The Septuagint has several additions to this verse, all of which Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament considers to be later additions intended to improve the flow of the story. The words “Now it was the time of the wheat harvest when the plague broke out among the people” (New American Bible) and “It was the time of the wheat harvest” (New Jerusalem Bible, An American Translation, Moffatt, Osty-Trinquet) are based on the Septuagint. Likewise the words “David chose the pestilence” (Moffatt, Osty-Trinquet) are based on the Septuagint. None of these additions should be followed.

So reflects the common Hebrew conjunction, but the context requires a transition word showing the logical connection between David’s decision and the LORD’s action. Some modern versions, however, simply begin a new paragraph here without any overt transition word (for example, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and Revised English Bible).

Pestilence: or “terrible disease.” See the comments on verse 13.

The morning: this seems to refer to the same morning on which Gad presented the alternatives and David gave his response. For this reason several versions say “that morning” (New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Knox, and Contemporary English Version as well as Good News Translation).

Until the appointed time: these words seem to suggest that the epidemic that struck the people of Israel lasted until the end of the third day, since that was the time that had been set previously. For this reason Bible en français courant translates “for the announced time.” But according to Jewish tradition a much shorter time was actually involved. And the words of the text may mean “until the time the LORD had decided,” which is not necessarily the same as the time he had announced earlier. Anchor Bible even finds textual reasons to translate “until dinnertime,” and New English Bible similarly has “until the hour of dinner.” However, Revised English Bible reverts to “until the appointed time.” In view of the uncertainty of interpretation of these words, it is better not to make the translation too precise. That is, it is not a good idea to say clearly “until the end of the third day” or “until dinnertime,” but rather “until the time he had decided.”

The wording of the final clause beginning with and there died of the people is not typical of modern English and should probably be reordered in other languages as well. New Revised Standard Version restructures to say “seventy thousand of the people died, from Dan to Beersheba.” The expression from Dan to Beer-sheba may be rendered “from Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south.” See the comments on verse 2 above.

Seventy thousand men: it is difficult to imagine that the writer intended only male members of the people of Israel here. For this reason several versions omit any specific reference to men and translate “seventy thousand of the people” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, and New American Bible).

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 .

Stretched forth his hand: as indicated elsewhere the word hand is often used to refer to power. The idea of the expression here is that the angel began to exercise his power to destroy the city of Jerusalem. Some may prefer to translate “turned his attention to the destruction [of Jerusalem]” or simply “began to destroy….”

The LORD repented of the evil: in 1 Sam 15.35 the writer indicates that “the LORD repented” that he had made Saul king. But he does not say clearly that making him king was evil. In this case, as in Exo 32.14, the word evil is actually used. While this may present theological problems for some translators, it is clearly what the text says and must therefore be translated. Here the death of the people of Israel is seen as an evil that the LORD originally intended but eventually regretted. In some languages it will be fitting to make clear what this evil was by translating as Good News Translation has done, “punishing the people.” Some other translations of the evil are “the calamity” (New American Bible and New Jerusalem Bible) and “the terrible things that had happened” (New Century Version). The word translated evil does not refer to a moral wrong but rather has more the meaning of “harm.” The verb itself carries the idea of feeling sorry or regretting a course of action taken or about to be taken. Knox translates it “was moved with pity.” A good translation of the overall expression is New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, “renounced further punishment.”

It is enough: the word so translated is literally “many,” but it is sometimes used to express the idea of “enough.” This provides the reason for the command that follows but is at the same time an order to stop. In some languages it will be best translated “Stop!”

Now stay your hand: this is a command to the angel to stop what he was doing (compare the similar expression in Dan 4.35). Once again the word hand is used in the sense of power. Good News Translation, like some other versions, reverses the order of the two elements in the direct quotation so that the command to cease comes first and then the reason is given. This order may be more natural in some other languages.

In some languages it will be more appropriate to make the direct quote indirect in this verse. Translators may prefer to say “told the angel who was killing the people to stop because enough had already died.”

Threshing floor: see discussion under 6.6 and 1 Sam 23.1. Compare also Gen 50.10-11 and Ruth 3.2-14.

Araunah the Jebusite: the parallel in 1 Chr 21.15-25 has “Ornan the Jebusite.” New International Version, Good News Translation, and New Century Version harmonize the two accounts, using the name Araunah in both, since these were probably two alternate forms of the same name. The spelling Araunah is based on the corrected form in the margin of the Masoretic Text. The text itself has “Awarnah.” Nearly all interpreters consider Araunah to be a name, though some have suggested that this word was a title, perhaps meaning “ruler.” Regarding the Jebusites, who were non-Israelite natives of Jerusalem, see the comments on 5.6.

