And now: the translation should avoid giving the impression that God was not God or that his words were not true prior to this point. Anchor Bible brings out the meaning by twice adding the word “since”: “so now, my lord Yahweh, since you are God and your words are true, and since you have said this good thing….”

Thy words are true: some other ways of saying this are “you cause to happen whatever you promise,” or “you always do what you say,” or “you make good what you vow to do.”

This good thing: this refers again to the promise of God that David and his descendants will rule over a peaceful Israel.

Thy servant: once again, it will be more natural to change this to a first person pronoun, since David is talking about himself.

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 .

Now therefore: this is the same transition expression as in verse 8. Here it introduces a kind of summary of David’s prayer. If the receptor language requires a logical connector in such a context as this, translators should choose whichever one is most natural. However, in some languages no explicit transition word will be required at this point.

May it please thee: this is a somewhat archaic but very polite way of asking for something. Translators should look for a form in their own language that is equally polite but natural. In English many versions use the rather stilted form “be pleased…” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New International Version, Revised English Bible). But others avoid the passive and say simply “Please…” (New Century Version) or use an imperative form without any introduction (New American Bible, Knox).

It may continue for ever: in some languages translators may prefer to say “I ask that you cause it to continue forever” or “I pray that it will endure always.”

Before thee: that is, in God’s presence. Probably David also had in mind that his descendants should continue in obedience to God, which is involved in the idea of remaining in his company.

For: a kind of logical marker in the thought of the writer. What follows is an explanation of the reason for what goes before. In effect David can ask God to bless him and his family because God has already said that he would do so. Some languages, however, do not require an explicit marker in such a context.

With thy blessing shall the house of thy servant be blessed: the passive form be blessed will have to be made active in many languages. Therefore this whole last clause may be rendered “you will continue to bless my family forever” or “you are the one who will always give blessing to those who follow in my family.”

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 .

After this: the initial Hebrew word in this chapter is again a form of the verb “to be,” followed by After this, but King James Version reverses the two expressions (“And after this it came to pass”). After this indicates the passage of time. This wording shows that what follows in the text took place after the events described in the previous chapter, and that a new episode is being introduced. Some translators may prefer a more general expression like “It happened later on,” “In the course of time” (New International Version), or “Some time later” as in Good News Translation. The same kind of transition marker is used at 2.1. See the comments at that point.

The verbs defeated and subdued in Revised Standard Version seem to say the same thing. Both New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and Good News Translation use the verb “attacked” in the first case to translate a verb that literally means “strike” or “hit” (King James Version “smote”). By adding the adverb “again” Good News Translation reminds the reader that this is not the first time that David had gone to war with the Philistines. After his first encounter with Goliath (1 Sam 17), David and his army fought with the Philistines frequently (see, for example, 1 Sam 18.27; 19.8; 23.5).

Took … out of the hand of: this expression shows the inevitable result of the defeat of the Philistines. They were no longer in control. Some other ways of saying this are “wrested … from the grip of” (see New Jerusalem Bible), “deprived them of their domination” (Bible en français courant), or “took control of” (New Century Version).

Metheg-ammah: the meaning of the term so translated is uncertain, since this is the only time it appears in the Old Testament. Metheg means “bridle,” and ammah means “one cubit.” Taken together as “the bridle of one cubit,” the word has no clear meaning. Some have suggested that this may allude to a custom of giving a one-cubit length of bridle as a sign of friendship or of surrender; but such a custom is not otherwise known. Revised Standard Version (as well as New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, Revised English Bible, and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) take it as a name of a place that had belonged to the Philistines but which was taken over by David. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 18.1 has “Gath and its villages.” At least two English versions (New American Bible and New Jerusalem Bible) leave a blank in the text at this point and explain the difficulty in a footnote (so also Osty-Trinquet). Other versions take the word to mean “the supremacy” (Anderson and similarly Moffatt and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), “their capital city” (New Century Version and similarly An American Translation), or “the common land” (Anchor Bible and similarly Good News Translation). While it is impossible to be certain, translators should probably adopt the most general of these expressions and translate the idea of “dominance,” “superiority,” or “power,” while explaining in a footnote that all translations are a matter of speculation. Good News Translation provides a useful model, as does Bible en français courant, which reads “Later, David defeated the Philistines and humiliated them by ending their control over the region.”

