The meaning of the Hebrew expression translated as only one portion is not clear. The Hebrew is literally “one portion two-faced.” There are several possible interpretations of the Hebrew: (1) a double portion, (2) a single portion, and (3) a large portion. To further complicate the matter, the Septuagint translation seems to require a slight change in both the spelling and punctuation of the Hebrew text, to read “one portion, although.” The Revised Standard Version translation is based on the Septuagint. New Jerusalem Bible likewise follows the Septuagint in reading “to Hannah, however, he would give only one portion: for, although he loved Hannah more, Yahweh had made her barren” (similarly Revised English Bible). Note that, according to the Septuagint, he gave Hannah one portion although (or despite the fact that) he loved her more. That is, Elkanah gave Hannah one portion only, not because he loved her less but rather because she had no children and therefore needed only one portion for herself. According to the Hebrew, however, he gave her a special (or, double) portion because he loved her more.

Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testamentk (Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament) gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text and recommends that it be followed. Some interpreters understand the Hebrew to mean “a double portion.” This is the basis for translations such as “but to Hannah he gave a double portion because he loved her” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, Fox, and La Sainte Bible: La version Etablie par les moines de Maredsous). Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, however, states that the Hebrew expression most likely does not mean “double.” It therefore recommends that the Hebrew refers to a part which was particularly large and honorable for the person receiving it. This understanding is the basis for translations such as “but to Hannah he gave a portion twice as large, because he loved her very much” (Bible en français courant), “an honorable part” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), and “a special share” (New Century Version). Translators should follow the Masoretic Text here and not the Septuagint. The difference in meaning is small between “a double portion” and “a special portion.” Either of these two translations may be followed.

On the word portion see the comments on 1.4.

The Hebrew says literally that the LORD had closed her womb. This is figurative language meaning that God “had kept her from having children” or “had not granted her children” (Revised English Bible). Some languages will prefer a more technical term, saying that the LORD had made her “barren” (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible).

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 .

There is one major difficulty of interpretation that must be resolved before this verse and the following can be translated. Which parts of verses 13-15 describe unacceptable conduct? (1) Do all of verses 13-15 describe the wrong behavior of Eli’s sons? (2) Or does only verse 15 describe the corrupt practice of Eli’s two sons, while verses 13-14 describe what the correct practice was supposed to be? The second interpretation is followed in Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, and Klein. But the first is clearly expressed in Good News Translation, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, and La Bible du Semeur. It also seems to be the sense of the translation found in Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible.

If the priests refers to priests in general, then this verse and the next verse seem to be describing the accepted pattern of behavior (so Revised English Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). If, on the other hand, the priests refers specifically to Eli’s sons, then the practice described in verses 13-14 is being condemned (so Good News Translation). To make clear the two different ways of rendering these verses, compare the following Revised English Bible rendering of verses 13-15 with that of Good News Translation (see also Klein’s translation, quoted at the end of verse 15).

Revised English Bible (similarly the New English Bible [New English Bible]) says:
The custom of the priests in their dealings with the people was this: when anyone offered a sacrifice, the priest’s servant would come while the flesh was stewing and would thrust a three-pronged fork into the cauldron or pan or kettle or pot; and the priest would take whatever the fork brought out. This should have been their practice whenever the Israelites came to sacrifice at Shiloh; but now, even before the fat was burnt, the priest’s servant would come and say to the person who was sacrificing, “Give me meat to roast for the priest; he will not accept what has been already stewed, only raw meat.”

Notice that Good News Translation inserts the word “Instead” in the middle of verse 13 to show that the practice described was not the accepted practice. La Bible du Semeur, which follows the same interpretation as Good News Translation, begins verse 13 as follows: “Indeed here is how they [the sons of Eli] acted toward the people.” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible also identifies the priests in verse 13 with the sons of Eli in verse 12 by saying “In their relationship to the people, these priests acted in the following way.” See also Bible en français courant: “Even though they [sons of Eli] were priests, here is how they conducted themselves in regard to the people.”

Revised English Bible clearly expresses the opposite interpretation by rendering the beginning of verse 13 as “The custom of the priests in their dealings with the people was this,” and the end of verse 14 as “This should have been their practice…; but now….”

Similar to Revised English Bible is New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, which begins verse 13 “This is how the priests used to deal with the people” and translates 14b-15a as “This was the practice at Shiloh with all the Israelites who came there. [But now] even before….” While the interpretation of Revised English Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh is clearly a possible way of understanding the text, the majority of modern versions seem to adopt the interpretation followed by Good News Translation, and this is the interpretation recommended to translators.

