# Question on 1 Chronicles 20:3 in NASB



## ElainaMor (Feb 12, 2014)

I was reading in 1 Chronicles 20 this morning in the NASB and when I read verse 3 I was startled: "He brought out the people who were in it, and cut them with saws and with sharp instruments and with axes. And thus David did to all the cities of the sons of Ammon. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem."

I know for the era this wouldn't have been so unusual but it seemed out of character to me so I looked up the same passage in other translations, NKJV, ESV, NIV, ect...and they all say something to the effect that David set the people to labor with saws, sharp instruments and axes not that David had these people basically hacked to pieces. 

Anyone have any theories and to why the NASB chose to translate this passage as "cut them" instead of "set them to labor"?


----------



## Logan (Feb 12, 2014)

KJV also says "cut them" so it's not something new.

See also 2 Samuel 12:31.

Edit: JFB say 



> The Hebrew word, "cut them," is, with the difference of the final letter, the same as that rendered "put them," in the parallel passage of Samuel [ 2Sa 12:31 ]; and many consider that putting them to saws, axes, and so forth, means nothing more than that David condemned the inhabitants of Rabbah to hard and penal servitude.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 12, 2014)

2Sam 12.31 (parallel passage) records forced labor.

The literal text in 2Chr. reads "he sawed," and the previous (and after) named antecedent is David. On the other hand, there is also the noun "people"(who were in the city).

The question of translation and interpretation is complex at this point. The writer of Chr. appears to be relying upon the 2Sam. text. So, has he simply condensed the original (2Sam.) verbal idea, or has he attempted to make it more vivid for some reason? It is not likely that he means for David to appear more cruel and ruthless as a conqueror.

My first inclination would be that the proper actor is "people," and that "he sawed with saws..." conveys the same basic idea that 2Sam. does. I can't be sure about this now.

But, I'm not adverse to the idea that, although the intent is not to say that David _physically inflicted_ the Ammonites with bloody cuts, that _*metaphorically*_ it would be accurate to say that by putting them to forced labor, in a manner of speaking he "hurt" them with these same instruments. And it is possible, in my judgment, that the translators wanted to preserve that notion in their translation.

Logan helpfully points out that the literal rendering is preserved also in the KJV, and his commentary quote provided appears to favor the latter view. I also note that several translations that basically borrow from 2Sam. also include a marginal note that the LXX (Septuagint, Gk. tr. of OT) renders the text as "cut them."


----------

