And: it may be necessary to find a stronger transition word here. It was not merely a matter of another unrelated action by the king. It was because of Amasa’s delay that David turned to Abishai. New Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible use the word “Then.” Moffatt and Good News Translation have “So.”

To Abishai: this reflects the traditional Hebrew text, but the Syriac has “to Joab,” and this is followed by Anderson. However, few other interpreters accept this reading, and it is not recommended to translators.

Your lord’s servants: since it is King David who is speaking and he is talking about the troops that are loyal to him, it will be more natural in most languages to say something like “Take my best soldiers” (Contemporary English Version) or “take the royal bodyguard” (Revised English Bible). The details on the identity of these soldiers is given in the following verse.

Lest: as indicated in earlier verses where this term is used (1.20; 12.28; 13.25; 15.14; 17.16; 1 Sam 4.9; 9.5; and others), it will be wise in many languages to begin a new sentence at this point with the words “If you don’t do this….”

Get himself fortified cities: literally, “find for himself fortified cities.” The sense seems to be that David wanted his troops to capture Sheba before Sheba and his followers had time to enter some fortified city and find protection there. Both Good News Translation and Revised English Bible express the meaning with the technical military term “to occupy” some fortified towns.

Cause us trouble: literally “and snatch away our eye.” The meaning of the Hebrew text at this point is not certain. Compare Anderson, “pluck out our eyes.” Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {C} evaluation to the reading in the Masoretic Text, while acknowledging that the exact sense of this phrase is uncertain. Some have understood it to mean “escape out of our sight” (Jewish Publication Version). Other ways of translating the Masoretic Text here include “escape from us” (New Revised Standard Version), “escapes us” (New International Version, Revised English Bible), “eludes us” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Jerusalem Bible), and “escapes (before) our eyes.” Various suggestions have been made to change the form of the Hebrew verb by changing the vowels, but apparently only Moffatt and Revised Standard Version adopt the solution of changing the consonants and creating a different verb. The meaning may well be something like “elude us” or “escape from our sight” (New American Standard Bible).

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 .

There went out …: this structure, which reflects the Hebrew, may seem strange in languages where it is not natural to begin a sentence with a verb. In those cases the verb will have to be placed later in the sentence.

The rendering of Revised Standard Version is based on a correction of the Masoretic Text inspired by the Septuagint. This reading gives the impression that Joab was one person, a specifically named individual, who followed Abishai along with the other soldiers. Other versions following this understanding are Contemporary English Version, Moffatt, An American Translation, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible.

On the other hand, Good News Translation, following the Masoretic Text, includes a specific group or soldiers called “Joab’s men” along with the other two groups of soldiers who went with Abishai. Goldman, New Revised Standard Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Century Version, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Bible en français courant, and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible all go along with this reading. Since the traditional Hebrew text has “the men of Joab” and there is no compelling reason to depart from it, this is recommended to translators in other languages. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} evaluation to this text.

The Cherethites and the Pelethites: see the comments at 8.18; 15.18; and 1 Sam 30.14. As indicated earlier, it is possible to translate this whole expression as “David’s bodyguard” (Contemporary English Version) or “the royal bodyguards” (Good News Translation).

Mighty men: see the comments at 10.7; 16.6; and 17.8.

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 great stone which is in Gibeon: Gibeon was located about ten kilometers (or about six miles) to the north of Jerusalem and was in the territory of Benjamin, which would have been friendly to Sheba. The mention of the great stone, using the definite article, shows that it was a well-known landmark. Another similar landmark is mentioned in 1 Sam 6.15 and 18.

Came to meet them: this may mean either “caught up with them” (Contemporary English Version) coming from Jerusalem or, as in New Jerusalem Bible, “met them, coming the other way,” implying that he had been with Sheba and was definitely a sympathizer with the rebellion. The events that follow make it quite clear that Joab considered Amasa a traitor, but perhaps this was only because he failed to assemble the army within three days as David had instructed him. Nevertheless, in languages that require translators to decide which direction Amasa was going, it may be better to state that he was coming from the opposite direction.

Now introduces an explanation by the writer that includes a description of his clothing and of the instrument he eventually used to kill Amasa. From here to the end of this verse the meaning of the Hebrew is not clear.

