One little ewe lamb: in a culture where wealth is measured in livestock, the man who owned only one animal would have been poor indeed. The lamb in this case is qualified as being (1) small, (2) female, (3) the only one the poor man owned, and (4) one that the man had paid his own money for, that is, the lamb rightfully belonged to him. In light of the point the prophet wants to make, each of these is significant and should be retained in translation.

The intimate relationship between the poor man and his lamb is emphasized by stating that the man himself did the work of bringing up the animal with his own children. The lamb would actually eat of his morsel, that is, it was allowed to eat from the dish of its master, and drink from his cup.

The word translated morsel shows that, while the lamb was allowed a part of the food, it was indeed “meager fare” (New Revised Standard Version). New American Bible rightly translates it “the little food he had.”

Lie in his bosom: this further shows the close relationship between the man and his pet lamb. Some other model translations are “sleeping in his arms” (New Jerusalem Bible) and “slept right next to him” (Bible en français courant).

The verb forms in this verse should be of the type that are used in speaking of matters that occur repeatedly or habitually. This is the value of forms like it used to … or “he would…” (Good News Translation). It will also be noticed that, instead of making the lamb the subject of these sentences, Good News Translation puts the focus on the man who would allow the lamb to do certain things. Whichever subject is more natural should be used in the receptor language.

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 .