So: the common Hebrew conjunction here seems to mark a simple transition that may be shown in some languages by the beginning of a new paragraph. Some versions, such as Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible, actually put a new section heading at this point, since what follows deals with “the administration of the kingdom” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “David’s officials” (New American Bible).

Reigned over: or “ruled,” “governed,” “controlled.”

As indicated by the Revised Standard Version rendering, the name David is repeated at the beginning of the second main clause of this verse, but it will be more natural to replace it by a pronoun in most languages.

Administered justice and equity to all his people: the terms justice and equity do not refer to two completely different things. Rather this is very likely a case where two nouns are used in place of a noun and an adjective to talk about a single idea. This is why New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh translated “executed true justice among all his people.” It will not be wrong to use two nouns in the receptor language translation, as long as they will not be understood as referring to two separate ideas.

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 son of Zeruiah: most readers will have no way of knowing that Zeruiah was a woman, even though it is very likely the original readers or hearers knew it. So it will probably be a good idea to follow the Good News Translation model (also Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch) in saying “whose mother was Zeruiah,” even though no other English version does this. Compare 2.13.

Was over the army: the text has only the preposition over, while the verb “to be” is understood. This idea will be expressed differently in a number of languages. In some languages it will be more natural to use a verb like “commanded,” “controlled,” or “supervised.” Still others may say something like “looked over the affairs of” or “was the leader of.”

Recorder: the precise meanings of the terms recorder here and “secretary” in the following verse are not clear. The difference between the two is also uncertain. But the rendering of the two terms should be decided together. Anchor Bible translates the term used in this verse (recorder) as “remembrancer,” and indeed the root verb on which the noun is based is “to remember” or “to be mindful.” According to the Anchor Bible commentary, the task of the person holding this office has been compared to that of the Egyptian “speaker,” who was responsible to report to the king and to communicate his proclamations to his subjects. New Jerusalem Bible seems to follow this interpretation by translating “herald.” And so does Anderson, who qualifies the term by adding “royal herald.” Revised English Bible has the modern-sounding expression “secretary of state.” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, like Moffatt, translates “chancellor” but adds a note giving details about the duties of this office.

Although the majority of English versions still use the noun recorder or a verb phrase having similar meaning—like “kept the records” (Knox)—translators should feel free to communicate the meaning “royal herald.” Some may say “the spokesman,” “the person in charge of direct communication with the king,” or “the one who reported to the king and made known his decisions to the people.” Since the next verse speaks of a “secretary,” it is probable that the term recorder does not refer primarily to someone who kept official records for the king.

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 way the English versions are worded, there is a danger that on first reading one may think that Ahitub and Ahimelech were the mother and father of Zadok, and that Abiathar was his grandfather. The translation should make it clear that there were two priests: (1) Zadok, who was the son of Ahitub, and (2) Ahimelech, who was the son of Abiathar. In some languages this may mean restructuring as follows:

• There were two priests. One was the son of Ahitub and his name was Zadok. The other was the son of Abiathar and his name was Ahimelech.

Zadok later anointed Solomon as king (1 Kgs 1.32-40), and his influence continued for centuries (compare 1 Sam 2.35; 1 Kgs 4.2; 2 Chr 31.10).

Ahimelech the son of Abiathar: there is considerable confusion in the Old Testament texts as to which of these men was the father of the other one. In 1 Samuel (22.20; 23.6; and 30.7) Abiathar is presented as the son of Ahimelech, but here and in 1 Chronicles (18.16 and 24.6) Ahimelech is said to be the son of Abiathar. It is possible that the original order was “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, and Zadok” and that this text was deliberately rearranged in the form found in the Masoretic Text, which is followed by Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation; and Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament favors the reading of the Masoretic Text. Probably some scribe was surprised that Abiathar, descendant of Eli’s evil sons, was listed first, and that Zadok had no ancestors listed, while Abiathar had both a father and grandfather mentioned.

This supposition about the original form of the text has clearly influenced the translators of New Jerusalem Bible, which reads “Zadok and Abiathar the son of Ahimelech son of Ahitub were priests.” Revised English Bible is almost identical with New Jerusalem Bible, and Moffatt has essentially the same meaning, although the word order is different: “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech (the son of Ahitub) and Zadok were priests.” Both Anchor Bible and Contemporary English Version also propose “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech.” This is in keeping with the second listing of David’s high officials in 20.25, which states clearly that the priests were “Zadok and Abiathar” (see also 1 Kgs 4.4, which names Zadok and Abiathar as priests under King Solomon). Since there is no manuscript support for these suggested corrections of the Masoretic Text, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives an {A} evaluation to the Masoretic Text and suggests that translators use a footnote to indicate what the original text may have been. This is, in fact, what Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch does. But it seems better to follow the correction as found in Moffatt and indicate in a footnote what the Masoretic Text says.