The identity of the priest’s servant is not entirely clear. The Hebrew is literally “the young man of the priest,” and the plural form of the word rendered servant here is rendered “young men” in verse 17. It is usually assumed that the servant is different from the priests, and nearly all translations reflect this understanding. It is possible, however, that Eli’s sons are referred to in both cases, and that the Hebrew should be rendered “son” rather than servant. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “the priest’s boy.” In other words, Eli’s two sons may be “the young men [= sons] of the priest [= Eli]” and they are also themselves priests. This is the interpretation favored in Klein and in the notes in La Bible Pléiade, but neither translation reflects this interpretation.

In addition to the above problems of interpretation and translation, the first words of verse 13, The custom of the priests with the people, may be connected to the end of verse 12. Compare New Revised Standard Version: “they had no regard for the LORD or for the duties of the priests to the people” (so also Good News Translation, New American Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible). Either interpretation is acceptable.

Three-pronged fork: in some languages this will have to be translated “a fork with three teeth” or “a fork with three fingers.” Others may have a special term for a fork with three prongs.

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 .

And I tell him: the Hebrew verb may be translated as future tense, that is, “and I will tell him.” More likely, however, the verb in this context should be translated as past tense (New Revised Standard Version “I have told him”), as is the verb “I have spoken” in verse 12. The footnote in Good News Translation incorrectly suggests that the Hebrew verb here can only be translated as future tense.

Some interpreters change the Hebrew text to read “You are to tell him” (so Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Osty-Trinquet); but Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament recommends that translators follow the Masoretic Text, understanding the verb as referring to the words that have already been spoken in 2.31-36.

As in verse 12, the word house in this context clearly refers to the offspring of Eli and not to any building or physical structure that belonged to him. For this reason many modern versions use the word “family” here (Revised English Bible, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). The same is true for the following verse.

For the iniquity which he knew: Eli knew that his sons were doing evil things. That he knew this and did not try to stop them is the reason that God will punish his family.

The words for and because in this verse present special difficulties, since they seem to have the same meaning and are used in succession. The punishment is inflicted because of the sin, and especially because Eli was aware of it and did nothing about it. Some possible translations are “because he knew of his sons’ blasphemies” (Revised English Bible) or “because he was aware that his sons were doing wrong.”

Because: the Hebrew conjunction may introduce either a causal clause (“because”) or a noun clause (“that”). In Revised Standard Version the Hebrew conjunction is understood to be introducing a clause that expresses cause. The Hebrew may also be translated as follows: “I sentence his house to endless punishment for the iniquity that he knew about—how his sons committed sacrilege at will—and he did not rebuke them” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). In New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh the same conjunction is understood as indicating the content of the iniquity that Eli knew about.

Because his sons were blaspheming God: the Hebrew text says literally “because his sons were cursing themselves.” The footnote in Revised Standard Version, in fact, is a translation of what is written in the Hebrew text. New International Version is one of the few modern translations that follow the Masoretic Text: “his sons made themselves contemptible.” The Good News Translation rendering “have spoken evil against me” should be avoided, since it is not a good model for other translations. Blasphemy is more than a matter of the spoken word. It may occur when a person commits an act that dishonors God even if nothing is said. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh “committed sacrilege” is a better model, although it is on a higher level of language in English.

This verse is one of eighteen places in the Old Testament that the Masoretes (see Glossary) identified as containing a scribal correction. The Masoretes believed that the Hebrew originally said the sons “cursed God,” as does the Septuagint, but that earlier scribes had made changes in the text to avoid disrespect to God. Very few modern versions translate the reading “cursed themselves” (see New King James Version [New King James Version ], New American Standard Bible [New American Standard Bible]). Most translations follow the reading of the Septuagint (Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, New American Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), and Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} rating to the Septuagint text.

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 words This is why refer to the incidents mentioned in verses 3 and 4. Good News Translation takes the whole verse as a kind of aside and encloses it in parentheses.

The priests of Dagon are the Philistine priests, who offer sacrifices to the idol Dagon.

All who enter the house of Dagon: Good News Translation makes clear that the reason people enter the temple of Dagon is to worship him.

The threshold: see the comments on verse 4. In keeping with its rendering of verse 4, Revised English Bible says “do not set foot on Dagon’s platform.”

To this day, that is, at the time this account was written. For the same expression elsewhere in 1 and 2 Samuel, see 1 Sam 6.18; 27.6; 30.25; 2 Sam 4.3; 6.8; 18.18.

