Then: the common conjunction may be adequately translated here by simply beginning a new paragraph and section. After the parenthetical explanation of the death of Ahithophel, the writer returns to the main story line concerning David. Anderson adds the words “some time later” in parentheses in this verse, to show that the events described here did not follow immediately.

This verse serves to situate the opposing armies. David and his men were at Mahanaim (see 2.8, 12, and 29). This town was located in the territory of Gad on the opposite side of the Jordan River from Jerusalem. Meanwhile Absalom and his forces are said to have crossed the Jordan. The two groups were therefore both on the east side of the river, about forty kilometers (or, twenty-five miles) apart. It is uncertain whether the writer intends his readers to see these two events as being simultaneous. In the middle of the verse Anderson adds, using parentheses, “when (some time later)” as an introduction to the location of Absalom and his men. Some scholars feel that it would have taken Absalom considerably longer to get his forces together than for David to arrive at Mahanaim. It is therefore perhaps a good idea to indicate the passage of an indefinite amount of time between the two events.

All the men of Israel: this refers to the whole military force that was with Absalom and not literally the entire people of Israel. As noted in chapters 15 and 16, some interpreters consider the term Israel here in this part of 2 Samuel to be a reference to the northern tribes only. For this reason Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente says “all the men of the north.” But see the comments on 15.2.

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 .

This verse gives details about the leadership of Absalom’s army and provides specific information about Amasa, the newly appointed commander. Amasa, Joab, and Absalom were all cousins, and both Amasa and Joab were nephews of David. The conflict was therefore very much a family affair.

Ishmaelite: the traditional Hebrew text has “Israelite” at this point, but the parallel in 1 Chr 2.17, as well as in a few manuscripts of the ancient Greek version, has “Ishmaelite.” Some scholars have proposed that the original reading was “Jezreelite” (Moffatt and Goldman). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New International Version, New American Standard Bible, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Stuttgarter Erklärungsbibel, and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible hold to the traditional text and translate “Israelite,” but in addition to textual considerations, it would be strange indeed for the writer to make a special comment if Amasa had been an Israelite. There would be nothing unusual or noteworthy in this. Most modern versions translate “Ishmaelite” as in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, although this is not the recommendation of Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, which gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament suggests that at the time of David an Israelite was considered to be a foreigner in a Judean family. According to Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament the term “an Israelite” is used here in a way that was archaic at the time of writing. Translators may follow either the recommendation of Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament or the example of Revised Standard Version.

Ithra: this name refers to the same person as “Jether” (see 1 Kgs 2.5, 32; and 1 Chr 2.17). For this reason New International Version and New Century Version as well as Good News Translation use the same form in both cases.

Had married: literally “had gone in to” (compare King James Version). This Hebrew verb is used several times in the Old Testament with the meaning “to have sexual relations with a woman,” whether with one’s wife or with another woman (for example, Gen 6.4; 16.2, 4; Deut 22.13). It may be overtranslating here to say had married. Better are those translations that say “had had intimate relations with” (Biblia Dios Habla Hoy) or “who lived with” (Nueva Biblia Española). Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch avoids the problem of whether Ithra (or, Jether) and Abigail were married by stating “Amasa was the son of the Ishmaelite Jether and his mother was Abigail….” Compare also Revised English Bible, “he was the son of a man named Ithra, an Ishmaelite, by Abigail daughter of Nahash….”

Abigal: the spelling of this name in Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, and Revised English Bible reflects the Hebrew spelling. Good News Translation, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and New International Version reflect the Hebrew spelling of this same name earlier in 1 and 2 Samuel. In 1 Chr 2 the Hebrew spelling of this woman’s name is “Abigail.” Translators should use one spelling consistently for the same name, even though the Hebrew does not.

The words the daughter of Nahash constitute another textual problem. The ancient Greek version has “the daughter of Jesse,” which is followed by Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Nueva Biblia Española,Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, New American Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible. The genealogical explanation in 1 Chr 2.16-17 also indicates that Jesse was the father of Abigail. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {D} rating to the Masoretic Text and admits that the reading “Jesse” may be original. Translators may follow either reading here, Jesse or Nahash.

