¹ sn This chapter is closely linked to 1 Sam 31. It should be kept in mind that 1 and 2 Samuel were originally a single book and not separate volumes. Whereas in English Bible tradition the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah are each regarded as two separate books, this was not the practice in ancient Hebrew tradition. Early canonical records, for example, counted them as a single book respectively. The division into two books goes back to the Greek translation of the OT and was probably initiated because of the cumbersome length of copies due to the Greek practice (unlike that of Hebrew) of writing vowels. The present division into two books can be a little misleading in terms of perceiving the progression of the argument of the book; in some ways it is preferable to treat the books in a unified fashion.
²sn The Amalekites were a nomadic people who inhabited Judah and the Transjordan. They are mentioned in Gen 36:15-16 as descendants of Amalek who in turn descended from Esau. In Exod 17:8-16 they are described as having acted in a hostile fashion toward Israel as the Israelites traveled to Caanan from Egypt. In David’s time the Amalekites were viewed as dangerous enemies who were liable to surprise attack, looting, and burning of Israelite cities (cf. 1 Sam 1:1-30).
³sn Ziklag is a city in the Negev which had been given to David by Achish king of Gath. For more than a year David used it as a base from which he conducted military expeditions (cf. 1 Sam 27:5-12). According to 1 Sam 30:1-19, Ziklag was destroyed by the Amalekites when Saul fought the Philistines.
⁴sn The rending of one’s clothing and soiling oneself with dust or dirt were outward expressions of grief in the ancient Near East, where such demonstrable reactions were a common response to tragic news.
⁵tn Heb “he fell to the ground and did obeisance.”
⁶tn Heb “What was the word?”
⁷tn Heb “from the people.”
⁸tn Heb “and died.”
⁹tn Heb. hanna`ar, Heb “young man.” In v. 2 he is called a “man” (Heb., ’is). The word here in v. 5 (so also in vv. 6, 13, 15) is probably a designation for a “fighting” man, i.e., a warrior or soldier.
¹⁰tc For MT “who was recounting this to him, ‘How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?’” the Syriac Peshitta has “declare to me how Saul and his son Jonathan died.”
¹¹tc The Syriac Peshitta and one manuscript of the LXX lack MT “who was telling him this.”
¹²tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts wa’omar (“and I said”) rather than the kethib which has wayyo’mer (“and he said”). Cf. LXX, Syriac Peshitta, and Vg, all of which have the first person.
¹³tn As McCarter points out, the polel of the verb mut (“to die”) “refers to dispatching or ‘finishing off’ someone already wounded and near death.” (See McCarter, II Samuel, 59.)
¹⁴tn Heb “the cramp (?) has seized me.”
¹⁵tn The Heb. here is grammatically very awkward (Heb “because all still my life in me”). Whether the broken construct phrase is due to the fact that Saul is speaking out of a confused state of mind as he is on the verge of dying, or whether MT has sustained corruption in the transmission process, is not entirely clear. The former seems likely, although P. K. McCarter understands MT to be the result of conflation of two shorter forms of text. (See his II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, Anchor Bible 9 [New York: Doubleday], 57, n. 9). Early translators also struggled with the verse, apparently choosing to leave part of the Hebrew text untranslated. For example, the Lucianic recension of the LXX lacks Heb. kol (“all”), while other witnesses (viz., one medieval Heb. manuscript, codices A and B of the LXX, and the Syriac Peshitta) lack Heb. `od (“still”).
¹⁶tn Heb “after his falling.”
¹⁷tc MT lacks the definite article, but this is likely due to textual corruption. Read the aleph of ‘s`dh as a he’ (hs`dh). There is no reason to think that the soldier confiscated from Saul’s dead body only one of two or more bracelets that he was wearing. Rather, he took the crown and the bracelet that he found on the body.
¹⁸sn The claims that the soldier is making here seem at variance with the story of Saul’s death as presented in 1 Sam 31:3-5. In that passage it appears that Saul took his own life, not that he was slain by a passerby who happened on the scene. Some scholars account for the discrepancy by supposing that conflicting accounts have been brought together in MT. However, it may be that the soldier is here fabricating the account in a self-serving way so as to gain favor with David, or so he supposes. He probably had come on Saul’s corpse, stolen the crown and bracelet from the body, and now hopes to curry favor with David by handing over to him these emblems of Saul’s royalty. But in so doing the Amalekite greatly miscalculated David’s response to this alleged participation in Saul’s death. The consequence of his lies will instead be his own death!
¹⁹tc Read with the qere and many medieval Heb. manuscripts bibgadayw (“his garments”) rather than bibgado (“his garment”) of the kethib.
²⁰tn The Heb. word used here is ger, which refers to a foreigner whose social standing was something less than that of native residents of the land, but something more than that of a non-resident alien who was merely passing through.
²¹sn The reference to “The Bow” is very difficult here. Some interpreters (e.g., S. R. Driver, P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.) suggest deleting the word from the text, but there does not seem to be sufficient evidence for doing so. Others (cf. KJV) understand the reference to be elliptical, meaning “the use of the bow.” The verse would then imply that with the deaths of Saul and Jonathan having occurred a period of trying warfare is about to begin, requiring adequate preparation for war on the part of the younger generation. Various other views may also be found in the secondary literature. However, it seems best to understand the word here to be a reference to the name of a song (i.e., “The Bow”), in which case the song in question is likely the poem that follows in vv. 19-27.
²²sn The Book of Yashar is a non-canonical writing no longer in existence. It is referred to here and in Josh 10:12-13 and 1 Kgs 8:12-13. It apparently was “a collection of ancient national poetry” (so BDB, 449).
²³sn The word beauty is used figuratively here to refer to Saul and Jonathan.
²⁴sn The cities of Gath and Ashkelon are mentioned here by synecdoche of part for the whole. As major Philistine cities they in fact represent all of Philistia. The point that the writer is making is that when the sad news of fallen Israelite leadership reaches the Philistines it will be for these enemies of Israel the occasion of great joy rather than grief.
²⁵tc For MT “fields of grain offering” the Lucianic recension of LXX has “your high places are mountains of death.” Cf. the Old Latin montes mortis (“mountains of death”).
²⁶tn This is the only biblical occurrence of the niphal of the verb g`l. This verb usually has the sense of “to abhor” or “loathe.” But here it seems to refer to the now dirty and unprotected condition of a previously well cared for battle instrument.
