But: the conjunction may be rendered in this way because what happens is contrary to what the reader might expect. But it may be unnecessary in many languages to translate it here.

Did not observe: this translates a Hebrew verb whose basic meaning is “to watch” or “to guard.” Good News Translation probably expresses the intended meaning better here than Revised Standard Version does. It is not simply that Amasa didn’t see the sword; rather, he was not being careful as he should have been. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and Revised English Bible similarly provide a good model, with “Amasa was not on his guard against the sword….”

The sword which was in Joab’s hand: there is some discussion among scholars as to whether Joab had picked up the sword or dagger that fell out of its sheath (verse 8). New Jerusalem Bible adds the words “which Joab had now picked up.” Some propose that this was a second sword, which he had concealed up to this point. The other was dropped as a kind of decoy so that Amasa suspected nothing. A third interpretation is that this is the same sword that fell, but it fell into the folds of Joab’s tunic where he could secretly reach it, so he did not bend over and pick it up from the ground. Translators need to be consistent here with the way they have translated the end of verse 8.

Contemporary English Version and Good News Translation both clarify that the instrument was in Joab’s “other hand” because his right hand was holding the beard. Some languages will use a specific term for the left hand in this context. Revised Standard Version says that Amasa was struck in the body, but Good News Translation more correctly translates this Hebrew noun as “the belly” (so also Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). New American Bible has a similarly specific meaning with the more refined-sounding word “abdomen.”

Shed his bowels to the ground: this graphic description of the result of Joab’s blow indicates that the internal organs of Amasa fell out onto the ground. Some languages may have a general term for “intestines” that includes other inner parts as well. Others will say simply “what was inside him” or something similar.

The words without striking a second blow may have to be translated as a separate sentence in many languages. New Century Version provides a good model, “Joab did not have to stab Amasa again.”

He died: while most versions translate the verb here as a simple past tense, Contemporary English Version has “but Amasa was dying.” The immediate context, however, seems to lend itself to a past tense translation, and this is what most versions do.

This is the last mention of Abishai in this chapter. And even the wording here suggests that Joab was once again in charge of the army.

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 .

There was again war: marking a new episode in the series of stories of giant-killing.

Gob: a few manuscripts of the ancient Greek version have “Gezeth” here, and this closely corresponds to Gezer, which is found in the parallel passage in 1 Chr 20.4. Gob is mentioned as the site of the killing of another giant in the following verse. Anchor Bible has “Gezer” here, but it is virtually alone in adopting this reading. Translators should probably stay with the Masoretic Text at this point. Probably Gob refers to a village, but its location is not known today.

Sibbecai the Hushathite was from the village of Hushah, located in the hills of the territory of Judah, a few kilometers southwest of Bethlehem. He is mentioned also in 1 Chr 11.29 and possibly also in 2 Sam 23.27.

Saph: the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles has “Sippai,” which is actually a variant of the name Saph. Translators may legitimately use the same spelling of the name in both cases.

One of the descendants of the giants: see the comments at verse 16 above, where the same words occur. In the context where another giant has already been mentioned, it may be more natural to speak of “another descendant of the giants.”

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 .

Again: the word so translated is actually a verb meaning “to add or repeat.” It apparently refers back to chapter 21, where the LORD’s anger with the people of Israel was the cause of the famine described there. Because of the two intervening chapters, which include material that is largely poetic in nature, translators may wish to follow the example of Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente and add a footnote explaining to the reader that this refers back to the events described in 21.1-14. This footnote states “at another time: allusion to the events told in 21.1-14.” Moffatt resolves the problem by transposing chapter 24 in its entirety to follow immediately after chapter 21. But this is not recommended to translators. The transition at the beginning of this chapter should, however, be worded in such a way as to show that there is a clear reference backward. One may say “At another time…” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) or “later on….”

The passive expression anger of the LORD was kindled may be easily made active by saying “the LORD was annoyed…” or something similar. The Hebrew is more literally “the anger of the LORD burned hot.” Other uses of this kind of expression are found in 1 Sam 17.28, where Eliab is said to have been angry with David, and 1 Sam 20.30, where Saul was angry at his son Jonathan. In 2 Sam 6.7 this expression is used to portray the anger of the LORD because the ark was touched. In this case readers are not informed as to why the LORD was angry with the people of Israel.

