Ashtaroth: since the goddess is elsewhere named “Astarte,” many translations (New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible) keep that name here rather than using the pejorative Hebrew form (see the comment on 7.3). Good News Translation makes explicit the fact that the reference is to a “goddess” and not to a human being.

Fastened: this is the verb used of driving tent pegs into the ground. Good News Translation and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible attempt to show this sense of the verb, but the verb “nailed” probably does not capture the action as well as the verb “impaled” (New American Bible, An American Translation, Fox). Some languages will have specific verbs for attaching something to a wall or tree by means of large sticks or stakes. Such a verb is appropriate here.

Since Saul is dead, it may be preferable to say that they fastened Saul’s “corpse” (so Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente and Bible en français courant) or his “dead body” to the wall. See the comments on verse 8.

A literal translation of to the wall of Beth-shan will be meaningless in many languages. This phrase contains the following implicit information: (1) Beth-shan was a city, and (2) like many other ancient cities it was surrounded by a wall for protection. Some languages have a technical term for a wall built for protection; Traduction œcuménique de la Bible says “rampart” here and in verse 12.

Beth-shan was located where the Jezreel and Jordan valleys meet (see Josh 17.11-13; Judges 1.17). During the New Testament period this city was called Scythopolis and was the most important city of the Decapolis region. It was the only one of the ten cities of the Decapolis to be located on the west side of the Jordan.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Jabesh-gilead: better translated “Jabesh in Gilead” or “the city of Jabesh in the region of Gilead” (see the comments on 11.1). The inhabitants of this city had been rescued by Saul when King Nahash of Ammon had threatened them (11.1-11).

Heard: the Hebrew is literally “heard to him.” But almost all versions consider the addition of the pronoun to be a scribal error and follow the Septuagint, which omits it.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

All the valiant men: this refers to the most courageous warriors, who were usually involved in military matters. Others translate “all the warriors” (Revised English Bible, New American Bible). See also comments on “man of valor” in 1 Sam 16.18.

Arose: on the use of this verb in series with another action verb, see the comments at 9.3 and on page 20 and following.

They came: the Hebrew leaves implicit that the men “came with the bodies of Saul and his sons.” The Septuagint says that they “brought them” (followed by Revised English Bible). Many translations use the verb “brought” rather than came; and it is not clear whether they are following the Septuagint or only making explicit what is implicit in the Hebrew.

The verb “to burn” is also used for burning spices for a dead person when the person is buried (see 2 Chr 16.14; Jer 34.5). Because cremation was not a common practice in Israel, and because no reason is given in the text for the burning of these bodies, some interpreters understand the Hebrew verb to mean that the bodies were “anointed with spices” rather than “burned.” New English Bible, for example, says “and anointed them there with spices.” Lack of the preposition “for” in Hebrew makes the New English Bible interpretation unlikely, and Revised English Bible reverts to “burned them.” Moffatt says “they lamented over them [the bodies] there.” However, given the amount of time that must have passed between the deaths in battle and the time when the bodies were returned to Jabesh, the action of burning may have been merely to protect the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the city.

The continuing loyalty of the people of Jabesh to Saul may explain why the region of Gilead later supported Saul’s son, Ishbosheth, rather than David (2 Sam 2.8-10). The march from Jabesh northwest to Beth Shan covered a distance of fifteen kilometers (or about ten miles).

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The preposition under may have to be translated “near” or “in the shade of” in languages where a literal rendering may give the impression that the bones were under the very trunk of the tree.

The tamarisk tree: see the comment on 22.6. Since the Hebrew has a definite article, a specific tamarisk tree is being referred to. Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente says “under a big tree, the tamarisk of Jabesh.” Contemporary English Version, on the other hand, speaks of “a small tree.” While there are several species of this tree in Israel, at least one of the more common ones grows up to ten meters (about thirty feet) tall and is about a meter (a little more than three feet) in diameter (Zohary, page 115). A faithful translation should include the kind of tree and the fact that it was a particular tree that was apparently well known. To say simply “under a tree” (so Biblia Dios Habla Hoy) omits too much information that is present in the Hebrew. But in languages where this kind of tree is unknown, translators will be forced either to borrow the word or to settle for something like “a well-known tree in Jabesh.”