²⁷tc Read Heb. masuah, with many Heb. manuscripts, rather than masiah of MT. Although the Syriac Peshitta understands the statement to pertain to Saul, the point here is not that Saul is not anointed. Rather, it is the shield of Saul that lies discarded and is no longer anointed. In ancient Near Eastern practice a warrior’s shield that was in normal use would have to be anointed regularly in order to insure that the leather did not become dry and brittle. Like other warriors of his day Saul would have carefully maintained his tools of trade. But now that he is dead, the once-cared-for shield of the mighty warrior lies sadly discarded and woefully neglected, a silent but eloquent commentary on how different things are now compared to the way they were during Saul’s lifetime.
²⁸tn The Hebrew verb here (tasub) is used with the nuance of a frequentative past action.
²⁹sn Clothing of scarlet was expensive and beyond the financial reach of most people.
³⁰sn The expression weapons of war may here be a figurative way of referring to Saul and Jonathan.
¹tc The plural expression “the cities of Hebron” is odd; we would expect the noun to be in the singular, if used at all. Although the Syriac Peshitta has the expected reading “in Hebron,” MT is clearly the more difficult reading and should probably be retained here.
²tn Heb “let your hands be strong.”
³sn The name Ish-bosheth means in Hebrew “man of shame.” It presupposes an earlier form such as Ish-baal (“man of the Lord”), with the word “Baal” being used being used of Israel’s God in a neutral sense. But because of idolatrous associations that increasingly collected around the word “Baal,” that part of the name was often later replaced with the word “shame.”
⁴tc MT has here ha’asuri. This reference to “the Ashurite” is problematic if it is taken to mean “the Assyrian,” since Ish-bosheth’s kingdom obviously was not of such proportions as to extend to Assyria. The Syriac Peshitta renders the word as “the Geshurite,” while the Targum has “of the house of Ashur.” We should probably emend the Heb. text to read hagesuri (“the Geshurite”). The Geshurites were located in the northeastern part of the land of Palestine.
⁵tn Heb “play.” What is in view here is a gladiatorial contest in which representative groups of soldiers engage in mortal combat before the watching armies.
⁶tn Heb “servants.” So also elsewhere.
⁷tn Heb “young men.” So also elsewhere.
⁸tn Heb “the.”
⁹tn Heb “and they stood.”
¹⁰tn Heb “were gathered together.”
¹¹tn The Hebrew verb (na`alah) used here is the niphal perfect 3ms of `lh (“to go up”). In the niphal this verb “. . . is used idiomatically, of getting away from so as to abandon . . . especially of an army raising a siege . . . .” (See S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel, 2d ed. [1912; reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Alpha Publications, 1984], 244.)
¹²tn The Heb. word used here is a hapax legomenon; its exact meaning is disputed. The translation above follows BDB in taking the word to be a proper name of an area east of the Jordan. A different understanding was advocated by W. R. Arnold, who took the word to refer to the forenoon or morning; a number of modern scholars have adopted this view for 2 Sam 2:29. (See W. R. Arnold, “The Meaning of btrwn,” American Journal of Semitic Languages 28 [1911-1912] 274-83.)
¹tn The Heb. text does not have the word “son.” So also in vv. 3-5.
²tn Heb “wife.”
³tn The Heb. text does not have “sons.”
⁴tn Heb “was strengthening himself.” The statement seems here to have a negative sense, suggesting that Abner was overstepping the bounds of political propriety in a self-serving way.
⁵tc The Hebrew of MT says simply “and he said,” with no expressed subject for the verb. It is not likely that the text originally had no expressed subject for this verb, since the antecedent is not immediately clear from the context. We should probably restore to the Hebrew text the name Ish-bosheth. Cf. a few medieval Heb. manuscripts, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and Vg.
⁶tn Heb “come to.”
⁷sn This accusation against Abner is a very serious one, since an act of sexual infringement on the king’s harem would probably have been understood as a blatant declaration of aspirations to kingship. As such it was not merely a matter of ethical impropriety but an act of grave political significance as well.
⁸tn Heb “said.”
⁹tn Heb “I do.”
¹⁰tc LXX, with the exception of the recension of Origen, adds “in this day.”
¹¹tn Heb “he.”
¹²tn Heb “cut a covenant.” So also in vv. 13, 21.
¹³tn Heb “behold, my hand is with you.”
¹⁴tn The words “when you return to see my face,” though found in the Hebrew text, are a bit redundant given the similar expression in the earlier part of the verse. The words are absent from the Syriac Peshitta.
¹⁵tn Heb “Go, return.” The clause is a verbal hendiadys.
¹⁶tn Heb “the word of Abner was with.”
¹⁷tc Read with LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vg ’osia` (“I will save”) rather than MT hosia` (“he saved”). The context calls for the 1cs imperfect of the verb rather than the 3ms perfect. MT is probably the result of graphic confusion.
¹⁸tn Heb “from the hand of.”
¹⁹tn Heb “in the ears of.”
²⁰tn Heb “was good in the eyes of.”
²¹tc LXX adds “in peace.”
²²tn The expression (Heb “your going forth and your coming in”) is a merism. It specifically mentions the polar extremities of the action but includes all activity in between the extremities as well, thus encompassing the entirety of one’s activity.
²³tc 4QSam^a has “of Joab” rather than MT “of his father.”
²⁴tn The expression used here is difficult. The translation “one who works at the spindle” follows a suggestion of S. R. Driver to the effect that the expression pejoratively describes an effeminate man who rather than being a mighty warrior is occupied with tasks that are normally fulfilled by women. (See S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel, 250-51.) But McCarter, following a Phoenician usage of the noun to mean “crutches,” adopts a different possibility. He translates the phrase “clings to a crutch,” seeing here a further description of physical lameness. (See McCarter, II Samuel, 118.) Such an idea fits the present context well, although the evidence for this meaning is rather limited.
²⁵tn Heb “was walking.”
²⁶tn Heb “lifted up his voice and wept.” The expression is a verbal hendiadys.
²⁷tc Read with the qere and ancient versions yadeka (“your hands”) rather than MT yadeka (“your hand”).
²⁸tc 4QSam^a lacks the words “the people.”
²⁹tn Heb “it was good in their eyes.”
³⁰tn Heb “from the king.”
³¹tn Heb“a leader and a great one.” The expression is a hendiadys.
¹tn MT does not specify the subject of the verb here, but the reference is to Ish-bosheth, so the name has been supplied in the translation for clarity. 4QSam^a and LXX mistakenly read “Mephibosheth.”
²tn Heb“his hands went slack.”
³tc Read leben (“to the son of”) rather than MT ben (“the son of”). The context requires the preposition to indicate the family relationship.
⁴tn Heb“until this day.”
⁵tc For MT wehennah (“and they,” feminine) read wehinneh (“and behold”). Cf. LXX, Syriac Peshitta, and Targum.
⁶tn That is, Ish-bosheth.
⁷tn Heb“they struck him and put him to death.” The expression is a verbal hendiadys.