The relationships between the persons named are the following: Zeruiah, Abigail, and King David were brother and sisters according to 1 Chr 2.16. The difficulty, from the standpoint of interpretation, is that, since Jesse is the father of David, Jesse should also be the father of Abigail; but the Masoretic Text of this verse, 2 Sam 17.25, claims that Nahash was the father of Abigail. Interpreters have proposed various solutions to remove what seems to be a contradiction, but none are satisfactory; so translators must simply choose between the two names “Nahash” and “Jesse.”

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 .

Israel and Absalom: this does not refer to two individuals, as some readers may think. It is rather Absalom and his fighting force of Israelite soldiers. This should be made clear in translation.

Encamped: in some languages this may be best translated “set up their tents and spent the night.”

The land of Gilead: this was a mountainous region on the east side of the Jordan River, between the Arnon and Yarmuk Rivers. Instead of using the ambiguous word “of” in this expression, it will be better in most languages to say something like “the territory named Gilead.”

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 .

Since verse 24 already indicated that David had gone to Mahanaim, the verb tense or the verb itself may have to be changed here. New Century Version attempts to deal with the problem by restructuring the sentence and putting David in a subordinate clause: “Shobi, Makir and Barzillai were at Mahanaim when David arrived.” Then New Century Version goes on to give the details about each of these three participants. This may be a good model for others to follow, since the structure of Revised Standard Version (following the Hebrew) is rather complicated.

Shobi was probably the king of the Ammonites and the brother of Hanun (10.1). Some scholars indicate that he was probably appointed by David after the conquest of Rabbah (see 10.1-3 and 12.26-31). On Rabbah see also 11.1.

Machir and Lodebar are mentioned earlier at 9.4-5.

The Gileadite from Rogelim: Rogelim is mentioned only here and in 19.31. It was apparently a town located to the east of Mahanaim in the region of Gilead. Since these men were in the territory of Gilead (verse 26), it is possible to translate this “who was from the town of Rogelim in that region.” The reader learns more about Barzillai in chapter 19.

Verses 27 through 29 are a single sentence in Hebrew, but this sentence is far too long and complex to be translated literally. Even if verse 27 is not broken down following the model of New Century Version as suggested above, there should certainly be a full stop at the end of this verse.

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 .

Then: in many languages the common conjunction may be adequately translated by the beginning of a new paragraph and section, without any further transition word. But in those languages that have special words to introduce a new phase of a story, such a word may be used here.

Mustered: the English word mustered is a technical military term meaning to assemble and arrange soldiers in order to go fight. The same Hebrew verb occurs with this same sense in 1 Sam 11.8, and a different Hebrew verb has this same meaning in 1 Sam 13.5, 11. The verb used here may be translated “numbered” (Goldman, King James Version), “appointed,” or “counted” (New Century Version). This verb has also been understood to mean “reviewed” (New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible) or “passed … under review” (Knox). In view of the context of the rest of the verse, the verb may even be understood to carry the idea “divided … into groups” (Contemporary English Version), but it seems more likely that the verb expresses the idea of bringing the troops together. The Hebrew leaves implicit that the troops, having been brought together, were then divided into groups.

The organization of David’s remaining loyal troops included groups of thousands that were further divided into groups of hundreds. The translation should not give the impression that there were some groups of a thousand men and other groups of a hundred men without any relationship between the two units. The idea is that of a hierarchical structure. Compare 1 Sam 8.12; 10.19; 22.7. There were commanders in charge of the different groups, and those who commanded the smaller units were then in turn under the authority of the commanders of thousands. The overall size of the fighting force seems to indicate that the group that left Jerusalem picked up many additional followers along the way as they went on to Mahanaim.

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 conjunction here merely serves to tie together the two verses by introducing a further explanation of the organization of David’s forces. There were three groups that were probably more or less equal in number; and the overall commanders of the three groups were the usual military leaders, Joab and his brother Abishai, and Ittai the Gittite, who was rewarded for his faithfulness to the king (see 15.19-22) by being made one of the three most powerful men in David’s army. In some languages it may be distracting to repeat the information the son of Zeruiah when Abishai is mentioned, since this was already said several times (see, for example, 2.18; 16.9).