Was wearing a soldier’s garment: literally “was girded with his garment his clothing.” Though the exact sense is not clear, Revised Standard Version probably expresses the basic meaning according to the context. Another way of speaking of a soldier’s garment is to say that he had on “his apparel of war” (Goldman) or, putting it in more modern terms, that he was “dressed for combat.” The girdle was a kind of belt worn around the waist that could have held a sheath in which a sword or a dagger could be kept. On the word girdle see 18.11 and 1 Sam 18.4.

While most English versions use the word sword here, some indicate that it was a “dagger” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version, Knox, and Anderson). In view of the events described, it seems more logical that the instrument used may have been shorter than what people usually think of as a sword.

As he went forward it fell out: the meaning of the words so translated are debated by scholars. Some think the meaning is as in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. Apparently Joab deliberately let the instrument fall to the ground in order to put his enemy at ease so that he would not suspect what was about to happen. Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente states explicitly that the sword “fell to the ground,” but in light of the difficulties of understanding this verse, it will be better not to be so specific unless the receptor language requires it. Some interpreters change the Hebrew text here in light of the Septuagint to say “and it came out and fell” (Osty-Trinquet), but the Masoretic Text should be followed.

Some interpreters, however, do not think that the Hebrew means that the sword fell to the ground. Rather, Joab had his tunic pulled up and girded around his waist, and the sword fell out of its sheath into the folds of the tunic. If this interpretation is followed, then the weapon that Joab uses in verse 10 is the same sword mentioned here and is not a second sword that he was hiding, nor is it the fallen sword that he had picked up from the ground (see the comments on the New Jerusalem Bible translation of verse 10).

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: it will not be necessary in some languages to translate the conjunction in this case. It serves merely to join together the description of Joab’s attire and his encounter with Amasa.

The report of Joab’s behavior toward Amasa was considered perfectly normal at the time. He asks first about Amasa’s welfare, using the common word for “peace” often found in greetings in the Middle East to this day. And he calls his cousin Amasa my brother, using the term in its broadest sense. In languages where this very general meaning is likely to be misunderstood in a stricter sense, it will be better to use a different word such as “my friend” (Good News Translation) or something similar. Contemporary English Version and New Living Translation say “my cousin.” In some languages it will be more natural to put this address before the question about welfare (or greeting) rather than after it. The translation will then read something like “My brother [or, friend], is everything all right with you?”

The action of taking someone by the beard was not considered unusual in such a setting. It was a friendly gesture commonly used between men when they were greeting each other. So translators should avoid giving the impression that this was an obviously hostile action.

Kiss: see 15.5.

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 conjunction may be rendered in this way because what happens is contrary to what the reader might expect. But it may be unnecessary in many languages to translate it here.

Did not observe: this translates a Hebrew verb whose basic meaning is “to watch” or “to guard.” Good News Translation probably expresses the intended meaning better here than Revised Standard Version does. It is not simply that Amasa didn’t see the sword; rather, he was not being careful as he should have been. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and Revised English Bible similarly provide a good model, with “Amasa was not on his guard against the sword….”

The sword which was in Joab’s hand: there is some discussion among scholars as to whether Joab had picked up the sword or dagger that fell out of its sheath (verse 8). New Jerusalem Bible adds the words “which Joab had now picked up.” Some propose that this was a second sword, which he had concealed up to this point. The other was dropped as a kind of decoy so that Amasa suspected nothing. A third interpretation is that this is the same sword that fell, but it fell into the folds of Joab’s tunic where he could secretly reach it, so he did not bend over and pick it up from the ground. Translators need to be consistent here with the way they have translated the end of verse 8.

Contemporary English Version and Good News Translation both clarify that the instrument was in Joab’s “other hand” because his right hand was holding the beard. Some languages will use a specific term for the left hand in this context. Revised Standard Version says that Amasa was struck in the body, but Good News Translation more correctly translates this Hebrew noun as “the belly” (so also Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). New American Bible has a similarly specific meaning with the more refined-sounding word “abdomen.”

Shed his bowels to the ground: this graphic description of the result of Joab’s blow indicates that the internal organs of Amasa fell out onto the ground. Some languages may have a general term for “intestines” that includes other inner parts as well. Others will say simply “what was inside him” or something similar.