⁸tn Heb “they removed his head.” The Syriac Peshitta and Vg lack these words.
⁹tc The Lucianic Greek recension lacks the words “his head.”
¹⁰tn Heb “in his eyes.”
¹¹tn Heb “righteous.”
¹²tn Heb “on his bed.”
¹³sn The antecedent of the pronoun them (which is not present in the Hebrew text, but implied) is not entirely clear. Presumably it is the corpses that were hung and not the detached hands and feet.
¹⁴tc 4QSam^a by mistake has “Mephibosheth” here for “Ish-bosheth.”
¹⁵tc LXX adds “the son of Ner” by conformity with common phraseology elsewhere.
¹⁶tc Some manuscripts of LXX lack “in Hebron.”
¹tn The Hebrew text has “he” rather than “the Jebusites.” The referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. In the Syriac Peshitta and some manuscripts of the Targum the verb is singular rather than plural.
²tc There is some confusion among the witnesses concerning this word. The kethib is the qal perfect 3cp sane’u (“they hated”), referring to the Jebusites’ attitude toward David. The qere is the qal passive participle construct plural sanu’e (“hated”), referring to David’s attitude toward the Jebusites. 4QSam^a has the qal perfect 3fs sane’ah (“hated”), the subject of which would be “the soul of David.” The difference is minor, and the translation adopted above works for either the kethib or the qere.
³sn The water shaft referred to here is probably the so-called Warren’s Shaft that extends up from Hezekiah’s tunnel. It would have provided a means for surprise attack against the occupants of the city of David. LXX seems not to understand the reference here, translating “by the water shaft” as “with a small knife.”
⁴tc 4QSam^a and LXX lack the word “God,” probably due to harmonization with the more common biblical phrase “the LORD of hosts.”
⁵tc For “idols” LXX (tous theous) and Vg (deos) have “gods.”
⁶tn The words “what to do” are not in the Hebrew text.
⁷tn The words “this time” are not in the Hebrew text.
¹tn The translation above understands the verb to be a defective spelling of wayye’esop due to quiesence of the letter aleph. The root therefore is ’sp (“to gather”). The Masoretes, however, have pointed the verb as wayyosep, understanding it to be a form of ysp (“to add”). This does not fit the context, which calls for a verb of gathering.
²tn Heb “arose and traveled.”
³tc MT has here a double reference to the name (sem sem). Many medieval Heb. manuscripts in the first occurrence point the word differently and read the adverb sam (“there”). This is also the understanding of the Syriac Peshitta (Syr., taman). While this yields an acceptable understanding to the text, it is more likely that MT has sustained dittography here. The translation above therefore reads sem only once.
⁴tn Heb “with all woods of fir.” The expression is elliptical, referring to musical instruments made from fir wood.
⁵tc “His negligence” is absent in LXX.
⁶sn In Hebrew the name Perez Uzzah means “the breaking forth against Uzzah.”
⁷tn Heb “and David was gird.”
⁸tc A few medieval Hebrew manuscripts and the Syriac Peshitta lack the words “the house.”
⁹tn Heb “shophar.”
¹⁰tc We should probably read with 4QSam^a wayyehi (“and it came to pass”) rather than MT wehaya (“and it will be”). Cf. the parallel passage found in 1 Chr 15:29. It does not seem likely that the perfect form of the verb found in MT would be used with simple waw rather than waw consecutive. However, for a contrary opinion see S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 13.
¹¹tc The Syriac Peshitta lacks “in its place.”
¹²tn The Heb. word used here (’espar) is found only here and in the parallel passage found in 1 Chr 16:3 in the OT. Its exact meaning is uncertain, although the context indicates that it was a food of some sort. The translation adopted above (“date-cake”) follows the lead of the Greek translations of LXX, Aquila, and Symmachus.
¹³tn Heb “David.”
¹tn Heb “rest.”
²tn Heb “all that is in your heart.”
³tc Several medieval Heb. manuscripts and the Syriac Peshitta lack this word.
⁴tn Heb “in a tent and in a dwelling.” The expression is a hendiadys.
⁵tn Heb “did I speak a word.”
⁶tn In place of sibte (“tribes”) the parallel passage in 1 Chr 17:6 has sopete (“judges”).
⁷tn Heb “cut off.”
⁸tn Heb “I will make for you a great name like the name of the great ones who are in the land.”
⁹tn Heb “the sons of injustice.”
¹⁰tn In the Heb. text the verb is apparently perfect with waw consecutive, which would normally suggest a future sense (“he will relate”; so LXX, apaggelei). But the context seems instead to call for a present or past nuance (“he is relating” or “he has related”). Either the hiphil participle (umaggid) or the preterite with waw consecutive (wa’ggid), but in the first person rather than the third person of the MT (wehaggid), would seem to be more appropriate, but there is no external evidence to support such a reading. The synoptic passage in 1 Chr 17:10 has wa’aggid, (“and I related”).
¹¹tn That is, “die.”
¹²tn Heb “from your loins.”
¹³tc A few medieval Heb. manuscripts have “before me” instead of “before you.” Cf. LXX and the Syriac Peshitta.
¹⁴tc The word “yet” is absent in LXX and the Syriac Peshitta.
¹⁵tn Heb “and this the law of man.” This part of the verse is very enigmatic; no completely satisfying solution has yet been suggested. The translation offered above tries to make sense of MT by understanding the phrase as a question that underscores the uniqueness of God’s dealings with David as described here. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 17:17, however, suggests that the problem may in part be one of dittography of the letter he: the Chronicler has ure’itani ketor ha’adam hamma`alah (“you have viewed me as the most exalted of mankind”), whereas Samuel has wezo’t torah ha’adam (“and this the law of man”).
¹⁶tn Heb “according to your heart.”
¹⁷tn Heb “nations and their gods,” with no preposition. LXX has “nations and tents,” which reflects a mistaken metathesis of letters in ’elohayw (“its gods”) and ’ohalayw (“its tents”).
¹⁸tn Heb “word.”
¹⁹tn Heb “have uncovered the ear of.”
²⁰tn Heb “has found his heart.”
¹tn Heb “bearers of tribute.”
²tc LXX has epistesai (“cause to stand”), apparently reading lehosib (from yasab) rather than MT lehasib (from sub). Cf. Symmachus, stesai.
³tn MT does not have “Euphrates” in the text. It is supplied in the margin as one of ten places where the Masoretes believed that something was “to be read although it was not written” in the text as they had received it. The ancient versions (LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, Vg) include the word.
⁴tc LXX has “1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen,” a reading adopted in the text of NIV.
⁵tn Heb “David.”
⁶tn Heb “men.”