At the end of this verse, the Septuagint adds the words “because stepping over, they step over.” This is the basis for the addition in New American Bible “they always step over it.” at and Osty-Trinquet also follow the Septuagint: “they leap over 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 .

Drew water: this probably implies the existence of a well, but it can possibly mean that the water was taken from a spring or other source.

Poured it out before the LORD: see also 2 Sam 23.16. The words before the LORD may indicate that this ritual was part of an offering or sacrifice made “to the LORD,” as Good News Translation makes explicit. It is also possible, though less likely, that the people were simply denying themselves water to drink, just as they denied themselves food by fasting.

Fasted: fasting is practiced in many cultures today, and often a well-known word exists to translate the Hebrew term. Fasting consisted of a voluntary and temporary abstinence from eating food for religious reasons such as repentance, mourning, and prayer (fasting is mentioned also in 31.13; 2 Sam 1.12; 12.16, 21, 22). But in some contexts it is important to note that there is a significant difference in meaning between the Muslim concept of fasting during daylight hours only and the biblical practice. In this context, however, there may be no problem, since the fasting was for a single day. In languages where there is no special term for fasting, translators may have to resort to something like “abstained from food to honor God” or “caused themselves to go hungry for the sake of God.”

Samuel judged … at Mizpah: two questions must be answered in order to translate these words: (1) what is the meaning of the verb translated judged (see also verses 15-16), and (2) was Samuel’s action limited to this one day, or is this a statement of his repeated behavior?
(1) As stated in the comments on 4.18, Israelite judges did more than settle legal disputes. They gave leadership and direction to the people. In many societies today, the term “chief” better describes the role of those who “judged.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh will be a good model for some languages: “And Samuel acted as chieftain.” Bible en français courant is similar: “It was there at Mizpah that Samuel became the chief of the people of Israel.” Other models include New International Version (“And Samuel was leader of Israel”) and Moffatt (“Samuel managed the affairs of Israel”). See also 4.18.
(2) The final sentence of verse 6 is probably a summary statement rather than a statement of Samuel’s activity on this one occasion only. For that reason Good News Translation places the sentence within parentheses to show that the statement is not limited to this one time only. Contemporary English Version takes a different approach to this problem. It understands the verb judged in the larger sense of leading the people of Israel rather than merely deciding in their quarrels. And it also shifts this information forward in the verse so that it begins with this sentence: “The Israelites met together at Mizpah with Samuel as their leader.”

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 words of the people: this may have included considerable discussion, but the end result was that they had determined that they still wanted a king. Revised English Bible says “what the people had decided.”

Repeated: in some cases this idea is expressed as “spoke over again.”

In the ears of the LORD: such a literal translation may be inadvisable in many languages. The same expression is elsewhere translated by Revised Standard Version as “in the hearing of the LORD” (Num 11.1, 18). This wording seems to emphasize the fact that the information is repeated with a certain precision: “told the LORD exactly what they had said” (Contemporary English Version).

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 .

Samuel’s instructions that Saul should go ahead of him to Gilgal anticipate the events of 13.8-14.

Gilgal: see the comment on 7.16.

The particle translated behold serves to focus attention on the words that follow, that is, on the eventual coming of Samuel. The pronoun, I, that follows is also emphatic. Samuel is making a definite promise that he will appear in Gilgal later.

Burnt offerings … peace offerings: these two types of offering are explained in detail in Lev 1.2-17 and 3.1-17. Regarding burnt offerings see the comments on 6.14. The purpose of peace offerings (see also Lev 7.11-38) was to establish or maintain good relations with God. The translation of these two kinds of sacrifices varies in English translations. Peace offerings are also called “fellowship offerings” (Good News Translation and New International Version), “sacrifices of well-being” (New Revised Standard Version), “shared-offerings” (Revised English Bible), and “communion sacrifices” (New Jerusalem Bible). Translators should ensure that their use of such terms is consistent throughout the Bible.

Seven days you shall wait: the future tense has an imperative meaning, and the word order may be considered unnatural in many languages. It may be more natural to say “but you must wait seven days” (New Century Version).

Show you what you shall do: the verb show should not be taken to mean that Samuel plans to put on a demonstration of some kind. Rather it is to be understood as meaning something like “I shall then reveal to you what you must do” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “… instruct you what you are to do next” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). The Hebrew is literally “cause you to know what you shall do.”

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 .