Then translates the word often rendered “Behold,” and it is so translated here by New American Standard Bible. This particle draws attention to the words that follow. So languages that have a similar function word may use it at the beginning of this verse.

All the men of Israel: that is, the soldiers of Israel from the northern tribes, who were mentioned in the previous verse. Some translators may be troubled by the fact that the word all is used here, while the previous verse spoke of half the people of Israel. Probably what is intended here is that “all of those who were present” came to David. It is also possible that all refers to representatives of the other northern tribes.

Came … and said: when the verb forms are translated in this way, they give the impression of a single event where a large number of Israelite soldiers came to David. It is, however, more likely that there was more than one occasion when the soldiers came with their complaints. The rendering of Anderson is therefore recommended: “kept coming … and saying.”

The question Why have our brethren the men of Judah stolen you away…? is more of a complaint than a real question. For this reason it may be better translated as a statement: “Our kinsmen from Judah have taken you from us…” or “Our brothers from the tribe of Judah….”

David’s men: this will, of course, be translated “your men” in most languages, because the complaint is in the form of a direct quotation from the Israelite troops to David.

The threefold repetition of the word for king may again be intended to reinforce the notion that David is indeed the undisputed ruler, but such repetition may not serve the same purpose in the receptor language and may in fact sound very awkward.

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 .

It may be impossible or very strange sounding in the receptor language to begin a sentence with the word because, as Revised Standard Version does at the beginning of the direct quotation. If this is the case certain implied information should be added for the sake of clarity and naturalness. What follows in the text is an explanation of why the army of Judah was accompanying David. So translators may introduce the statement with “We are escorting him because…” or simply “We did it…,” as in Good News Translation.

The king is near of kin to us: “the King is closely related to us” (Anchor Bible) or “We are the king’s relatives” (Contemporary English Version). What is in focus here is the division between the southern tribe of Judah, to which David belongs, and the remaining tribes of the north. Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente may provide a better model for expressing this, “The men of Judah replied to the Israelites of the north, ‘Because the king is from our tribe….’ ”

The Hebrew says literally “the king is near of kin to me.” Fox translates “All the men of Judah answered the men of Israel: Because the king is closely-related to me!” That is, in the Hebrew the quotation is what each individual person replied, but in translation it may be better to follow the example of Revised Standard Version and say to us. The following question, Why then are you angry…? is also addressed to each individual northern Israelite, since the pronoun you is singular. But again for translation reasons it may be more natural to use a plural in the receptor language.

As earlier in the discourse of Barzillai, the last two questions in this verse are intended to make strong statements to the effect that the people of Judah had not benefited in any material way from their relationship to King David. The questions may be rendered as emphatic statements, saying “You have no reason to be angry with us about this matter. We have never eaten at the king’s expense. He has never given gifts to 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 .

As in the previous verse, the writer focuses on each individual from the tribes of the north and the south. A literal translation of the first part of this verse reads “And answered the man of Israel the man of Judah and said, ‘Ten hands [or, shares] to me in the king, and also in David I more than you [singular]. Why then do you [singular] despise me? And was not my word first for me to bring back my king?’ ”

We have ten shares in the king: literally “Ten hands to me … I have….” The Hebrew noun usually rendered “hand” has a less common usage here in the sense of “a part” or “a share.” The singular pronoun represents all Israel and is legitimately translated by the plural. Interpreters understand this statement in two rather different ways. It may be a very general kind of statement in which the Israelite soldiers are simply saying to their counterparts from Judah that they have ten times more reason to feel that David belongs to them than do the people of Judah. On the other hand it may be a more specific reference to the fact that Israel had ten tribes while Judah counted for only one. New Century Version attempts to make this meaning quite clear by translating “we have ten tribes in the kingdom, so we have more right to David than you do.” It is, however, probably best to translate in the more general sense and then add a footnote explaining that there were ten tribes in Israel as compared with one from Judah, as Traduction œcuménique de la Bible and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente have done.

And in David also we have more than you: in place of these words the Septuagint has “and what is more, I am older than you.” The sense of these words may be that expressed in 1 Chr 5.2, “though Judah became strong…, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph” (from whom the northern tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim descended). This is the reason for the following translations: “and, what is more, we are your elder brothers” (New Jerusalem Bible, similarly Osty-Trinquet); “besides we are the first-born” (Nueva Biblia Española), “and, what is more, we are senior to you” (Revised English Bible). Or the sense may be that the Israelites, that is, the northern tribes, were the ones who took the initiative to restore David (see verses 11-12 and the rest of this verse), so they are “older” in the sense that they were trying to bring David back before the people of Judah joined with them.

Most versions, however, retain the reading of the traditional Hebrew text, which is recommended by Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament with a {C} rating. In this case there is a kind of parallel structure in which David corresponds to the king, and more than you is more or less parallel to the idea of having ten shares. These two lines have been collapsed into a single statement in Good News Translation, and this may be a helpful model for certain other languages to follow.