He incited David against them: according to the account in this book, it was the LORD who caused David to bring trouble on the people of Israel. The theological difficulties of this passage are complicated by the fact that 1 Chr 21.1 places the blame on Satan rather than saying that God caused David to take the census. Some writers attempt to show that there is a sense in which both God and Satan were involved in provoking David to take this action, since the same Hebrew verb is used in each case. Translators cannot hope to solve the theological problems of the two texts, so they will do well to translate the text as it stands in each case and leave the details of the interpretation to preachers and theologians. In many languages a causative form of the verb will be the best way to translate the idea here: “he caused David to act against them” or “he caused David to turn against the Israelites” (New Century Version).

Number: the verb here means to count people or to take a census. It is uncertain why taking a census was considered wrong. Some have suggested that the real sin was the pride and ambition of David that was behind the counting of the people. Others, including Josephus, speculate that perhaps he failed to make the prescribed payment (see Exo 30.12). But all the translator has to do here is to communicate the idea of census taking, or counting the people, of the tribe of Judah and the northern tribes of Israel.

As noted in the introduction to this section, the census most likely included only males eligible to serve in the military. See Num 1.1-47, where only males old enough “to go forth to war” are included in the census. For this reason it may be wise here to say something like “count the number of people capable of fighting in all the tribes of Judah and Israel.” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch says “the men of Israel and Judah” here and “the men fit for military service” in verse 2.

In some languages it will be more natural to change the direct quotation at the end of this verse into an indirect statement by saying something like “the LORD told him to order his men to count the people of Israel and Judah” or “the LORD instructed David to find out the number of all the people in Israel and Judah.” Bible en français courant reads “He caused David to act against their interests by suggesting to him to count the Israelites and Judeans.” Contemporary English Version says “and he made David think it would be a good idea to count the people in Israel and Judah,” but this translation unfortunately omits the idea that what David did was somehow against the best interests of his people. Compare New Living Translation, “and he caused David to harm them by taking a census.”

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 .

The sense of the Hebrew verbs in verse 4 seems to be not that Elkanah sacrificed and gave portions one time only, but rather that this is what he did “each time” he went to Shiloh to offer sacrifices.

On the day when Elkanah sacrificed: literally “and it was the day and Elkanah sacrificed.” This may be legitimately translated “Whenever the day came for Elkanah to sacrifice, he would….” (New International Version).

He would give: as indicated above, the verb form here indicates a repeated or habitual action. In languages that have special forms for such actions, those forms should be used here. Others may wish to follow one of these models: “had the habit of giving” (Bible en français courant) or “had the custom of giving” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible).

Portions refers to the pieces of meat that the worshiper was allowed to eat from the animal that had been sacrificed (see the laws in Lev 7.11-19). For the fellowship offerings, part of the sacrifice was burned for God, and the rest of the animal was eaten by the people. The Hebrew does not state specifically that Elkanah gave only one share of the meat to Peninnah and one share to each of her children, but that is probably the intended meaning (so Good News Translation and New American Bible). If he gave Hannah one share only (as stated in the Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation renderings of the following verse), then it is unlikely that he gave his other wife and each of her children more than he gave Hannah.

Though the Hebrew says Peninnah his wife, Good News Translation omits the words his wife, since that information has just been given in verse 2, and in English narrative it is not natural to repeat it so soon.

The Hebrew says her sons and daughters. Though the Good News Translation translation “her children” allows for the possibility of both male and female children, it does not state it clearly, as the Hebrew does.

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 .

Since this verse resumes the story that was interrupted by Hannah’s hymn of praise (verses 1-10), Good News Translation makes a number of things explicit in this verse. The boy is identified as “Samuel,” the place where the boy remained is identified as “Shiloh,” and the implied information that he actually stayed there is added. This will probably be a good model for translators to follow. Regarding Ramah see 1.1 and 19.

In addition to the information supplied by Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version also adds the name of Hannah to avoid giving the impression that she might have stayed in Shiloh with Samuel or stopped off somewhere else along the way. In other languages it may be wise to begin “Elkanah and Hannah went back,” as in Contemporary English Version.