⁷tc LXX includes seventeen words (in Greek) at the end of v. 7 that are not found in MT. The LXX addition is as follows: “And Sousakim king of Egypt took them when he came up to Jerusalem in the days of Rehoboam the son of Solomon.” This Greek reading now finds Hebrew support in 4QSam^a. For a reconstruction of this poorly preserved Qumran text see Eugene Charles Ulrich, Jr., The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, Harvard Semitic Monographs 19 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1978), 45-48.
⁸tn Heb “the cities of Hahadezer.”
⁹tn Heb “he.”
¹⁰tc MT is repetitious here: “He stationed in Edom guards; in all Edom he stationed guards.” Vg lacks “in all Edom”; most of the Greek tradition (with the exception of the Lucianic recension and the recension of Origen) and the Syriac Peshitta lack “he stationed guards.” MT appears here to be the result of conflation.
¹¹tc Read with the Syriac Peshitta, Targum, and Vg ‘al (“over”) rather than we- (“and”) of MT. Cf. also the parallel passage in 1 Chr 18:17.
¹²sn That David’s sons could have been priests, in light of the fact that they were not of the priestly lineage, is strange. We must assume either that the word “priest” (Heb., kohen) during this period of time could be used in a broader sense of “chief minister” (cf. NASV), or that in David’s day members of the king’s family could function as a special category of “priests.” The latter option seems to be the more straightforward way of understanding the word in 2 Sam 8:18. On the other hand, the parallel passage in 1 Chr 18:17 has “leading officials at the side of the king.”
¹sn 2 Samuel 9-20 is known as the Succession Narrative. It is a literary unit that describes David’s efforts at consolidating his own kingdom following the demise of king Saul; it also provides the transition to subsequent leadership on the part of David’s successor Solomon.
²tn The Hebrew text implies but does not actually contain the words “its produce” here.
³tc The words “it will be,” though present in MT, are absent from LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vg.
⁴tc For “David’s table” MT has “my table.” But the first person reference to David is awkward here since the quotation of David’s words has already been concluded in v. 10; nor does the “my” refer to Ziba, since the latter part of v. 11 does not seem to be part of Ziba’s response to the king. The ancient versions are not unanimous in the way that they render the phrase. LXX has “the table of David” (tes trapezes Dauid); the Syriac Peshitta has “the table of the king” (patureh demalka’; Vg has “your table” (mensam tuam). The translation adopted above follows LXX.
¹tn Heb “reigned in his stead.”
²tn Heb “him.”
³tn The Hebrew text does not have “the death of.”
⁴tn Heb “to search out.”
⁵tn Heb “they feared.” So also in v. 19.
⁶tn Heb “they stunk.”
⁷tn Or perhaps “the men of Tob.” The ancient versions (LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vg) understand the name to be “Ish-tob.”
⁸tn The Hebrew text does not have “about all this.”
⁹tn Heb “the army, the soldiers.”
¹⁰tn Heb “people.”
¹¹tn Heb “gave into the hand of.”
¹²tn Heb “fled.” So also in vv. 14, .
¹³tn Heb “entered.”
¹⁴tn Heb “were gathered together.”
¹⁵tn Heb “was before them.”
¹⁶tn Heb “the servants of Hadadezer.”
¹tc MS B-19A, on which BHS is based, has here “messengers” (Heb., hammal’akim), probably as the result of contamination from the occurrence of that word in v. 4. Read with most Hebrew manuscripts and the ancient versions “kings” (Heb., hammelakim).
²tn Heb “go forth.”
³tn Heb “and his servants with him.”
⁴tn Heb “all Israel.”
⁵tn Heb “the house of the king.” So also in vv. 8, 9.
⁶tn Heb “he.”
⁷tn Heb “he lay with her.”
⁸tn Heb “concerning the peace of Joab and concerning the peace of the people and concerning the peace of the battle.”
⁹tn Heb “there went forth after him the gift of the king.”
¹⁰tc The Lucianic recension of the Old Greek translation lacks the word “all.”
¹¹tn Heb “as you live and as your soul lives.”
¹²tn Heb “some of the people from the servants of David.”
¹³tn Heb “Joab sent and related to David all the matters of the battle.”
¹⁴sn The upper millstone (Heb “millstone of riding”) refers to the heavy circular stone that was commonly rolled over a circular base in order to crush and grind such things as olives.
¹⁵tn Heb “but we were on them.”
¹⁶tc Read with the qere the plural (Heb “your servants”) rather than the kethib (Heb “your servant”).
¹⁷tn Heb “according to this and according to this the sword will devour.”
¹⁸tn The Hebrew text does not have “with these words.”
¹tc A few medieval Hebrew manuscripts, LXX, and the Syriac Peshitta add “the prophet.”
²tn The Hebrew text repeats “to him.”
³tn The several Hebrew verbs that follow in this verse are frequentative imperfects that describe repeated past action.
⁴tc With the exception of the Lucianic recension, the Old Greek translation has here “sevenfold” rather than “fourfold,” a reading that S. R. Driver thought probably to be the original reading. (See Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 291.) However, Exod 21:37 [ET 22:1] specifies fourfold repayment for a stolen sheep, which is consistent with 2 Sam 12:6. Some manuscripts of the Targum and the Syriac Peshitta exaggerate the idea to “fortyfold.”
⁵tc So the qere; the kethib has “his.”
⁶tn Heb “in the eyes of this sun.”
⁷tn Heb “and before the sun.”
⁸tn Heb “removed.”
⁹tc MT has here “because you have caused the enemies of the LORD to treat the LORD with such contempt.” This is one of the so-called tiqqune sopherim, or emendations of the scribes. According to this ancient tradition, the scribes changed the text in order to soften somewhat the negative light in which David was presented. If that be the case, MT reflects the altered text. The present translation departs from MT.
¹⁰tn Heb “sought” or “searched.”
¹¹tn The several Hebrew verbs that follow in this verse are perfects with waw consecutive. They apparently function to describe repeated past action.
¹²tn Heb “to our voice.”
¹³tn Heb “David.”
¹⁴tc For MT ba`abur (“for the sake of”) we should probably read be`od (“while”). Cf. the Lucianic Greek recension, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Targum.
¹⁵tn Heb “said.”
¹⁶tn Heb “Who knows?”
¹⁷tn Heb “and he lay with her.”
¹⁸sn Here the narrative resumes the battle story that began in 11:1 (cf. 11:25). The author has interrupted that story to give the related account of David’s sin with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah. He now returns to the earlier story and brings it to a conclusion.
¹⁹sn The expression translated the water supply of the city (Heb “the city of the waters”) apparently refers to that part of the fortified city that guarded the water supply of the entire city. Joab had already captured this part of the city, but he now defers to king David for the capture of the rest of the city. In this way the king will receive the credit for this achievement.