Secretary: although the precise meaning of this term is not settled, it is certain that the office involved more than that of a modern secretary in the usual sense of the English word. This person may have been responsible for the king’s official correspondence or may have served as an ambassador. The meaning is closer to that of the cabinet-level offices in the administration of the U.S. government that are called “Secretary of…” followed by a term indicating their specific responsibility. The verbal root on which this noun is based is “to count” or “to number.” Both New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and Anchor Bible use the word “scribe,” but a scribe in the time of David held a very important position. He was a man of great learning and was highly respected. For this reason Anderson’s “royal scribe” is better. While Revised English Bible has “adjutant-general,” this modern terminology is unlikely to help translators in most areas of the world. Some languages may require an explanatory phrase like “the assistant to the king in charge of writing matters” or “the learned one who wrote down things for the king.”

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 .

Benaiah is mentioned again in 20.23, and 23.20-23 tells of his brave deeds.

Was over: these words are not actually in the Hebrew text. The text says “and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada and the Cherethites….” But the words [was] over do appear in the parallel passage in 1 Chr 18.17. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text and recommends that translators follow it, but even Traduction œcuménique de la Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, which almost always follow the MT, correct the text here to state that Jehoiada was commander over the Cherethites and the Pelethites. Translators should not follow the MT here. In some languages translators will use a form of the verb “to be” followed by a noun indicating Benaiah’s position: “was the commander of” (Contemporary English Version), “was master [or, chief] of,” or “was captain of.” Compare verse 16.

The Cherethites and the Pelethites: as indicated by the Good News Translation rendering, these two groups constituted the bodyguards of King David (compare 23.23). Apparently David recruited a private army while he was living in Ziklag (1 Sam 27–31), which according to 1 Sam 30.14 was close to “the Negeb of the Cherethites,” presumably the home of the first-named group. Certain scholars have suggested that the Pelethites is a variant name for the Philistines, but the evidence for this is far from conclusive. Most likely the Cherethites and the Pelethites were both non-Israelites. Some translators may prefer to retain the form along with the sense in this passage by saying something like “the Kerethites and the Pelethites, who were the king’s bodyguards” or “those who protected the king, that is, the Kerethites and the Pelethites.” As in 1 Sam 30.14, Bible en français courant and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente speak of “Cretans” in place of Cherethites, that is, inhabitants of the island of Crete, and in other languages also it may be better to use the modern name “Cretans,” as in Bible en français courant. These Cretans no longer lived on the island of Crete; they had settled along the southwest coast of Palestine.

David’s sons were priests: the sons of David were not members of the tribe of Levi, and perhaps for this reason some interpreters have suggested that the word that usually means “priests” may have had some other meaning in this context. Early versions of the Old Testament, such as the ancient Greek, have a different reading here. It is for this reason that such translations as the following are found: “royal advisors” (New International Version); “important leaders” (New Century Version); “ministers” (Knox); and “chief ministers” (New American Standard Bible). La Bible du Semeur calls them “administrators” and states in a footnote that the Hebrew terms “priests” and “administrators” are similar.

The parallel passage in 1 Chr 18.17 does, in fact, call them “chief officials.” However, in view of the clear meaning of the Hebrew term used in this verse, translators are advised to use the normal word for “priests” in the text at this point and confine comments and other possibilities to a footnote.

Some scholars have taken this verse as evidence that at the time of David the priesthood was not yet seen as being limited to the tribe of Levi. And there is also a question about the relationship of these priests to Zadok and Abiathar mentioned in the previous verse. Was their function different or the same? Whatever the case may have been, having David’s sons in this position does not seem to have been a permanent arrangement. Compare 2 Sam 20.26, where a Jairite is said to have been a priest to David, and 1 Kgs 4.1-6, where David’s descendants are not included among the priests while Solomon was king.

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 .

Unlike much of 2 Samuel, this story has no parallel in 1 Chronicles or elsewhere. 1 Sam 20.14-17 provides the background for the events in this chapter. Good News Translation begins with “One day….” This merely reflects the common conjunction in Hebrew, but it makes the transition to the next episode smoother in English. Other languages may require a similar transition at the beginning of a new story.

Said: the original text does not say to whom he spoke. Some scholars suppose that the following quotation is more like a thought that occurred to David rather than a question directed to anyone. Contemporary English Version translates “David thought, ‘I wonder….’ ” Otherwise translators may be required by their language to provide an indirect object such as “said to someone” or, more probably, “said to himself.”

House of Saul: that is, in the family of Saul. It may be more natural to speak of “relatives of Saul” or “descendants of Saul” in this context.