It will be important in many languages to ensure that readers do not understand the king and David as referring to two different people. This is merely a kind of parallelism where the two terms refer to one individual.

Despise: the verb here gives the idea “take lightly” or “consider of no value” rather than hatred. The Hebrew verb is a causative form of the verb meaning “to be small” or “to be of little account.” Both New Jerusalem Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh translate “why have you slighted us?” And New Century Version says “you ignored us,” transforming the rhetorical question into an affirmative statement.

The question Were we not the first to speak of bringing back our king? is yet another rhetorical question that is really intended as a strong affirmation. The men of Israel were trying to emphasize the fact that they had indeed been the first to bring up the subject of returning King David to Jerusalem. It is therefore possible to translate “We were the ones who spoke first about bringing back our king” or “The first to speak about bringing David back were from our group.”

The words … were fiercer: the verb used here is also found in the story of the controversy between Rehoboam and the northern tribes at Shechem (1 Kgs 12.13). Its root meaning has to do with heaviness or density, but in the context of speaking, the idea is that of harshness. Some commentators observe that the side with the weaker argument is the one that speaks more harshly (Goldman). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh however, takes this to mean that the people of Judah won the argument, “… prevailed over the men of Israel.” Most, however, understand the verb to mean “to be severe” here. Compare New Jerusalem Bible “The men of Judah’s words were even more intemperate….”

The dissension highlighted in this passage eventually leads to the division into the northern and southern kingdoms.

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 there happened to be: the Hebrew verb translated by this expression may have the meaning “Now there was summoned…,” but most modern versions take it as meaning that Bichri’s presence at the time was a chance circumstance. The same verb is used of the chance encounters described in 1.6 and 18.9.

There: the adverb of location here refers to the assembly of the army of Judah and the army of Israel at Gilgal after the crossing of the Jordan, where the argument in 19.40-43 took place. It was a perfect setting for an agitator to begin making trouble.

A worthless fellow: the term so translated seems to be a favorite of the writer of the books of Samuel. It occurs at least ten times and is translated in a variety of ways according to the context: “base woman” (1 Sam 1.16), “worthless men” (1 Sam 2.12), “ill-natured fellow” (1 Sam 25.25), and “godless men” (2 Sam 23.6). In this context it has been rendered “rebellious individual” (New American Bible), “base rascal” (An American Translation), “wretch” (Moffatt), “scoundrel” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Revised English Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible), and “troublemaker” (New International Version, New Century Version, and Contemporary English Version). See the comments at 1 Sam 1.16.

Bichri: this name is transliterated “Bikri” in Good News Translation and “Bicri” in New International Version, but these forms are all based on the same Hebrew text. Some scholars identify this name with “Becorath” in 1 Sam 9.1, which would make Sheba close kin to Saul, but this identification is far from certain and should be confined to a footnote if used at all. Others think that the spelling of the name Bichri indicates that this is the name of a clan rather than an individual. In any case it is clear from the text that the opposition to David does come from the tribe of Saul, since Sheba is described as a Benjaminite.

Blew the trumpet: in Hebrew grammar, when reference is made to an object that is used for some specific purpose, the definite article is frequently used. This is a different use of the article from that in English, and it does not necessarily mean that the writer is referring to a particular or specific object, in this instance a particular ram’s horn. A ram’s horn was often used to call together troops for combat and also to disperse troops at the end of a battle (as in verse 22; see 2.28).

We have no portion in David: the word for portion here is not the same as “shares” in 19.44, but it may be intended to contrast with the expression used there. The word rendered portion comes from a root meaning “to divide” and may be translated “a share” (New Revised Standard Version and New Jerusalem Bible). The word translated inheritance refers to that property and goods which a person or family inherits when the owner dies. The point of the statement was to deny any relationship between David and the people of Israel. The expression that follows, we have no inheritance in the son of Jesse, constitutes a parallel statement that is really saying the same thing. No portion and no inheritance have the same essential meaning, and David and the son of Jesse refer to the same person. Translators should ensure that readers do not think that two different things are being referred to by these two expressions. If necessary they may be translated as a single unit, using something like “We have nothing to do with David, the son of Jesse. We won’t join with him.”

Every man to his tents: by using these words, Sheba is encouraging those who would follow him to abandon David and go back home. A literal rendering of this expression is likely to be misunderstood in a number of languages. It may be better translated simply “Go back home!” This appeal recalls the similar expressions in 19.8 and 1 Sam 13.2, which are descriptions in the past tense.

O Israel: in most languages this vocative form, if used at all, will probably come at the beginning of the sentence rather than at the end. Others will be more likely to use a form of address such as “People of Israel…,” but this also is more likely to come at the beginning of the appeal rather than at the end. Since Israel here clearly refers to the northern tribes and does not include the Israelites from the southern tribe of Judah, it may be helpful to make this explicit: “People from northern 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 .