²⁰tn Heb “people.” So also in vv. 29, 31.
²¹tn Part of the Greek tradition wrongly understands Hebrew malkam (“their king”) as a proper name (“Milkom”). Cf. NRSV.
¹tn Heb “loved.”
²tn Heb “him.”
³tn Heb “the son of the king.”
⁴tn This common verb is used in the hithpael only in this chapter of the Hebrew Bible. With the possible exception of v. 2 it describes not a real sickness but one pretended in order to entrap Tamar.
⁵tn Heb “the cakes.”
⁶tc A few medieval Hebrew manuscripts have “and they removed everyone” (hiphil preterite with waw consecutive 3cp, rather than qal preterite with waw consecutive 3cp).
⁷tn Heb “to her voice.”
⁸tn Heb “he lay with her.”
⁹tc Read with LXX ’al ’ahi ki (“No, my brother, because”) rather than MT ’al ’odot, which makes very little sense here.
¹⁰tn The Hebrew expression used here (ketonet passim) is found only here and in Gen 37:3, 23, 32. Hebrew pas can refer to the palm of the hand or the sole of the foot; here the idea is probably that of a long robe reaching to the feet and having sleeves reaching to the wrists. The notion of a “coat of many colors,” a familiar translation for the occurrences of the phrase in Genesis, is based primarily on the translation adopted in LXX (chitona poikilion) and does not have a great deal of support.
¹¹tn The Hebrew verb used here (wena`al) is the qal perfect with waw consecutive, which is not the form that we would expect. Such a form in a context like this would normally carry a frequentative sense, indicating something that was repeatedly done. However, such a nuance for the action of bolting a door seems odd. GKC (§112.tt, n. 1) entertains the possibility that the verb here implies the fastening of several bolts and not just one. But this seems to be a bit forced, and the context elsewhere gives no hint that several bolts were involved. While the general meaning of the verse is clear enough, the exact nuance of this form remains rather elusive.
¹²tn Heb “Don’t place your heart to speak this!”
¹³tc LXX and part of the Old Latin tradition includes the following addition to v. 21: “But he did not grieve the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, since he was his firstborn.” Cf. David’s attitude toward his son Adonijah in 1 Kgs 1:6.
¹⁴tn Heb “your servant’s.” So also at the end of the verse.
¹⁵tc Here and in v. 27 read with 4QSam^a wayyispar (“and he pressed”) rather than MT wayyipras (“and he broke through”). This emended reading seems also to underlie the translations of LXX (kai ebiasato), the Syriac Peshitta (we’alseh), and Vg (cogeret eum).
¹⁶tn Heb “sons of valor.”
¹⁷tn Heb “it was placed on the mouth of Absalom.”
¹⁸tn Heb “behind him.”
¹⁹tn Heb “with a great weeping.”
²⁰tc The Hebrew text leaves the word “David” to be inferred. The Syriac Peshitta and Vg add the word “David.” Most of the Greek tradition includes the words “king David” here.
²¹tc Read with 4QSam^a ruah hammelek (“the spirit of the king”) rather than MT david hammelek (“David the king”). Both text and interpretation are difficult here. The understanding reflected in the translation above is that David, though alienated during this time from his son Absalom, still had an abiding love and concern for him. He longed for reconciliation with him. A rather different interpretation of the verse supposes that David’s interest in taking military action against Absalom grew slack with the passing of time, and this in turn enabled David’s advisors to encourage him toward reconciliation with Absalom. For the latter view, see McCarter, II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, 344.
²²tn The Hebrew text does not have “the death of.”
¹tn Heb “the heart of the king was upon.” The Syriac Peshitta adds the verb ’ethre`i (“was reconciled”).
²tn Heb “the heart of the king was upon Absalom.”
³tn The Hebrew verb (’bl, “to mourn”) is in the hithpael and here takes on the nuance of pretended rather than genuine action.
⁴tn Heb “these many days.”
⁵tn Heb “put the words in her mouth.”
⁶tc Read with many medieval Hebrew manuscripts wattabo’ (“and she went”) rather than MT watto’mer (“and she said”). The MT reading shows confusion with watto’mer later in the verse. The emendation suggested here is supported by LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, some manuscripts of the Targum, and Vg.
⁷tn The word “me” is left to be inferred in the Hebrew text; it is physically present in the Syriac Peshitta and Vg.
⁸tn Heb “What to you?”
⁹tn Heb “your maid.” So also in vv. 7, 12, 15^bis, 16, 17, 19.
¹⁰tn The Hebrew preposition be (“in”) here is the so-called beth pretii, or beth of price, defining the value attached to someone or something.
¹¹sn My remaining coal is here hypocatastic language figuratively describing the one remaining son as her only source of lingering hope for continuing the family line.
¹²tn The words “in that case” are not in the Hebrew text, but may be inferred from the context.
¹³tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts meharbot (hiphil infinitive construct) rather than MT meharbayt.
¹⁴tc LXX (opsetai me) has misunderstood Heb. yere’uni (piel perfect, “they have made me fearful”), taking the verb to be a form of the verb r’h (“to see”) rather than the verb yr’ (“to fear”). The fact that the Greek translators were working with an unvocalized Hebrew text made them very susceptible to this type of error.
¹⁵tc Many medieval Hebrew manuscripts have “you” rather than “I.”
¹⁶tn Heb “your servant.”
¹⁷tc Read with the qere “your” rather than MT “his.”
¹⁸sn The modern equivalent of two hundred shekels would be about three pounds.
¹⁹tc LXX adds here the following words: “And she became a wife to Rehoboam the son of Solomon and bore to him Abia.”
²⁰tc LXX adds here the following words: “And the servants of Absalom burned them up. And the servants of Joab came to him, rending their garments. They said.”
¹tn Heb “your servant.” So also in vv. 8, 15, 21.
²tn Heb “good and straight.”
³tn Heb “Who will make me?”
⁴tn Heb “a complaint and a judgment.” The expression is a hendiadys.
⁵tc MT has here “forty years,” but this is presumably a scribal error for “four years.” The context will not tolerate a period of forty years prior to the rebellion of Absalom. The Lucianic Greek recension (tessara ete), the Syriac Peshitta (’arba` sanin), and Vg (post quattuor autem annos) in fact have the expected reading “four years.”
⁶tn Heb “say.”
⁷tn Heb “according to all that my lord the king will choose, behold your servants!”
⁸tn Heb “and they stood.”
⁹tn Heb “house.”
¹⁰tn The word “other” is not in the Hebrew text.
¹¹tn Heb “place.”
¹²tn Heb “loyal love and truth.” The expression is a hendiadys.
¹³tn Heb “with a great voice.”