Show him kindness: this same expression is rendered “showed loyalty” in 2.5. See also comments under 1 Sam 15.6 and Ruth 1.8.

For Jonathan’s sake: in some languages it is difficult to express the idea “for the sake of….” Some may prefer to say more directly “because of my esteem for Jonathan,” “in honor of Jonathan,” or, using a verbal expression, “because I loved Jonathan [so much].”

In the receptor language what David said may be divided into two parts, separating out the question (“Is there anyone left of the family of Saul?”) and the statement of his plan (“I would like to show that person kindness for the sake of Jonathan”).

It is also possible to translate the whole verse without a direct quote:

• One day David wondered whether there was anyone left of Saul’s family, and decided that if he found any relatives he would be kind to them because of his great love for Jonathan.

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 transition conjunction at the beginning of this verse may be rendered in some languages by something like “It so happened that….”

A servant of the house of Saul: that is, of the family of Saul. In this context the word servant refers to a domestic servant of relatively high status. Verse 10 below indicates that this man himself had servants. And in view of the destruction of Saul’s household, this remaining servant appears to have been in charge of what was left of Saul’s inheritance.

Ziba is introduced to the reader for the first time and reappears in 16.1-4 and 19.16-30.

They called him: the subject pronoun has no antecedent and is merely a vague way of saying that some unknown person ordered him to appear before King David. The king had somehow made his thoughts known to members of his court, and someone who knew of Ziba’s existence responded by summoning him to appear before David. In languages that use the passive form in such a context, translators may choose to say “he was called….” In other cases it will be better to say “someone called him….”

Your servant is he: this is translated by “Yes, Your Majesty, I am” in Contemporary English Version. It can be made into indirect speech and may be much more natural as such in some languages. But the wording should somehow indicate that his response showed great respect for David and submission to his orders. This seems to be the purpose of the Good News Translation statement.

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 .

Said: the verb “asked” may prove to be more natural. It may also be required that an object be provided for the verb as Good News Translation has done: “asked him” or possibly “asked Ziba.”

The kindness of God: the same keyword used in verse 1 of this chapter is found here. Wherever possible it will be a good idea to reflect this in translation. But note that in this context the term is reinforced by the addition of the words of God. These words are taken as a kind of superlative by some scholars. Anderson, for example, translates “utmost consideration.” But Revised English Bible has “the kindness that God requires.” However, it seems more likely that this expression refers to the kindness that David had promised before God that he would show. In addition to Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh follows this interpretation with “… as pledged before God” (see also 1 Sam 20.14).

A son of Jonathan: the Good News Translation wording seems to assume that Jonathan had originally had more than one son, but that all but this one had died. Although there is no evidence, it seems a reasonable assumption, since most Old Testament characters had many children. It is certainly clear that, however many children Jonathan may have had, Mephibosheth was the only one still living at this time.

Crippled in his feet: in some languages there are special terms for disability of the legs or feet as opposed to other parts of the body. In such cases the words in his feet are redundant, since the idea is included in the verb chosen. But in other languages a more general term may be used in a longer expression: “he had lameness in his feet,” “his feet were damaged,” or “his feet would not function.” Mephibosheth was first introduced in 4.4, where the reason was given for his being crippled. That he is crippled becomes important later in 19.24-30.

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 .

Said: once again the verb said may be more naturally rendered “asked.”

Ziba’s response is introduced with the Hebrew particle that is often translated “behold” (King James Version, New American Standard Bible). Neither Revised Standard Version nor Good News Translation translate that particle here. But compare Fox, who says “Here, he is at the house of Makhir.”

In the house of Machir: it is generally assumed that Machir was a person who was loyal to Saul, and that Mephibosheth lived with him either because he was afraid of David or because he had no other place to go. In any case the expression He is in the house of Machir may be translated as “He is living with Machir” or “He is staying at Machir’s place.” On Machir see also 17.27.

Ziba’s response to David is made up of several elements that may need to be restructured in some languages. There is the name of the person to whom the house belonged, a reference to his lineage, and the name of the town in which the house was located. In some cases it will be more natural for the name of the town to come first as, for example, in the following model: “He is in the town of Lodebar, in the house of Machir, who is the son of Ammiel.” Others may structure these elements quite differently: “He is living with the son of Ammiel whose name is Machir. His house is in the town of Lodebar.” Naturalness in the receptor language should determine the order of these elements.

Lo-debar was a non-Israelite city-state located north of the Yarmuk River on the east of the Jordan River. Translators may need to add a classifier term to indicate that this is a city. The same city is mentioned again in 2 Sam 17.27 and Amos 6.13 (where the spelling in Hebrew is slightly different). The name means “nothing” or “no palaver.”

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 .