So: as a result of Sheba’s appeal, the people of the ten northern tribes, here called men of Israel, did as they were encouraged to do. The common conjunction at the beginning of the verse is a kind of logical marker showing this transition. As in the previous verse, translators may wish to follow the model of Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente and translate men of Israel as “the men from the north” or “the men from the northern tribes of Israel.”

Withdrew from David: the verb here may be translated “abandoned,” “deserted” (New International Version), or “stopped following” (Contemporary English Version).

But: the conjunction here marks the contrast between the reaction of the men of Israel and the men of Judah.

Followed their king steadfastly: in some languages it may be better to clarify the fact that their king refers to David. Also, the adverb steadfastly does not translate a separate word in Hebrew but is a part of the verb that is elsewhere rendered “clung to” (Ruth 1.14), “keep close to” (Ruth 2.8), and “followed hard after” (1 Sam 14.22). The modern English idiom “to stick with” is not far from the meaning of the verb here.

From the Jordan to Jerusalem: the wording of this part of the verse makes it clear that the desertion of the Israelites took place while David was near the Jordan River, still on his way back to Jerusalem. Sheba’s rebellion therefore began just as the one led by Absalom was coming to an end.

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 .

His house: that is, the royal palace. When the writer speaks of a house later in the verse, this was very likely a separate building and should therefore be rendered “another house” (Contemporary English Version) or “a different building.”

David and the king refer to the same person. It may be better in certain languages to say, for example, “King David” in the first case and then use the pronoun “he” afterward.

Concubines: see 15.16, where it is said that these women were left to take care of the palace as David fled Jerusalem. And note also that they were involved in sexual activity with Absalom as a result of Ahithophel’s advice (16.21-22). The text at that point does not say that they were raped, and it is presumed that they did not attempt to reject Absalom’s advances, thinking that David would never return. By having had sexual relations with Absalom, these concubines had humiliated David and were defiled. It was for this reason that David refused any further relationships with them and that they were shut up until the day of their death. This was apparently a kind of house arrest, but David provided for their needs and did not punish them further.

Provided for them: this is a very general statement, but it is usually interpreted as referring to the provision of food and clothing. A similar use of the verb, though in a slightly different form, in 1 Kgs 20.27 is translated “were provisioned” by Revised Standard Version. Some contemporary renderings in this case are “he provided for their upkeep” (New Jerusalem Bible), “he gave them food” (New Century Version), “giving them their allowance of food still” (Knox).

Did not go in to them: some translations indicate a rather general abandoning of the women. New Jerusalem Bible, for example, says that David “never went near them again.” But more specifically, this is a euphemism meaning that he did not have sexual relationships with them again. A clearer model may be “he did not have sexual relations with them” (New Century Version).

As if in widowhood: the words so translated are not entirely clear in the traditional Hebrew text. The Targum speaks of “widows whose husband was alive,” and the ancient Greek version says “living widows.” Since their most recent “husband” had been Absalom, they would have been true widows. Anderson takes the expression to mean “being in a permanent widowhood.” Most likely the sense is that they were “living as if they were widows” (Revised English Bible), that is, they never again had sexual relations with any man.

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: the common conjunction here may be adequately translated by simply beginning a new paragraph as in Good News Translation and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh. If a paragraph break is not made, a transition word like Then will probably be necessary (see New Jerusalem Bible).

Amasa was last mentioned in 19.13, where David indicated his intention to make Amasa the commander of his army in place of Joab. Since Amasa is now mentioned for the first time in a new section, it may be helpful to say something like “the king said to Amasa, the commander of his army…” or “… to Amasa, the new commander of his army….”

The verb Call … together may be rendered “summon” (New Jerusalem Bible, New International Version, and others), “assemble,” or “gather.” Other languages may use a causative form of a verb meaning “come together.”

Within three days: literally “three of days.” Good News Translation and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch attempt to render this expression in common language by saying “the day after tomorrow.” But it is also quite natural to say “three days from now…” to show the time limit given for the assembling of the troops. In Hebrew reckoning of time, the current day counted as the first day, the next day was the second day, and the day after tomorrow was the third day.

Contemporary English Version restructures the quotation rather radically but conveys the meaning well with “Three days from now I want you and all of Judah’s army to be here.”

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 .

So: it was because of David’s command that Amasa began to act. For this reason a transition word like So may be appropriate in many languages. But in others no special transition marker will be required. It will be sufficient merely to chain the two actions together.

Went to summon: in Hebrew the verb translated summon is the same as “call … together” in the previous verse. Since the action was not completed, some translators may prefer to say “began to assemble…” or “started bringing the army together” (Contemporary English Version).

The name Judah is replaced by the pronoun “them” in Good News Translation, since it refers to all the fighting men of the tribe of Judah mentioned in verse 4. Some versions substitute “the army” (Contemporary English Version).

Delayed beyond the set time which had been appointed him: the words which had been appointed him are more literally “which he had appointed him.” In some languages the most natural way to communicate the meaning here is to repeat the specific time limit given by David and say something like “he took longer than the three days that the king had given him.” In languages where passive forms are impossible or unnatural, this will certainly be a possibility.

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 .