¹⁴tn The expression is difficult. The Greek tradition understands the Hebrew word as an imperative (“see”). Most Greek manuscripts have idete; the Lucianic recension has blepe. It could just as well be taken as a question: “Don’t you see what is happening?” The translation adopted above takes the word as a question, with the implication that Zadok is a priest and not a prophet (i.e., “seer”) and therefore unable to divine what the future holds with regard to the present emergency.
¹⁵tc Read with 4QSam^a, part of the Greek tradition, the Syriac Peshitta, Targum, and Vg uldavid (“and to David”) rather than MT wedavid (“and David”). As Driver points out, the Hebrew verb higgid (“he related”) never takes an accusative for the person to whom something is told. See S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel, 316.
¹⁶tn Heb “said.”
¹⁷tn Heb “by their hand.”
¹tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts wehallehem (“and the bread”) rather than ulehallehem (“and to the bread”). The syntax of MT is confused here by the needless repetition of the preposition, probably taken from the preceding word.
²tn The form of the verb in MT is odd. We should probably read wayyabo’ (preterite with waw consecutive) rather than uba’ (apparently perfect with waw consecutive, although it could also be the qal participle).
³tc The Hebrew text is difficult here. We should probably read with LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vg be`onyi (“on my affliction”) rather than the kethib of MT ba`awoni (“on my wrongdoing”). While this kethib reading is understandable as an objective genitive (i.e., “the wrong perpetrated upon me”), it does not conform to normal Hebrew idiom for this idea. The qere of MT (be`ene, “on my eyes”), usually taken as synecdoche to mean “my tears,” does not commend itself as a likely meaning. The Hebrew word is one of the so-called tiqqune sopherim, or “emendations of the scribes.”
⁴tn Heb “the people, men.”
⁵tc Read with the qere and several medieval Hebrew manuscripts lo (“to him”) rather than MT lo’ (“not”), which makes very little sense here.
⁶tn Heb “go.”
⁷tn The qere adds here the word “man,” but the addition is unnecessary.
¹tc LXX reads differently: “And I will return all the people to you the way a bride returns to her husband, except for the life of the one man whom you are seeking.” The other early versions struggled with this verse as well.
²tc In MT the verb is singular, but in LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vg it is plural.
³tn Heb “what is in his mouth.”
⁴tc LXX (with the exception of the recensions of Origen and Lucian) repeats the description as follows: “Just as a she-bear bereft of cubs in a field.”
⁵tn Heb “commanded.”
⁶tn Heb “they.”
⁷tc The Greek recensions of Origen and Lucian oddly have here “house” for “grave.”
⁸tn Heb “come to.”
⁹tc MT has “parched grain” (weqali) at the end of v. 28, apparently accidentally repeating the word from its earlier occurrence in this verse. With LXX , the Syriac Peshitta, and an Old Latin manuscript delete this occurrence of the word.
¹tn Heb “they will not place to us heart.”
²tc Read with LXX (except for the Lucianic recension), Symmachus, and Vg ’atta (“you”) rather than MT ‘atta (“now”).
³tn Heb “the.”
⁴tc 4QSam^a lacks the word “one.”
⁵tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts welu (“and if”) rather than MT welo’ (“and not”).
⁶tn Heb “in our ears.”
⁷tc The Hebrew text is very difficult here. MT has mi (“who”), apparently yielding the following sense: “Show care, whoever you might be, for the youth Absalom.” The Syriac Peshitta has li (“for me”), the Hebrew counterpart of which may also lie behind the LXX rendering moi (“for me”). This reading seems preferable here, since it restores sense to the passage and most easily explains the rise of the variant.
⁸tc Read with the qere, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts, and a number of the ancient versions benapsi (“against my life”) rather than MT benapso (“against his life”).
⁹sn There is a play on the word heart here that is difficult to reproduce in translation. Literally the text says “he took three spears in his hand and thrust them into the heart of Absalom while he was still alive in the heart of the oak tree.” This figure of speech involves the use of the same word in different senses and is known as antanaclasis. It may be seen in the familiar saying from the time of the American Revolution: “If we don’t hang together, we will all hang separately.”
¹⁰tn Heb “shophar.”
¹¹tn Heb “his tents.”
¹²tn The words “but he said” are not in the Hebrew text.
¹³tn Heb “good news is in his mouth.”
¹⁴tn Heb “and the Cushite said.”
¹tc One medieval Hebrew manuscript, some manuscripts of LXX, and the Vulgate lack this occurrence of “my son” due to haplography.
²tc The Lucianic Greek recension and Syriac Peshitta lack this occurrence of “my son” due to haplography.
³tn Heb “with a great voice.”
⁴tn Heb “came to.”
⁵tn Heb “today.”
⁶tc Read with the qere, 4QSam^a, and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts lu (“if”) rather than MT lo’ (“not”).
⁷tc The Lucianic Greek recension and Syriac Peshitta lack “today.”
⁸tn Heb “all the people.”
⁹tc LXX includes the following words at the end of v. 11: “And what all Israel was saying came to the king’s attention.” The words are misplaced in LXX from v. 12 (although the same statement appears there in LXX as well).
¹⁰tn Heb “his house.”
¹¹tn Heb “the king.”
¹²tn Heb “youth.”
¹³tn Heb “rushed into.”
¹⁴tn Though this verb in MT is 3ms, it should probably be read as 2ms. It is one of fifteen places where the Masoretes placed a dot over each of the letters of the word in question in order to call attention to their suspicion of the word. Their concern in this case apparently had to do with the fact that this verb and the two preceding verbs alternate from third person to second and back again to third. Words marked in this way in Hebrew manuscripts or printed editions are said to have puncta extrordinaria, or “extraordinary points.”
¹⁵tn Heb “what to me and to you.”
¹⁶tn Heb “in peace.” So also in v. 31.
¹⁷tn Heb “he.”
¹⁸tn Heb “done his feet.”
¹⁹tn Heb “done.”
²⁰tn Heb “take.”
²¹tc MT ’et bayyarden (“in the Jordan”) is odd from a syntactical standpoint. The use of the preposition after the object marker ’et is difficult to explain. It seems better to suspect graphic confusion in MT and to read instead miyyarden (“from the Jordan”). Another possibility, though not as attractive, is to read the definite article on the front of “Jordan” (hayyarden, “the Jordan”).
²²tn Heb “great.”
²³tn Heb “I.”
²⁴tn Heb “to his place.”
²⁵tn MT in this instance alone spells the name with final nun (“Kimhan”) rather than as elsewhere with final mem (“Kilham”).
²⁶tn Heb “people.”
²⁷tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts the hiphil verb he`ebiru (“they caused to pass over”) rather than the qal verb we`ebiru (“they crossed over”) of MT.
²⁸tn Heb “from the king.”
