Saul fell at once: literally “Saul made haste and fell.” Fox translates very literally, “Shaʾul hurried and fell,” but this translation is strange-sounding English and fails to express the correct meaning. The first of the two verbs is the same as in the story of Abigail (25.18, 23, 34, 42). But Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation rightly translate it as an adverbial expression here. Several other modern versions render it “immediately” (New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). The same verb is translated “quickly” in verse 24 below.

He had eaten nothing: literally “he had not eaten bread.” Bread is used here to signify food in general.

The second half of this verse, concerning Saul’s lack of physical strength, contains the same adverb that is translated Moreover at the beginning of verse 19. Although it is omitted by some versions, it may be translated in much the same way as in the previous verse: “besides” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh); “in addition” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible); “moreover” (New American Bible).

All day and all night: that is, “all that day and night” (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible) or “since the day before” (Bible en français courant, Contemporary English Version).

In certain languages it may sound more natural to reverse the order of certain elements in this verse:

• What Samuel said frightened Saul very much. So he immediately fell to the ground and lay there stretched out. Furthermore, since he had not taken any food at all that day and night, he was very weak.

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 when he had taken him down: New Century Version says “So the Egyptian led David to the Amalekites.”

Behold: the focusing particle here focuses on the discovery of the enemy camp. See general comments in “Translating the Books of Samuel,” page 18 and following.

They were spread … eating and drinking: the pronoun they refers to the Amalekite raiders.

The word translated dancing may be understood in the more general sense of celebration, since the basic meaning of the verb seems to be “to celebrate a festival.” A number of modern versions translate this broader meaning: “celebrating” (Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Contemporary English Version); “making merry” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh); “in a festive mood” (New American Bible). In this context it may be more appropriate to translate eating and drinking as “having a banquet” (Nueva Biblia Española), since this is not simply the everyday practice of eating and drinking but rather of doing so in the context of a celebration.

Because of all the great spoil …: the writer provides the reason for the Amalekites’ celebration. The raiders were very happy because their success in battle had resulted in large amounts of plunder taken from their enemies.

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 .

David’s question to the fleeing Amalekite is to be understood as a request for a full report on the events of the battle. It is followed by an order to give a report. Good News Translation combines the two elements into a single command. But in many languages it may be more natural to maintain the question and the command as separate. Most translations do not render the Hebrew particle of entreaty, which is found toward the end of the quotation from the mouth of David. Compare Fox, who says “Pray tell me!”

The people: this has been variously translated as “the men” (New International Version), “the troops” (Moffatt and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “the army” (Anchor Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible), and “the soldiers” (New American Bible). While this term is sometimes used for the whole population of a given community, here the reference is clearly to an army (as has been noted frequently in 1 Samuel), but the question is, which army? Since the reporter is later identified as an Amalekite, Good News Translation may be misleading (similarly Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje). “Our army” would seem to refer to the Amalekites. But David had decimated the Amalekite army in 1 Sam 30. Apparently some of the remnant, however, had joined Saul. In any case, the reference here is clearly to Saul’s army, although it may have included some Amalekites. It may be better to translate explicitly “the army of Saul” or “the Israelite army” (Bible en français courant).

Have fallen: it should be made quite clear that there is no question here of an unintentional or accidental tumble to the ground. This is rather a euphemism for death in battle at the hands of the enemy (see the comments on 1 Sam 18.25). It will be appropriate in some cases to combine the verbs have fallen and are dead in a single verbal expression such as “were killed in battle” or, where the passive form of this model is not an option, “died in battle.”

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 .

Was king in Hebron over the house of Judah: some languages will require a restructuring of this clause and the addition of a classifier term indicating what kind of geographical entity Hebron was. Possibly also the expression was king should be replaced by the verb “ruled” or “governed.” One possible model is “While living in the city of Hebron, David ruled over the tribe of Judah…” or possibly “David governed [or, led] the people of the tribe of Judah, making his home in the city of Hebron.”

Seven years and six months: it may be more natural in a number of languages to say “seven and a half years,” as in Good News Translation and certain other modern versions.

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 .

And: it is as a result of the message from David that Ishbosheth took this action. For this reason a stronger transition word may be required. Revised English Bible uses the less common language word “Thereupon,” while New Jerusalem Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, like Good News Translation, have “So.”

Sent, and took: the idea behind the two verbs is that Ishbosheth made the decision that resulted in Michal’s being taken from her present husband. It does not mean that he performed the action himself. This is made clear in Contemporary English Version, “sent some of his men to take Michal away from her new husband….”

Her husband Palti-el: this man’s name is given as “Palti” in 1 Sam 25.44. But since the reference is obviously to the same person, it will be legitimate to harmonize the two different forms of the name as is done in New Century Version. Instead of saying “her husband” it may be necessary in some cases to say something like “the man she was living with at the time” or “her current husband.”

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 .

One: this refers to the Amalekite messenger who came to David at Ziklag with the news of the death of Saul and Jonathan (see 1.2). Note that Good News Translation shifts the geographical reference to Ziklag forward in the verse. Note also that the direct quotation within the larger discourse of David may be better rendered as indirect speech in many languages. Good News Translation has “told me of Saul’s death.”