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: since the conjunction here introduces the discussion of the defeat of a different group of people, it will probably be better translated “Then” (Anderson as well as Good News Translation), “Also” (An American Translation, New American Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, and Anchor Bible), or possibly “Next.”

The Hebrew text describes in some detail a mass execution of the defeated Moabites. The Hebrew says that “David defeated Moab and measured them.” Most interpreters understand this to mean that he “measured” the defeated soldiers, not all of the people in the country of Moab. Commentators often express surprise at the savage way in which the Moabites were treated, since David’s great-grandmother is said to be from Moab (Ruth 4.21-22), and the Moabites had been helpful to David’s family (1 Sam 22.3-4). The ancient Greek and Latin versions reduce the ratio of those killed to one-half instead of two-thirds. And the parallel passage in 1 Chr 18.2 does not mention the killings. But the meaning of the passage here must be translated as it stands. It will probably not be a good idea to render literally the idea measured them with a line, or as Fox translates, “he measured them with a rope.” The important elements to retain in translation are the fact that the prisoners were required to lie down on the ground, and that two out of every three of them were put to death. A possible model for this is “He forced the prisoners to lie down on the ground in three lines. He had all those in two of the lines killed. He allowed only those in the third line to live.”

The Moabites became servants: this, of course, refers to the Moabites that remained after the other two-thirds were killed. For this reason some translators prefer to say “the rest of the people of Moab,” “the remaining Moabites,” or “those people of Moab who had survived.”

Brought tribute: since this was not a one-time affair, it may be better to translate something like “started to bring gifts.” Commentators observe that the tribute may have consisted of sheep and wool (compare 2 Kgs 3.4) rather than money, which is probably implied by the Good News Translation rendering “taxes.” So it may be better to say “regularly brought gifts” or “gave him what he demanded.”

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 order of the elements describing who Hadadezer was may be restructured in a variety of ways according to the natural order in the receptor language. The Hebrew text has (a) the name, (b) family background, and (c) the title and place name. Good News Translation has changed the order to c-a-b, but other languages may prefer a-c-b or some other arrangement. What is important is that the structure should be natural in the receptor language.

Hadadezer: the name means “Hadad is help.” Hadad, the storm god, was the name of the chief deity among the Syrians. Various kings had names composed of this god’s name: Hadadezer, Hadoram (see verse 10 below), and Ben-hadad (meaning “son of Hadad,” 1 Kgs 15.18).

Zobah: it will probably be a good idea to expand the translation here to include information that was known by the original readers or hearers of this text. Zobah was one of the independent city-states of Aram (Syria). For this reason Good News Translation adds “the Syrian state of….” This also ties in with verse 5 and helps the reader to understand why the Syrians of Damascus came to the aid of the people of Zobah. See also comments on 10.6.

He went to restore his power: grammatically the pronouns may refer either to Hadadezer or to David. Good News Translation takes them as referring to Hadadezer and makes this explicit in translation. Anchor Bible, however, argues that they refer to David, since, if they are to be understood as referring to Hadadezer, it was unlikely that the two would have met. Israel was to the south of Zobah, while the Euphrates River was to the north. Most English versions reproduce the pronouns and leave the meaning of the text ambiguous. If translators are convinced that the pronouns refer to David, this should be made clear in translation, as is done in New Century Version and Contemporary English Version. Contemporary English Version, for example, says “David set out for the Euphrates River to build a monument there. On his way, he defeated the king of Zobah, whose name was Hadadezer the son of Rehob.” New Century Version reads “As David went to take control again at the Euphrates River, he defeated Hadadezer….” If, however, the pronouns stand for Hadadezer, the Good News Translation model using the name Hadadezer should be followed. The wording of New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh agrees with the Good News Translation interpretation but without using the name: “Hadadezer … who was then on his way to restore….”