And: the conjunction joining the two main parts of this verse will be better translated “but,” as in many modern versions, since it may normally be expected that a child of the age of Samuel would stay with his parents. In addition to Good News Translation, several other modern versions correctly use the contrasting conjunction “but” (Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Contemporary English Version, Bible en français courant, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy).

The verb rendered ministered is the word commonly used in the Old Testament for the cultic service of priests. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “and the boy entered the service of the LORD under the priest Eli.” Given the context, it is possible to translate the last part of this verse as in Contemporary English Version, “stayed to help Eli serve the LORD.” The Hebrew verb translated ministered sometimes has the meaning “to attend” or “take care of.” If that is the sense here and in 3.1, the sense is that Samuel was serving the LORD by attending to the care of the ark. On the word for priest see the comments at 1.9.

Regarding the Septuagint text of this verse, see the comments on 1.28. The Hebrew Old Testament Text Project preliminary report gives an {A} rating to the Masoretic 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 verb fulfil may present difficulties to translators in certain languages. In Hebrew it is literally “cause to arise.” The idea is that Yahweh will make everything happen that he had previously said would happen to Eli and his family. All that I have spoken is a reference to the words of the LORD speaking through the “man of God,” which are recorded in 2.27-36.

His house does not refer to the building in which Eli lived but to his family. In many languages it will be important to use something other than a literal rendering in order to avoid misunderstanding.

From beginning to end: literally “beginning and finishing.” This Hebrew idiom stands for totality and may be translated “I will fulfill completely what I have spoken.” In other languages the same idea may be expressed by saying “without missing anything at all” or, as a separate sentence, “I will not fail to do even one of those things.”

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 .

But when they rose early on the next morning: Good News Translation leaves implicit the information that the Philistines got up, but in some languages it may be natural to state this. It may also be important to include the contrasting conjunction But, as in Revised Standard Version, because it may be considered somewhat surprising to the reader that the same thing happened again.

Behold: see the comments on this focusing particle in the preceding verse.

Dagon had fallen: see the comments on previous verse. Since the preceding verse shows that the statue of Dagon had already fallen once before, Good News Translation adds that the statue had fallen “again.” To show that what happened to the statue was different this second time that it fell, Good News Translation inserts the words “this time.” For the same reason Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente says “In addition [the head and the hands…].”

Both his hands: literally “two of palms of his hands.” Though some translations follow the Hebrew literally (Reina-Valera revisada, Fox), it will make no sense in some languages to state that only the palms of his hands were cut off, not the rest of the hands as well.

Were lying cut off upon the threshold: literally “being cut off on the threshold.” Though Good News Translation uses the verb “broken off,” the Hebrew says that the hands were cut off (so New Revised Standard Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). A number of other versions also have “broken off” (Revised English Bible, New American Bible, Contemporary English Version), while still others (New Jerusalem Bible and Knox) use the general term “severed.” But “broken off” fails to capture the sense that Dagon has been defeated by Yahweh, who cuts his head off, just as David will cut off Goliath’s head (17.51) and the Philistines will cut off Saul’s head (31.9). In languages where passive verbs are not used, it may be necessary to make the agent explicit and say “head … hands which God had cut off were lying separately.”

Usually the word threshold refers to a flat stone or wooden plank that lies under a door. In this context, however, the exact meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain. Most understand it in the usual sense of the word threshold or “doorway” (Contemporary English Version, Knox), but some presume it to mean a podium or platform on which an idol sat. This second understanding is the basis for the Revised English Bible translation: “with his head and his two hands lying broken off beside his platform; only Dagon’s body remained on it.” The idea of the “doorway” or “threshold” is, however, more likely the correct understanding of the text.

Only the trunk of Dagon was left to him: literally “only Dagon was left on him [or, it].” A literal translation of the Hebrew will be meaningless in most languages. Probably a noun meaning “his body [or, trunk]” has accidentally been omitted from the Masoretic Text. Nearly all translations supply the necessary noun, either following the Septuagint or following translation principles that require the addition of the implied information. Other models include “only the trunk was left intact” (Anchor Bible, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) or “only the trunk of Dagon was left in its place” (New Jerusalem Bible). Also possible, but less likely, the pronoun him may refer to the ark, and the clause may be translated “only the trunk of Dagon was left by it [the ark].”

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 .