it is translated “cataracts” (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version) or “waterfalls” (New International Version). The verb rendered get up means “to touch” or “to reach,” and its translation depends on how the following noun is translated. The Hebrew noun has been understood in four different ways: (1) some kind of water-passage such as a water shaft or water canal; (2) weapons of attack, such as scaling hooks or grappling irons; (3) some part of the city defense system such as a fortress; and (4) some part of the body such as the throat or the male sex organ.

Anchor Bible, for example, maintains that the original meaning of the word was “throat,” “gullet,” or “windpipe.” So the whole phrase is translated “whoever smites a Jebusite, let him strike at the windpipe” (so also Fox). And New English Bible speaks of attacking “with the grappling iron.” It is noteworthy, however, that Revised English Bible comes back to the idea of the “water-shaft.” Recent geological and philological evidence supports the meaning “water-shaft,” and since the majority of modern versions accept this meaning, it is probably better to adopt the same in the receptor language.

This could not have referred to the narrow tunnel cut through nearly solid rock during the reign of Hezekiah in the seventh century B.C. (see 2 Kgs 20.20; 2 Chr 32.30), since this did not exist at the time of David’s capture of Jerusalem. Recent geological studies have shown, however, that Hezekiah’s tunnel did follow a natural crack, or opening, that existed in the underground rocks long before the time of Hezekiah.

Many scholars have identified the water shaft in question as the one discovered by Sir Charles Warren in 1867. There is some question as to whether the Warren’s Shaft system was used as a water supply system at the time of David, but recent studies suggest that the system existed then and that it was probably wide enough for someone to pass through. (Gill, page 24, provides an illustration.) Probably Joab entered through Gihon Spring and worked his way up through Warren’s Shaft into the city (Kleven describes how this may have been accomplished).

To attack the lame and the blind: New International Version puts the words “lame and blind” in single quotes, perhaps indicating that they were not really handicapped. And New Century Version does likewise. It is interesting to note that the Chronicler does not mention the lame and blind people in the parallel account.

Hated by David’s soul: this brief expression contains a number of translation problems. Since it is a part of a direct quotation from the mouth of David, the third person reference will have to be changed to a first person pronoun in most languages. Also the word soul often stands for the personal pronoun in Hebrew. In this case it seems to make the pronoun more emphatic. Finally the passive formulation will have to be made active in many languages, so that the whole expression may read something like “whom I detest” or “because I despise them.”

In addition to the translation problems, if one follows the text found in Revised Standard Version, there is a textual problem. The margin of the Masoretic Text has a passive form of the participle hated, which requires David’s soul as the subject and the lame and the blind as the object. That is, the lame and the blind are hated by David. Similarly a manuscript from Qumran has “the soul [of David]” as the subject of the verb “hate.” But the Masoretic Text reads “those hating David’s soul,” with the lame and the blind as the subject. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text and suggests that pious scribes changed the text so that it would not be said that someone hated King David.

Translators are urged to follow the recommendation of Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, even though most translations follow the marginal reading of the Masoretic Text. The following translation expresses the sense: “… let him get up the water shaft to attack the lame and the blind, those who hate David” (so La Bible Pléiade). New American Bible speaks of “… the personal enemies of David.” And New Revised Standard Version follows this reading in a footnote that states “Another reading is those who hate David.”

It is said: this passive expression will have to be reworded actively in many languages. Translators may prefer to say “there is a saying” or, as in New Century Version, “people say….” This saying is probably an allusion to Lev 21.17-23.

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 .

Note that Good News Translation supplies the implied information that the events described in this verse took place after David and his men captured the fortress. This may be a more natural way of rendering the idea of this verse in some other languages.

Stronghold: see verse 7 above. But note that in this case the qualifying “of Zion” does not appear.

From the Millo inward: the “Millo” is referred to in Judges 9.6, 20; 1 Kgs 9.15, 24; 11.27; 2 Kgs 12.20; and 2 Chr 32.5, as well as in the parallel passage at 1 Chr 11.8. The footnote in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh indicates that this refers to “a citadel” (in agreement with the rendering in the Septuagint), but several commentaries and translations suggest that it refers to some kind of landfill. The meaning of the Hebrew word milloʾ is uncertain, though most connect it to a verb meaning “to be full.”

Anchor Bible says “this must refer to a major earth-work of some kind, a rampart perhaps or a platform produced by filling a ravine…” (page 141). According to 1 Kgs 9.15, 24; and 11.27, it was Solomon who built the Millo, but those references may be understood in the sense of “rebuilt” or perhaps “enlarged.” Anderson speaks of a “system of artificial terraces supported by retaining walls with leveled filling…” (page 85). Thus New International Version translates “supporting terraces.”

Even if the Millo does refer to a landfill of some kind, archaeologists are not agreed on the location of this fill. Some believe it refers to terraces built on the east side of the east ridge, which is probably the basis of the Good News Translation translation “on the east side of the hill.” Others consider it to be an landfill south of the Temple mount on the southeast hill, or to be an landfill connecting the city of David to the acropolis to the north.

Inward: Traduction œcuménique de la Bible translates “towards the interior.” But this does not answer the question, Toward the interior of what? The word may also be translated “towards the house” (Anderson). And this in turn may mean either “to the [royal] palace” (New American Bible) or “toward the Temple.” To further complicate matters Good News Translation translates this “on the east side of the hill.”