The meaning of the verb phrase in this clause is also debatable. While many versions take it as involving the restoration of power (Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and New American Bible), others translate “to restore his monument” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible). Anchor Bible, following the monument idea, has “to leave his stela.” The crucial word in the Hebrew text is literally “his hand,” which is often used for power but sometimes refers to a physical monument that is symbolic of power, as in 18.18 and 1 Sam 15.12. Given the symbolism of the act of setting up a monument, it is probably best to translate the idea of power in any case.

At the river Euphrates: many Hebrew manuscripts omit the name Euphrates, although it is included in the Septuagint. This is obviously the intended meaning, even if it was not clearly stated in the original. The preposition in this expression will probably have to be clarified in most languages. The reference is to a location or a stretch of land along the upper part of the Euphrates River.

The meaning of this verse may be more easily understood if the structure is changed as follows:

• David was on his way to restore his control over the territory near the Euphrates River. Along the way, he defeated King Hadadezer, the son of Rehob and king of the Syrian state named Zobah.

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 .

A thousand and seven hundred horsemen: the ancient Greek translation, as well as the parallel passage in 1 Chr 18.4, speaks of “a thousand chariots and seven thousand cavalry.” And this is followed by New International Version. The textual evidence for this reading, however, is so weak that the problem is not even treated by Hebrew Old Testament Text Project or Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Translators are therefore advised to translate the text as it stands, using the word horsemen rather than “chariots” and “cavalry.” This problem is treated more fully in the comments on 2 Sam 1.6.

Hamstrung: the Hebrew word used here literally means “to pluck up [by the roots]” in its base form. It is used in its more literal sense in Eccl 3.2; but in some other contexts, where the verb has a doubled consonant in the middle of the verb, it conveys the idea of a simple operation to cripple animals such as oxen (Gen 49.6) or horses (Josh 11.6, 9). Most English versions take it in this sense here (New American Bible, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, in addition to Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation). But this verb is also used in its base form in a figurative sense meaning to “uproot,” “exterminate,” or “destroy” as in Zeph 2.4. While Contemporary English Version takes it in this sense here, it is more likely that the reference is to the crippling operation, as the majority of versions indicate.

French versions say that David “cut the hocks” (Nouvelle version Segond révisée, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible) or “had the hocks cut” (La Bible du Semeur, Bible en français courant), using the rather technical term for the tendon that is cut to make an animal lame. If the name of this tendon is well known, then this may prove to be good translation 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 .

The Syrians of Damascus: because Zobah was a part of the Syrian federation, the other Syrians set out to help their fellow countryman. Since readers are more likely to think of Damascus only as a city, it may be better to add a word with a wider meaning like “territory,” “region,” or in some languages “country,” to show that a nation-state is involved. Contemporary English Version speaks of “the … kingdom of Damascus.”

Good News Translation clarifies the meaning of the verb came with “sent an army.” Similarly Contemporary English Version speaks of “troops.”

Slew: this represents the same word as that translated “defeated” in verses 1, 2, and 3. But the context here seems to require the more specific meaning “killed,” since the victims are counted. David, of course, did not personally kill all twenty-two thousand enemy soldiers, so some languages may require “David and his men” or “the army of David” as the subject of this verb.

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 .

Garrisons: the English term used here is a rather technical one for fairly large groups of soldiers more or less permanently established in a particular location (see also 1 Sam 10.5). The term can also be used to refer to “prefects” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, similarly Anchor Bible) or “governors” (Good News Translation margin, New Jerusalem Bible, and Bible en français courant), but in either case the idea is the setting up of a formal presence for Israel in Damascus and probably included a sizeable number of subordinate military personnel.

In Aram of Damascus: it should be made clear that the words translated “Syrian” or “Syrians” are related to the word Aram here and refer to the same area. Revised Standard Version is not a good model to follow in these matters.

Servants: this should not be understood in the sense of domestic servants, but rather followers or subjects in submission to his rule.

Brought tribute: see the comments on tribute at verse 2.

Gave victory: Yahweh enabled David to conquer other armies and subdue other peoples. In some languages this will be expressed by a causative verb form meaning “caused him to win battles” or “made him master.”

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 .