²⁹tn The translation above understands the verb in a desiderative sense, indicating the desire but not necessarily the completed action of the party in question. It is possible, however, that the verb should be given the more common sense of accomplished action, in which case it means here “Why have you cursed us?”
¹tn The expression used here (yemini) is a short form of the more common “Benjamin.” It appears elsewhere in 1 Sam 9:14 and Esth 2:5. Cf. 1 Sam 9:1.
²tn Heb “shophar.” So also v. 22.
³tc MT has le’ohalayw (“to his tents”) rather than le’lohayw (“to his gods”). But the word is a tiqqun sopherim, and the scribes indicate that they changed the word from “gods” to “tents” so as to soften its theological implications. In a consonantal Hebrew text the change involved only the metathesis of two letters. The present translation departs from MT, reading instead the word alleged by the scribes to be original.
⁴tn Heb “he did not come to them.”
⁵tn Heb “(in) widowhood of livingness.” The Hebrew expression is very unusual.
⁶tn The present translation follows the Masoretic accentuation, with the major mark of disjunction (i.e., the athnah) placed at the word “days.” However, some scholars have suggested moving the athnah to “Judah” a couple of words earlier. This would yield the following sense: “Three days, and you be present here with them.” The difference in meaning is slight, and MT is acceptable as it stands.
⁷tn Heb “find.” The verb form (i.e., the perfect) is unexpected with the preceding word “lest.” We should probably read instead the imperfect. Although it is possible to understand the perfect here as indicating that the feared result is thought of as already having taken place (cf. BDB 815a), it is more likely that the perfect is simply the result of scribal error. In this context the imperfect would be more consistent with the following verb wehissil (“and he escape”).
⁸sn The meaning of the statement it fell out here is unclear. If the dagger fell out of its sheath before Joab got to Amasa, how then did he kill him? Josephus (Antiquities 7.284) suggested that as Joab approached Amasa he deliberately caused the dagger to fall to the ground at an opportune moment as though by accident. When he bent over and picked it up, he then stabbed Amasa with it. Others have tried to make a case for thinking that two swords are referred to—the one that fell out and another that Joab kept concealed until the last moment. But nothing in the text clearly supports this view. Perhaps Josephus’ understanding is best, but it is by no means obvious in the text either.
⁹tn Heb “takes delight in.”
¹⁰tn Heb “he.”
¹¹tc In keeping with the form of the name in v. 15, delete the “and” of MT.
¹²tc Read with the qere, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts, and the ancient versions wayyiqqahalu (“and they were gathered together”) rather than the kethib of MT wayqilluhu (“and they cursed him”). The variant reading is the result of metathesis.
¹³tc LXX has here enoousan (“were devising”), which apparently presupposes the Hebrew word mehasebim rather than MT mashitim (“were destroying”). With a number of other scholars Driver thinks that the Greek variant may preserve the original reading, but this seems to be an unnecessary conclusion. (But see S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 346.)
¹⁴tn Heb “a city and a mother.” The expression is a hendiadys, meaning that this city was an important one in Israel and had smaller cities dependent on it.
¹⁵tn Heb “Far be it, far be it from me.” The expression is clearly emphatic, as may be seen in part by the repetition. McCarter, however, understands it to be more course than the translation adopted above. He renders it as “I’ll be damned if…,” which while it is not a literal translation may not be too far removed from the way a soldier might have expressed himself.
¹⁶tn Heb “his tents.”
¹tn Heb “swore to.”
²tn The Hebrew verb here is imperative. Driver comments, “…the imper. is used instead of the more normal voluntative, for the purpose of expressing with somewhat greater force the intention of the previous verb.” (See S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 350.)
³tc Read with the qere and several medieval Hebrew manuscripts lanu (“to us”) rather than MT li (“to me”). But for a contrary opinion see S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 53, 350.
⁴tn The exact nature of this execution is not altogether clear. The verb yq` basically means “to dislocate” or “alienate.” In Gen 32:26 it is used literally of the dislocation of Jacob’s thigh. Figuratively it can refer to the removal of an individual from a group (e.g., Jer 6:8; Ezek 23:17) or to a type of punishment the specific identity of which is uncertain (e.g., here and Num 25:4).
⁵tc Read with the qere and several medieval Hebrew manuscripts seba`tam (“the seven of them”) rather than MT seba`tim (seventy”).
⁶tn Heb “fell.”
⁷tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts bithillat (“in the beginning”) rather than MT tehillat (“beginning of”).
⁸tn Heb “water from the sky.”
⁹tn Heb “David.”
¹⁰tn Heb “lords.”
¹¹tn Heb “stolen.”
¹²tc Against MT, read this word without the definite article. MT is probably here the result of wrong word division, with the letter he belonging with the preceding word sam as the he directive (i.e., samah, “to there”).
¹³tn Heb “Philistines.”
¹⁴tc Many medieval Hebrew manuscripts have here kekol (“according to all”).
¹⁵tn Heb “was entreated.” The verb is an example of the so-called niphal tolerativum, with the sense that God allowed himself to be supplicated through prayer. Cf. GKC §51c.
¹⁶tn This name has the definite article and may be intended to refer to a group of people rather than a single individual with this name.
¹⁷tn This is the only occurrence of this word in the OT. Its precise meaning is therefore rather uncertain. As early as LXX the word was understood to refer to a spear, and this seems to be the most likely possibility. Some scholars have proposed emending the text of 2 Sam 21:16 to qoba`o (“his helmet”), but in spite of the fact that the word “helmet” appears in the parallel passage in 1 Sam 17:5, there is not much evidence for reading that word here.
¹⁸tn Either the word “shekels” should be supplied here, or the Hebrew word misqal (“weight”) right before “bronze” is a corrupted form of the word for shekel. If the latter is the case the problem probably resulted from another occurrence of the word misqal just four words earlier in the verse.
¹⁹tn The Hebrew word used here (hadasa) normally means “new” and leads one to ask “new what?” Several possibilities have been proposed by earlier scholars to resolve the problem: perhaps a word has dropped out of the Hebrew text here; or perhaps the word “new” is the result of misreading a different, less common, word; or perhaps a word (e.g., “sword”) is simply to be inferred. The present translation generally follows the latter possibility, while at the same time being deliberately non-specific.
