As is often the case, the verb said will be better rendered “asked” in many languages, since it introduces a question.

The young man who told him: see the comments at verses 5 and 6.

The question Where do you come from? in this verse is not quite the same as in verse 3. While the question in verse 3 has to do with where the man had been immediately before his encounter with David, here the question is rather one of ultimate origin. The Good News Translation rendering is identical with that of New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Anchor Bible, and New American Bible: “Where are you from?” In some languages the most natural way to ask for this information will be to say “What is your village?” or “Where are your parents from?”

The son of a sojourner: it is possible that this signifies membership in a group (see 2.7), like many other expressions beginning with “son of…” or “sons of….” In this case the Amalekite messenger states that he is one of the group of foreigners living among the people of Israel. If this is the correct interpretation here, then the young man is not stating that his father was a foreigner, only that he himself is (so Good News Translation and Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje). Most versions, however, seem to understand son of here to mean that his father was an alien also.

The word sojourner comes from a root meaning to live among a people who are not blood relatives. Such a person would not normally have the same rights as his hosts; rather, according to Lev 19.33-34, he would be dependent on their hospitality. Apart from the Good News Translation model, translators may consider “son of a resident alien” (Moffatt and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) or “son of an Amalekite immigrant” (New American Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), or “my father … was an alien, a man of Amalec” (Knox).

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: since what follows is a question, it may be more natural in a number of languages to use the verb “asked” as in Good News Translation. Though David’s words are in the form of a question in Hebrew, the force of the words is that of a reproach, as in Judges 16.15. It may be better to follow the example of Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, “How can you dare to kill the king, whom the Lord has appointed!” See also Bible en français courant, “And you weren’t afraid to kill the king that the LORD had chosen! cried out David.” The same Hebrew interrogative word translated How in this verse is an expression of sorrow in verse 19 below.

How is it…? In many languages the question word “Why” will be a better translation than How in this context. David was not asking how the Amalekite managed to overcome fear, but why he was not afraid to take the life of a person chosen by Yahweh.

You were not afraid: instead of this type of negative expression, some languages will have a verb like the English “dare” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, as well as Good News Translation) or “be so bold as to….”

Put forth your hand: these words suggest taking physical action of some kind, but in many cases it will be unwise to translate it literally. Coupled with the verb destroy which follows, the expression as a whole means “to kill” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible as well as Good News Translation).

The LORD’s anointed: this expression is used more than ten times in the books of Samuel to refer to the king of Israel. Some languages may have to translate it “the person chosen by the LORD to be the king of his people.” See the comments on 1 Sam 2.10.

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 .

Depending on how the last part of the previous verse is translated, it may be necessary in some languages to add something like “before he died” or “as he was dying” at the beginning of this verse in order to avoid giving the impression that David was speaking to the Amalekite after he was already dead. New Century Version resolves the problem by using a different verb form, “David had said….”

Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente provides another helpful model, restructuring the information in the previous verse and this one, numbering them 15-16. The resulting translation of the two verses is as follows:

• He then called one of his servants and ordered him:
“Come here and kill this man!”
And he said to the Amalekite:
“May you be responsible for your own death. You have pronounced your own condemnation when you said that you had killed the consecrated king of the LORD.”
The servant struck the Amalekite and killed him.

David said to him: the pronoun him could possibly refer either to the Amalekite or to the person who was appointed to kill him and who struck the blow. Good News Translation and New Century Version make it clear that the Amalekite messenger is intended.

Your blood be upon your head: a literal rendering of this phrase may easily be misunderstood in some languages. The idea here is that the Amalekite soldier is responsible for his own death (see Lev 20.9, 11, 12, 13, 16). In addition to the Good News Translation rendering, some other possible models are “You are responsible for your own death” (New American Bible) and “You convicted yourself [out of your own mouth]…” (New Jerusalem Bible). Similar expressions are found in Josh 2.19; 1 Kgs 2.37; and Ezek 33.4.

Your own mouth has testified: since the mouth is not independent of the person speaking, in certain languages this may seem like a strange way of wording things. Some may prefer to say “you yourself have testified” or “you condemned yourself by saying…” (Revised English Bible).

The direct quote of the words of the Amalekite within the quotation from King David may present certain problems in the receptor language. They may be made indirect by saying something like “when you said that you had killed the LORD’s chosen king.”

The LORD’s anointed: see verse 14 above.

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 first two lines in this verse are an example of parallelism, which is quite common in Hebrew poetry. But the second line includes the streets of, which has no parallel in the first line. The two place names, Gath and Ashkelon, are mentioned together in Josh 13.3 as cities of Philistine kings, who were the enemies of the people of Israel, and as such they would have been understood to be centers of enemy opposition (see also 1 Sam 6.17). Ashkelon was located on the Mediterranean coast. And, while the location of Gath is not certain, some scholars suggest that this may be a case of mentioning the closest and most distant Philistine cities in order to represent the totality of the enemy territory. The footnote in La Bible du Semeur expresses this understanding. If the idea that these cities were centers of the enemies of Israel is not included in the translation itself, a footnote should be added providing this information, as in Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente. The footnote there reads “Gath and Ashkelon were two important Philistine cities. These enemies would be happy because of Saul’s death.” However, the following model, giving the information in the text itself, may be considered:

• Do not tell this news to our adversaries who live in Gath-town.
Do not talk about it in the streets of the enemy city, Ashkelon.