The words without striking a second blow may have to be translated as a separate sentence in many languages. New Century Version provides a good model, “Joab did not have to stab Amasa again.”

He died: while most versions translate the verb here as a simple past tense, Contemporary English Version has “but Amasa was dying.” The immediate context, however, seems to lend itself to a past tense translation, and this is what most versions do.

This is the last mention of Abishai in this chapter. And even the wording here suggests that Joab was once again in charge of the army.

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 .

Took his stand by Amasa: the wording of Revised Standard Version in English almost makes it sound like this soldier was a sympathizer with Amasa, but this is certainly not the meaning here. These words simply describe his physical location while he was appealing to the other soldiers to accept Joab as the leader of David’s army once again. Since the army with Joab and Abishai was moving on, it is possible to translate the verb here “stayed behind” with Amasa (as the remainder of the soldiers passed by).

Since Amasa was probably dead by this time, some languages will find it more natural to say “the corpse” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) or “the body” (Knox) rather than “Amasa.” The Hebrew text has only a pronoun here. However, the wording of the following verse may give the impression that he was not yet completely dead. The translation here is therefore related to both “he died” in the previous verse and to “lay wallowing” in the following verse.

Whoever favors Joab, and whoever is for David: a literal rendering of this expression may give the impression of two different groups (one for Joab and one for David), but because Joab and David were together in this matter, the translation should probably read “whoever is for David and his man Joab” or something similar.

Let him follow Joab: literally “after Joab.”

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 .

Wallowing in his blood: the basic meaning of the verb used here is “roll.” Some scholars have proposed that this Hebrew verb may sometimes mean “to pollute” or “to defile,” and it is this meaning that is followed in some translations. But in this context the likely meaning is “drenched” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Knox) or “covered with” (New American Bible, New Century Version, Good News Translation). If Amasa was actively rolling in his blood, he was not yet dead. But the likelihood is that he was dead and that the verb should be translated “covered with.”

Highway: the use of this term may give some readers the idea of a paved road. Since this was not the case, it is probably better to say simply “road” or possibly “the main road.”

The reference to the man here is to the same soldier mentioned at the beginning of the previous verse as “one of Joab’s men.” Contemporary English Version translates “The soldier who had shouted.”

Garment: while the Hebrew word found here is often used of clothing, its basic meaning is “a covering,” usually made of cloth. It was therefore not necessarily a piece of clothing, as the word garment (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New International Version, New American Bible, New Revised Standard Version) or “cloak” (New Jerusalem Bible) may suggest. The same word is translated by Revised Standard Version as “a cloth” in Num 4.6 and in other passages where there is no notion of something worn by human beings. This is why Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version have felt free to translate “a blanket,” and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible has “a covering.” Perhaps New Century Version will be the best model for some languages: “a cloth.”

Following the words threw a garment over him, the Hebrew text has the following words, which are not translated in Good News Translation: “as who saw everyone coming to him and stopped.” Revised Standard Version, and similarly New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and New International Version, has moved these final words to the middle of the verse and translated them as And any one who came by, seeing him, stopped. Since these final words basically repeat the essential meaning of the words when the man saw that all the people stopped earlier in this verse, some textual scholars take this as an unintentional repetition of the previous line by a copyist. Anchor Bible, and also Biblia Dios Habla Hoy and Anderson, take these words as a summary explanation of why the body was removed: “for he could see that anyone who came upon him would stop” (Anchor Bible). Revised English Bible translates these final words as “for everyone who came by stopped at the sight of the body.” It may be that some modern translations have omitted this repetition for translation reasons rather than because of textual considerations (so, for example, Good News Translation, Bible en français courant). Translations that include these words are King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New International Version, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje, and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible.

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 .

He was taken out of the highway: the passive form here will have to be replaced by an active expression in certain languages. Since the previous verse states very clearly that it was the follower of Joab who had stayed behind and had removed the body, translators may say “When the man had taken the body away from the road” or something similar.

All the people: this expression again refers to the soldiers who were present at the time. But in this context it may be translated “all of them” or “everyone” (Good News Translation).

Went on after Joab: in some languages it will be better to say “went on with Joab,” since they were accompanying him in pursuit of Sheba.

It may be unnecessary to say the son of Bichri again in this verse, since this information appeared already in verses 1, 2, 6, and 7.

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 .