²⁰sn Who killed Goliath the Gittite? According to 1 Sam 17:4-58 it was David who killed Goliath, but according to MT of 2 Sam 21:19 it was Elhanan who killed him. Many scholars believe that the two passages are hopelessly at variance with one another. Others have proposed various solutions to the difficulty, such as identifying David with Elhanan or positing the existence of two Goliaths. But in all likelihood the problem is the result of difficulties in the textual transmission of the Samuel passage; in fact, from a text-critical point of view the books of Samuel are the most poorly preserved of all the books of the Hebrew Bible. According to a parallel passage in 1 Chr 20:5, it was Lachmi the brother of Goliath, and not Goliath himself, that Elhanan killed. Apparently the words found in the Chronicles passage, ’et lahmi ’ahi (“Lachmi the brother of”), have been confused in the Samuel passage as bet hallahmi ’et (“the Bethlehemite”). The translation adopted above departs from MT of 2 Sam 21:19 partly on the basis of the Hebrew text of 1 Chr 20:5.
²¹tn Heb “a man of stature.”
²²tn Heb “they fell.”
¹tn Heb “spoke.”
²tc Read with LXX ’elohi (“my God”) rather than MT ’elohe (“the God of”). Cf. Ps 18:1.
³tn Heb “sheol.”
⁴tc Read with very many medieval Hebrew manuscripts wayyede’ (“and he flew swiftly”) rather than MT wayyera’ (“and he appeared”). Cf. the Syriac Peshitta, Targum, Vg, and Ps 18:11.
⁵tn Heb “sent.”
⁶tn The “them” refers to the psalmist’s enemies.
⁷tn The words “his hand” are not in the Hebrew text.
⁸tn Heb “was a support for me.”
⁹tn Heb “before his eyes.”
¹⁰tc Read with two medieval Hebrew manuscripts titpattal (from the root ptl, “to twist”) rather than MT tittappal (from the root tpl, “to be tasteless,” “behave silly”). Cf. Ps 18:27. BDB are probably correct in regarding the form in MT as “impossible” (BDB, 836b); it is not likely that silliness or behaving ignominiously would be ascribed by a biblical writer to God.
¹¹tn Heb “your eyes are against.”
¹²tc Many medieval Hebrew manuscripts, some LXX manuscripts, and the Syriac Peshitta support reading ta’ir (“you cause to shine”) before the words “my lamp.” Cf. Ps 18:29.
¹³tc The Lucianic Greek recension and Vg understand this verb to be second person rather than third person as in MT. But this is probably the result of reading the preceding word “LORD” as a vocative under the influence of the vocative in the first part of the verse.
¹⁴tn Heb “refined.”
¹⁵tc 4QSam^a has me’azzereni (“the one girding me with strength”) rather than MT ma`uzzi (“my refuge”).
¹⁶tc Read wayyitten (“and he gave”) rather than MT wayyatter (“and he set free”). Cf. some manuscripts of LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Ps 18:33).
¹⁷tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts darki (“my path”) rather than MT darko (“his path”). Cf. most manuscripts of LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, Targum, Vg, and Ps 18:33.
¹⁸tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts raglai (“my feet”) rather than MT raglo (“his feet”). Cf. Ps 18:34.
¹⁹tn Heb “teaches.”
²⁰tn Heb “step.”
²¹tc Read with one medieval Hebrew manuscript and the ancient versions the piel yesawwe`u (“they cried for help”) rather than the qal of MT yis`u (“they looked about for help”). Cf. Ps 18:42.
²²tn The words “they called out” are not in the Hebrew text.
²³tc Read weyahregu (“and they quaked”) rather than MT weyahgeru (“and they girded themselves”).
²⁴tc Read with the kethib and the ancient versions magdil (“he magnifies”) rather than the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts of MT migdol (“tower”). Cf. Ps 18:51.
¹tn The Hebrew word hassalisi is sometimes rendered as “the three,” but BDB is probably correct in taking it to refer to military adjutants. In that case the etymological connection of this word to the Hebrew numerical adjective for “three” (salos) can be explained as originating with a designation for the third warrior in a chariot.
²tc Read with some LXX manuscripts hu’ ‘orer ’et hanito (“he raised up his spear”) rather than MT hu’ ‘adino ha`esni [kethib = ha`esno] (“‘Adino the Ezenite”). Cf. 1 Chr 11:11.
³tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts dodo rather than the kethib of MT dodai. But cf. 1 Chr 27:4.
⁴tn Heb “went up.”
⁵tn Heb “stood.”
⁶tn Heb “his hand.”
⁷tn The text is difficult here. MT has lahayyah, which implies a rare use of the word hayyah. The word normally refers to an animal, but if MT is accepted it would here have the sense of a troop or community of people. BDB, for example, understands the similar reference in v. 13 to be to “a group of allied families, making a raid together” (BDB 312b). But this works better in v. 13 than it does in v. 11, where the context seems to suggest a particular staging location for a military operation. (Cf. 1 Chr 11:15.) It therefore seems best to understand the word in v. 11 as a place name with he directive. In that case the Masoretes mistook the word for the common term for an animal and then tried to make sense of it in this context.
⁸tn The meaning of Hebrew ’el qasir seems here to be “at the time of harvest,” although this is an unusual use of the phrase. As Driver points out, this preposition does not normally have the temporal sense of “in” or “during.” (See S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel, 366.)
⁹tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts selosa (“three”) rather than the kethib of MT selosim (“thirty”). “Thirty” is a partial dittograph of the following word and makes no sense in the context.
¹⁰tc Read with the qere, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts, LXX, and Vg hasselosa (“the three”) rather than the kethib of MT hassalisi (“the third,” or “adjutant”). Two medieval Hebrew manuscripts and the Syriac Peshitta have “thirty.”
¹¹tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts hayil (“valor”) rather than the kethib of MT hay (“life”).
¹²tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts ’is (“man”) rather than the kethib of MT ’aser (“who”).
¹³tc Read with many medieval Hebrew manuscripts heled rather than MT heleb.
¹⁴tn The Hebrew text does not have “the son of.”
¹⁵tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts hesrai rather than the kethib of MT hesro.
¹⁶tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts the singular rather than the plural of the kethib of MT.
¹tn Heb “remove the guilt.”
²tc LXX has here “three” rather than “seven.” Cf. 1 Chr 21:12.
³tn Heb “now know and see.”
⁴tn Heb “there is exceeding distress to me.”
⁵tn Heb “Araunah.”
⁶tn Heb “what is good in his eyes.”
⁷sn Threshing sledges were heavy boards used in ancient times for loosening grain from husks. On the bottom sides of these boards sharp stones were embedded, and the boards were then dragged across the grain on a threshing floor by an ox or donkey.
⁸tn Heb “the equipment of the oxen.”
⁹tc The text is difficult here. Read ‘ebed ’adoni (“the servant of my lord”) rather than MT “Araunah.” In normal court etiquette a subject would not use his own name in this way, but would more likely refer to himself in the third person. MT probably first sustained loss of ‘ebed (“servant”), leading to confusion of the word for “my lord” with the name of the Jebusite referred to here.