The verb translated publish in Revised Standard Version is rendered in Nouvelle version Segond révisée as “carry the good news,” but this verb in Hebrew does not necessarily imply that the news was good, since that would depend on the point of view of the writer. A Jewish writer would certainly not have seen the news as good. And the writer was definitely not a Philistine. So translators are advised to avoid the mistake of Nouvelle version Segond révisée.

The second pair of lines in this verse are also parallel. The Philistines are the same as the uncircumcised (see the comments on 1 Sam 14.6). And the verbs rejoice and exult are synonymous. Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente provides one model to show that the Philistines and the uncircumcised are the same: “the Philistine daughters … the women of those people without God.”

Daughters of …: in a male-dominated society, it was most shameful and degrading to see the females among the enemies boasting and celebrating victory. It is perhaps for this reason that the word daughters is mentioned twice. In some Old Testament passages the word “daughters” is used to mean “cities” (Psa 48.11). But none of the versions consulted adopts this meaning here, and in light of the parallel with verse 24, the reference is surely to women and not to cities.

Lest: this is a somewhat archaic way of saying “for fear that” or “otherwise it may happen that….” The point is that, if the news of the death of Saul and Jonathan is spread to the enemy cities, the inhabitants will certainly celebrate and revel in it.

The uncircumcised: this expression focuses on a physical characteristic of non-Israelites, but it suggests hostility toward God as well as toward his people. While Good News Translation uses the word “pagan,” it may be necessary in many languages to say something like “people who don’t know God.”

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 direct address to the mountains of Gilboa will almost certainly be unnatural in many languages. This poetic device may be rendered by a kind of prayer to God regarding the mountains or hills of Gilboa, as in Good News Translation, or by a hope or wish concerning these hills: “I hope that rain and dew will no longer fall on the hills of Gilboa….” This is a kind of curse wished on the place where Saul and Jonathan lost their lives. Other such curses are found in Jer 20 and Job 3. Note that Good News Translation reverses the order of “dew” and “rain” as being more natural in English.

Upsurging of the deep: these words in Revised Standard Version (also New American Bible and similarly Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) are based on a slight change in the Hebrew text, which says “fields of offerings” or “fields of first fruits.” With the proposed correction Revised Standard Version has created a parallelism in which neither rain from above nor water from under the earth will bring moisture and fertility to the mountains of Gilboa. But there is no textual evidence for the Revised Standard Version reading, and New Revised Standard Version returns to the Masoretic Text (see the comments below).

Scholars have discussed at great length the meaning of the Hebrew at this point, and many conjectures have been proposed for correcting the Masoretic Text. The following translations are all based on various conjectures and not on the Masoretic Text: “no showers on the uplands” (Revised English Bible), “O treacherous fields where the heroes’ shield lies dishonoured!” (New Jerusalem Bible), and “on you, fields of death” (Osty-Trinquet and Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, following part of the Septuagint tradition).

The majority attempt to make sense of the Masoretic Text and seem to think that the reference here is to fields that had once produced abundant crops but which David cursed to become barren in the future. The expression “fields of offerings” refers to fields so fertile that the farmers must give offerings of first fruits. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project and Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament give a {C} rating to the Masoretic Text and recommend this interpretation as the least unsatisfactory of the many proposed solutions. New Revised Standard Version reads “nor bounteous fields,” while New International Version has “[may you not have] fields that yield offerings of grain.” See also Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, “no longer cover yourself with fertile fields.” This solution is also the basis for the translations in Good News Translation, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje, and La Bible Pléiade.

The shield of the mighty: this refers either to the shield of Saul or to the shields of both Saul and Jonathan, since the word mighty is plural in Hebrew. The former seems less likely, since the rest of this verse should probably be linked with the beginning of verse 22.

Was defiled: the verb used here has been rendered “rejected” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “thrown aside” (An American Translation), and “dishonored” (Knox and New Jerusalem Bible). If the passive form is a problem in the receptor language, then Moffatt may provide a better model: “there a hero dropped his shield.”

Anointed with oil: while anointing with oil has very special connotations in many biblical contexts, here the idea seems to be nothing more than merely rubbing oil on the shield in order to protect it. At this time shields were sometimes made of leather, and the rubbing on of oil was necessary in order to prevent their deterioration. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh translates “polished with oil no more.” If the passive form is not an option in the receptor language, it may be better to provide an indefinite agent, as in “which they rubbed with oil” or “that someone has rubbed with oil.” It is unlikely that Saul, as king, would have done the rubbing himself. It is possible, though not likely, that anointed with oil refers to Saul, who had been anointed (see 1 Sam 10.1) but was no longer God’s chosen king.

It is also possible to connect the first phrase from verse 22, “from the blood of the slain,” to the end of this verse. Following this division of the text, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente provides the following translation as an alternative in a footnote: “the shield of Saul no longer anointed with oil, but [anointed] with the blood of the enemies.” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible follows this division in the text:

• For there was stained the shield of the heroes,
the shield of Saul which had only been oiled
with the blood of the victims, with the fat of the heroes.

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 .