Fasted: see the comment on 7.6. In this case the fasting was to show their sadness over what had happened to Saul.

The break between the two books of Samuel is unfortunate and disrupts the continuity of what was originally a single book. However, because of the tradition that is now well established, there is probably no way to avoid this break in modern translations of the Bible. It may be wise, however, to add a footnote indicating to the reader that 2 Samuel is actually a continuation of the narrative in 1 Samuel.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The sentence begun here continues through the end of verse 2 in Revised Standard Version. New Revised Standard Version replaces the semicolon at the end of this verse with a period. Good News Translation also makes a separate sentence of this verse. Verse 1 sets the stage for the story that follows. Other versions break this verse up into two or three separate sentences, the first of which is “Now Saul was dead” (New Century Version).

After the death of Saul: literally “And it happened after the death of Saul” (on the translation of this discourse marker, see page 19). There is an obvious similarity between these initial words and the way in which the books of Joshua and Judges are introduced. The Book of Joshua begins “After the death of Moses…,” while Judges starts off with “After the death of Joshua….” Similarly 2 Kings begins “After the death of Ahab….” The same formula is, however, also used as a transitional device within the discourse of a book, as in Gen 25.11 and 1 Chr 2.24. And it will be recalled that the books of Samuel were originally a unit. Probably the presence of this formula was a factor in deciding where to divide the two books.

Returned: in some languages it may be necessary to indicate more explicitly where David was before he returned to Ziklag. So one may have to say “left the place where he had defeated the Amalekites.” Others may have to focus on the place to which he returned, by saying something like “went back to Ziklag” before stating that he remained there for two days.

It is not clear in the Hebrew whether the verb rendered had returned refers (1) to action prior to the time of Saul’s death or (2) to action after Saul’s death. Revised Standard Version is also rather ambiguous. Revised English Bible (also Good News Translation and Bible en français courant), however, is clearly based on the second interpretation: “After Saul’s death David returned from his victory … and spent two days in Ziklag.” Though the sequence and forms of the Hebrew verbs allow for both interpretations, the first understanding seems to be more likely correct.

New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente provide two different models for the first interpretation. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “After the death of Saul—David had already returned from defeating the Amalekites—David stayed two days in Ziklag.” Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente states “After the victory over the Amalekites, David returned to Ziklag and spent two days there. In the meantime, King Saul had died.” See also Anchor Bible, “After the death of Saul, David, having returned from defeating the Amalekites, remained in Ziklag two days.”

Slaughter: this translates a very general and frequently used word that is often translated “defeated” or “killed” in similar contexts in Revised Standard Version. Fox translates the Hebrew as “from striking the Amalek(ites).” Most modern versions speak of “victory over” (Revised English Bible and New Jerusalem Bible) or use some form of the verb “defeat” (New Revised Standard Version, Anchor Bible, and New International Version). A general term should probably also be sought in the receptor language rather than rendering the English word slaughter literally.

Amalekites: there is some question as to whether the original text had the name “Amalek” or the derived noun “Amalekite[s].” But the sense is the same. First mentioned in Gen 14.7, this nomadic tribe roamed the desert south of Judah, and there was strong animosity between them and the people of Israel. See especially 1 Sam 15.

Ziklag: the Philistine king of Gath named Achish gave this city to David as a reward for his military service (see 1 Sam 27.6). The receptor language should somehow indicate that this was a city rather than a region or some other geographical entity, especially if this was not made clear in the earlier account.

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 .

On the third day: literally “it happened on the third day” (as explained on page 19). In the context of the previous verse, which mentions staying in Ziklag for two days, it may be more natural in many languages to say simply “The next day” as Good News Translation has done. David had been in Ziklag for two days prior to the events recounted in this verse. It was on the following day that these events occurred.

Behold: the Hebrew particle translated in this way is often used to heighten the emotional impact of a narrative. Here it introduces a new, unexpected event. Most modern English versions leave it untranslated, but in those languages where such a device exists and is natural, it may be used here to increase the intensity of the events described in the following words. See page 18.