Behold: see verse 8 and 1.2.

Thought: literally “he was in his own eyes.”

Good news: the messenger was under the false impression that the news he brought would make David happy.

Slew: the Hebrew verb means “to kill, slay.” The meaning in some contexts seems to be “to cause to kill.” Here Revised Standard Version says I … slew him. But since 1.15 says that David had one of the young men kill the Amalekite, the translation in Good News Translation (also Bible en français courant) is better: “I had him put to death.”

Reward: the word on which this translation is based is a very general term having to do with something “given.” In English the word “reward” is usually thought of as something positive—something good given in return for a good deed. But it is used ironically by Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation translators in this context. It may be better translated in other languages as “punishment” or “recompense.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh captures the idea by rendering the last part of this verse as “But instead of rewarding him for the news, I seized him and killed him.”

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 .

Note that the structure has been changed in Good News Translation to follow a more logical pattern in which David’s anger is mentioned after completing the part about the naming of the place. This may be a good model to follow in other languages.

David was angry: the word describing David’s reaction is not exactly the same as the expression used of the LORD’s angry reaction to Uzzah’s action. In the previous verse a more literal rendering is “anger burned,” while here we find simply the verb “burned” without specific mention of the noun “anger.” However, it may not be possible or natural to try to make this fine distinction in the receptor language.

Had broken forth is literally “had breached a breach [gap].” The basic meaning of the verb is “to break through [a wall in an attack on a city].” The verb is used by extension to mean “to punish,” which is how Good News Translation translates the verb. New American Bible renders this expression “vented his anger.” Where possible it is helpful to a better understanding of the text if the verb used here is related to the name that follows. For example, “David got angry because of God’s outburst of anger against Uzzah. So he named that place ‘Outburst Against Uzzah.’ ”

Perez-uzzah: see also the comments on the name “Baal-perazim” in 5.20. The meaning of the name is crucial in this passage, and the reader should somehow be made aware of this meaning and its relationship to what happened in that place. This may be done (1) by the use of a footnote as in Good News Translation, (2) by putting the meaning in parentheses after a transliteration of the Hebrew name as in An American Translation, or (3) by direct translation of the meaning of the place name in the text. Knox captures the meaning of the passage very well (using Oza for the name): “Great grief it was to David, this ruin the LORD had brought on Oza (the place is still called Oza’s Ruin).” Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente provides a good model of the second approach, that is, of putting the meaning in parentheses: “That place is called Perez-Uzzah (Punishment of Uzzah), and that name has remained to this day.”

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 .

And yet: the transition here should indicate a certain contrast between the fact that God had already done more than expected or deserved by David’s family and the unexpected fact that he actually continues to be gracious and has promised that his grace will remain with David’s descendants.

This was a small thing in thy eyes: the demonstrative pronoun this refers to what God had already done for David and his family (verse 18). And the expression in thy eyes is another way of saying “in your judgment” or “in your view.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has translated “even this … has seemed too little for you.” Another way of saying this is to put it in two separate sentences: “What you have already done was not enough in your estimation. You wanted to do even more.”

Thy servant’s house: since David uses these words to talk about himself and his family, it will be unnatural in many languages to use this kind of third person reference. It will be more natural to say something like “my family” or “my people who follow after me, [your servant].”

For a great while to come: literally “from afar” or “from a distance.” This expression is very frequently used with reference to physical distance or space (as in 1 Sam 26.13), but in a few cases it involves distance in time (2 Kgs 19.25; Isa 37.26). This seems to be the case here. The question is whether it refers to the past or the future. Here the meaning is likely “for a long time to come.”

Shown me future generations: the meaning of the Hebrew text at this point is unclear, as the wide variety of renderings in English indicates. A literal rendering of the Hebrew is “and this is the law of man,” and this is recommended by Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, which gives an {A} rating to the text. But interpreters have long been unable to say exactly what this means in the present context. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh attempts to make sense of it by translating “May that be the law for your people,” while Anderson has “this is truly a divine revelation for mankind.” New Jerusalem Bible has rendered this passage “such is human destiny,” indicating in a footnote that the translation is uncertain. And New American Bible, which also has an apologetic footnote, reads “this too you have shown to man.” New Revised Standard Version has “May this be instruction for the people.” Others have proposed changes in the Hebrew text that yield a meaning like that of Revised Standard Version, which is in keeping with the parallel passage in 1 Chr 17.17.

In keeping with the preferred reading of Hebrew Old Testament Text Project/Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, one rather attractive proposal is to take the words as another rhetorical question, “Is this the law for man?” meaning “Is this the way you normally deal with human beings?” This solution, adopted by La Bible Pléiade, Osty-Trinquet, New International Version, and Contemporary English Version, will then be another expression of David’s surprise at the grace of God. New Century Version adopts the same meaning but without the form of a question, “this is not normal….” Osty-Trinquet translates the Hebrew literally and then states in a note “Difficult to understand; perhaps: ‘can a human being deserve such favor?’ ” In the end all translators must acknowledge that there is no perfect solution to the problems presented by the Hebrew text here. An explanatory footnote will probably be required no matter what solution is adopted in the body of the translation.

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 .