David sent forth the army: one part of the Septuagint tradition has “David divided the people [army] into three [parts or groups]…,” and this is recommended by Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, which gives a {C} rating to this reading. This meaning is adopted by New Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, An American Translation, Moffatt, and Anchor Bible as well as Good News Translation. In addition to textual considerations, the context also favors the recommendation of Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. In Hebrew the verbs “send forth” and “divide into three parts” are nearly identical in spelling, and a scribe probably misread the Hebrew text and created the new reading “sent forth.” Translators are therefore advised to follow the advice of Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament.

The division of the army into thirds may be difficult to describe in some languages. A possible model for those languages that do not easily deal with fractions is “All the soldiers were divided into three [equal] groups. And these three chiefs were made leaders of the three groups: Joab, Abishai who was the brother of Joab, and Ittai who was from Gath.” Revised Standard Version says that each third was placed under the command of, which is a faithful translation of the Hebrew, which says literally “in the hand of” (so Fox).

To the men: literally “to the people.” “People” here, as frequently in 1 and 2 Samuel, refers specifically to the troops. Modern versions have translated “to the soldiers” (New Jerusalem Bible) and “[to] the troops” (New International Version, New American Bible). In some languages it will be more natural to say simply “to them” (New Century Version), since the army has already been specifically mentioned earlier in this verse.

I myself will also go out: the pronoun is emphatic, and this emphasis should be retained in translation if it can be done naturally. There is additional emphasis in the verbal expression used, which is actually made up of two forms of the same verb. A more literal rendering is “Going out I will go out,” but the usual meaning of such a construction is “I will surely go forth” (Goldman). Aside from the special construction, the meaning of the verb itself may be more clearly translated as “go into battle” (Knox). In an attempt to reflect the various emphases here, the whole phrase may be translated “As for me, I will certainly go into battle with you.”

In some languages, however, it may be wise to follow the model of Revised English Bible and make this direct quotation into an indirect one: “The king announced to his troops that he himself was coming out with them.”

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 .

But: the common conjunction here marks a contrast between David’s firm resolution to go out into battle and his soldiers’ equally firm statement to the contrary. A conjunction of contrast will be called for in most languages.

You shall not go out: the troops respond to David’s expressed intention to go with them into battle by stating that this should not happen. Their advice was logical, since Absalom’s primary purpose was to get rid of his rival to the throne. While the advice is imperative, it will have to be couched in more polite form in some languages, since the men are speaking to their king. In some cases this will mean beginning with a word like “Pardon…” before making the imperative statement.

The soldiers then give two possible disastrous scenarios that, in spite of their seriousness, would not be so bad if David himself were spared being captured or killed. The first involves the running away of the entire army, and the second supposes the death of half of David’s loyal soldiers. In languages where there is no precise word for half, translators may say “one of every two of us” or possibly “very many of us.”

The insignificance of the serious hypothetical losses is highlighted by saying that David alone is worth ten thousand ordinary soldiers. In some languages this may have to be expressed “it is better for you to live than for ten thousand of us to live” or “your death would be more important than the deaths of ten thousand of us.”

The expression they will not care about us, which occurs twice in this verse, is more literally “they will not set [their] heart on us.” The implied subject of the verb is the enemy. Some other translations are “they will not even bother about us” (New Jerusalem Bible), “no one will pay attention to us” (Anchor Bible), and “it makes no great matter [to the enemy]” (Knox).

But you: nearly all manuscripts of the Masoretic Text plus most of the manuscripts in the Septuagint tradition read “but now….” But two Hebrew manuscripts and some manuscripts of the Septuagint have the same meaning as found in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, and this is recommended by Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, which gives a {B} rating to the reading But you. In Hebrew manuscripts the words “you [singular]” and “now” are frequently mixed up with each other, since they are similar in spelling. The emphatic pronoun, you, also fits the context better than the adverb of time, “now.” Nearly all modern translations, including New International Version and even New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, agree with the text found in Revised Standard Version, but a few continue to follow the Masoretic Text. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, for example, says “even if half of us die, they won’t care; but now there are ten thousand like us.”

An alternative to David’s going into battle himself is suggested by the troops. David should stay in the town of Mahanaim and be prepared to send out reinforcements and supplies as they are needed. This proposal is introduced by saying therefore it is better …. Such an expression may prove difficult for some translators. Some languages will have to express this idea in two separate sentences as follows: “So please stay here and send us help if we need it. That will be good surpassing your going into battle with us.”

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 .