A man: later in the story we learn that this person was “a young man,” or a warrior, and that he was an Amalekite. But this additional information is introduced only gradually by the writer, who reserves the surprise until verse 8. While it may be necessary in some languages to introduce some of this information earlier, if at all possible it will be a good idea to respect the style of the author. The writer does, however, indicate immediately that this man was from Saul’s camp. This has been translated “a man from Saul’s army,” showing that the messenger was a member of Saul’s fighting force.

With his clothes rent and earth upon his head: (see 1 Sam 4.12) the text gives no explicit indication of who tore this man’s clothing and put earth on his head. A literal translation such as that in Revised Standard Version may give the incorrect impression that the man’s clothes had been torn accidentally. Revised English Bible renders the words earth upon his head as “and there was dust on his head.” The English word “dust” will suggest to most readers that he was accidentally covered with dust from running on a dirt road. It was, however, common practice for Jewish persons to do these things to themselves in order to show their sadness about something that had happened, particularly after a death. For this reason Good News Translation makes clear two facts that are only implied in the original: (1) the man had torn his own clothes and had put the dirt on his own head, and (2) the purpose of this action was “to show his grief.” Translators will do well to follow this example in most cases.

He fell to the ground and did obeisance: this is not intended to indicate two separate actions (see the comments on a similar phrase in 1 Sam 24.8 [Masoretic Text 24.9]). Rather the purpose of his bowing to the ground was to show his great respect for David. Instead of the coordinating conjunction and, it will be better in many languages to say something like New International Version, “fell to the ground to pay him honor.”

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 .

One or both of the direct quotations in this verse may be more naturally rendered as indirect in some languages. Revised English Bible, for example, turns the first quotation into an indirect quotation: “David asked him where he had come from.” The essential meaning will not be affected by doing so.

Where do you come from? The Revised Standard Version wording in English may be misleading. New Revised Standard Version reads as Good News Translation. This question is not intended to inquire about the origin or native village of the messenger. It has to do rather with where he had been most recently before coming to David. The same words in the Revised Standard Version rendering of verse 13 below represent a somewhat different Hebrew text, and the meaning is also different.

Escaped: this verb in English often implies previous capture or imprisonment, but here the idea is more like getting out of a difficult situation. The root verb is related to a word meaning to be smooth or slippery and could be rendered “I slipped away from…” or “I ran away from…,” although most English versions use the verb “escape” as in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation in this verse. Elsewhere, however, it is translated “flee.” See the comments on 1 Sam 19.10.

From the camp of Israel: the meaning is not that the young man was a prisoner in the camp of Israel, but rather that he escaped from the Philistines. For this reason Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch provides a good model: “I have escaped from the Philistines.” The man’s answer may also be rendered “I have come from Saul’s camp, where I escaped from the Philistines.”

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 .

David’s question to the fleeing Amalekite is to be understood as a request for a full report on the events of the battle. It is followed by an order to give a report. Good News Translation combines the two elements into a single command. But in many languages it may be more natural to maintain the question and the command as separate. Most translations do not render the Hebrew particle of entreaty, which is found toward the end of the quotation from the mouth of David. Compare Fox, who says “Pray tell me!”

The people: this has been variously translated as “the men” (New International Version), “the troops” (Moffatt and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “the army” (Anchor Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible), and “the soldiers” (New American Bible). While this term is sometimes used for the whole population of a given community, here the reference is clearly to an army (as has been noted frequently in 1 Samuel), but the question is, which army? Since the reporter is later identified as an Amalekite, Good News Translation may be misleading (similarly Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje). “Our army” would seem to refer to the Amalekites. But David had decimated the Amalekite army in 1 Sam 30. Apparently some of the remnant, however, had joined Saul. In any case, the reference here is clearly to Saul’s army, although it may have included some Amalekites. It may be better to translate explicitly “the army of Saul” or “the Israelite army” (Bible en français courant).

Have fallen: it should be made quite clear that there is no question here of an unintentional or accidental tumble to the ground. This is rather a euphemism for death in battle at the hands of the enemy (see the comments on 1 Sam 18.25). It will be appropriate in some cases to combine the verbs have fallen and are dead in a single verbal expression such as “were killed in battle” or, where the passive form of this model is not an option, “died in battle.”

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 .