As the above discussion indicates, there is no firm agreement by specialists on exactly what David did. Translators must nevertheless make a decision. Recent archaeological studies point most strongly to understanding the last part of this verse as referring to the repairing of terraces on the steep east side of the southeast ridge. At the time when David captured the city, the wall on the east side was some 48 meters (156 feet) down from the top of the ridge. The Good News Translation translation therefore has much to commend it.

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 .

Became greater and greater: translators must be careful to avoid giving the impression that David became physically stronger or fatter. This has to do with his political and military power. In some cases it will be advisable to say more directly “became an increasingly powerful leader.”

For: this provides the theological reason for David’s increased political strength. The Hebrew actually has only the common conjunction that is often translated “and.” But in this context it may be rendered “because” (New International Version) in many languages.

The LORD, the God of hosts: the expression “the LORD God of hosts” occurs frequently in Isaiah and Jeremiah but is a translation of ʾadonai YHWH tsevaoth. Here, however, the underlying Hebrew is YHWH elohim tsevaoth. While there is a comma in Revised Standard Version, in some cases the only difference between these two expressions in Revised Standard Version is a matter of capitalization, “LORD God of hosts” versus “Lord God of hosts.” Translators should be aware of this difference and make a distinction in their own language.

Regarding the meaning and translation of hosts, see the comments on 1 Sam 1.3.

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 .

Following the Hebrew, Revised Standard Version follows the order: name, title, and area of rule, but the Good News Translation translators felt that it is more natural in English to speak of “King Hiram,” putting the title first. Naturalness in the receptor language should be the determining factor in deciding the order of these elements.

Tyre was the leading city of Phoenicia. David—and later Solomon—established treaties with Hiram, who supplied material and craftsmen for construction (see 1 Kgs 5.12-18; 1 Chr 14.1; 2 Chr 2.3-12).

Messengers: the word so translated may also mean “angel” or “ambassador” (so Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje). In this context these representatives of King Hiram were more than mere messengers. They were closely related to the sending of builders and building materials. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “sent envoys with cedar logs.” For this reason Good News Translation speaks of a “trade mission.” But this may be difficult to translate into other languages. Some models bearing the same meaning may be “representatives to talk about trade” or “agents to negotiate agreements between their two countries.”

Cedar trees: if the receptor language uses different words for live trees and logs, it should be made quite clear that logs are intended here. Compare Num 24.6; Psa 37.35; 92.12.

Carpenters and masons refer to people who worked on two different aspects of construction. Carpenters built with wood while masons used stones. In Hebrew these people are called “carvers [or, craftsmen] of wood” and “carvers of stone walls.” In some languages it will be necessary to say “men who built with wood and those who built with stones.” In some languages the word “carpenters” is translated “hammerers” or “people of the hammer.”

In the Septuagint this verse says “craftsmen of stone”; and in a manuscript from Qumran they are called “craftsmen of walls.” It is possible that the reading in the Masoretic Text is not original but combines two separate readings, “craftsmen of stone” and “craftsmen of walls.” Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, however, gives a {C} rating to the Masoretic Text. Regardless of which reading is followed, the idea is that the second group of craftsmen worked with stones.

A house: this was clearly more than a mere house. It was to be a palace. The word “palace” is used in many English versions (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New International Version, and New Century Version, as well as Good News Translation), although others have the literal rendering of Revised Standard Version (New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible). Translators should look for words that give the idea of a large and rather luxurious residence.

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 .

And: the relationship between David’s realization and the previous verses may be made clearer by using something like Good News Translation‘s “And so” or “Then” (Anchor Bible, New Revised Standard Version). It was as a result of the treatment he received from King Hiram as an equal that he realized more fully what the LORD had done.

Perceived: or “became aware.” In some languages the verb “saw” will be the most natural one to use in this context, but it should not give the impression of physical, literal sight. Others may prefer to use the verb “knew.”

On the word established see the comments at 1 Sam 20.31; 24.20.

Exalted: some other ways of giving this idea are “caused to flourish” or “made successful.”

For the sake of his people: the possessive pronoun his may refer either to God or to David, but the meaning is almost certainly God’s people. In this context it may be best to translate “Israel, his own people.” Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje renders this phrase “for love of his people.” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch says “The LORD did this because he loved his people Israel.”

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 .

Some versions add a section heading at this point to describe the content of verses 13-16. Contemporary English Version, for example, has “David’s Sons Born in Jerusalem,” and Jerusalem Bible has “The sons born to David in Jerusalem.” Verses 13-16 correspond to 3.2-5, which names David’s sons who were born in Hebron.

The structure may be changed as in Good News Translation by shifting the part about moving to Jerusalem to the beginning of the sentence. This allows for putting the parts about wives and children together, which will be more natural in a number of languages.

Concubines: see the comments on 3.7. In this case some translators may prefer to combine the meaning of concubines and wives by translating “married many women” as in Contemporary English Version. Note, however, that Contemporary English Version is forced to include a footnote explaining that “some of these women were second-class wives.”

From Jerusalem: or “in Jerusalem” (so Fox). After David had moved to Jerusalem, it was there that he took additional wives and concubines.

The passive expression were born to David may be rendered actively as “David’s wives bore him more sons and daughters,” or simply “David fathered more children.”

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 .