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 .

Then: this transition into a new phase of the story may be represented by a new paragraph, as in Good News Translation and several other versions. Many versions also reverse the order of the first two elements in this verse by moving the verb spoke close to the actual quotation and beginning the verse with “When David saw the angel….”

Was smiting: the verb smiting is archaic language and has been replaced in New Revised Standard Version by “was destroying.” Revised English Bible says “was striking down.” But it should be made clear in translation that the people were being killed and not simply hit or knocked down.

Lo: the Hebrew particle often translated “Behold” is used to draw special attention to what is about to be said. In some languages such a focusing particle will be appropriate here, although it is often omitted in modern English versions.

The pronoun I is emphatic in both cases in the Hebrew text. The first case can be translated as “I myself have sinned” (Anderson); “I am the one who has sinned” (New International Version). However, in the second case there is some evidence from the Septuagint and a manuscript from Qumran that an additional word was a part of the original: “I, the shepherd, did wrong” (Anchor Bible). This correction to the Masoretic Text is recommended by Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, which gives a {B} evaluation to the corrected text, and it is also followed in a more dynamic rendering by Contemporary English Version, “These people are like sheep with me as their shepherd. I have sinned terribly….” Although the majority of Hebrew manuscripts do not have the word for shepherd, one of the oldest does include it, and its presence certainly makes the translation read more smoothly. Compare also New American Bible, “It is I who have sinned; it is I, the shepherd, who have done wrong.”

I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: this does not refer to two separate acts, but the use of the two synonyms reinforces the statement. For this reason it may be better not to use the conjunction and between them. They may be better joined by a different kind of word to say something like “I have sinned; indeed I have done wickedly” or “I have done wrong; yes, I have certainly sinned.”

These sheep: here David is comparing the people of Israel to sheep rather than talking about literal sheep. In some languages it will be more acceptable to say “these people who are like my sheep.”

The question what have they done? is really a way of saying “they have done nothing to deserve this punishment.” In some languages it will be better to translate in this way or, retaining the question form, to say “they have done nothing wrong, have they?”

Let thy hand … be against me …: again the word hand refers to the exercise of power, or what the LORD was doing. Perhaps a more meaningful way of translating here is “use your power to punish me…” or simply “punish me” (New American Bible). The Hebrew contains a particle of entreaty sometimes translated “please” or “I pray” in the clause. Good News Translation does not attempt to translate this particle, but Revised Standard Version says “I pray thee.” The position of this element in the sentence, however, will vary from language to language.

My father’s house: is a way of referring to David’s immediate family. Several modern versions say simply “my family” (New International Version, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Contemporary English Version, New Century Version as well as Good News Translation). New American Bible has “my kindred.”

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 .

So: since David’s action came as a result of the instructions of Gad in the previous verse, a transition word like So seems appropriate here. But receptor language considerations will determine whether or not a transition word is required.

On the verb went up see the comments on “go up” in the previous verse.

The translation of this short verse is complicated by the fact that David’s action is said to be in accordance with both Gad’s word and as the LORD commanded. To keep these two elements in proper perspective, it may be good to adopt one of the following models for the verse as a whole: “So David went there in obedience to the command of the LORD that had come to him through the words of Gad” or “David did what Gad told him to do according to the commandment of the LORD.”

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 .

According to some translations (New American Bible and New Jerusalem Bible) “Araunah was threshing the wheat” when he saw David and his group coming toward him. This additional information comes from the parallel passage in 1 Chr 21.20. The majority of versions adopt the shorter reading of the Masoretic Text, which is recommended by Hebrew Old Testament Text Project with a {B} rating.

Looked down: as in the previous verses, the focus here on the relative height of the participants again may seem forced if translated literally. This verb has been translated “looked around” (Knox), “looked out” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), and “looked” (Contemporary English Version), and even “looked up” (New Jerusalem Bible).

His servants: as in other contexts already noted, this refers to “his men” (New International Version), “his soldiers” (Contemporary English Version), or “his courtiers” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), and not to lower-ranking domestic servants, as a literal rendering may lead readers to think.

Went forth: that is, Araunah went in the direction of King David and his group. Most modern versions say “went out” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, and New Century Version). But New Jerusalem Bible has “came forward.”

Did obeisance … with his face to the ground: although the wording is slightly different, the meaning here is essentially the same as in 1.2; 9.6; 14.4, 22.

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 .

Araunah refers to David indirectly as my lord the king and to himself as his servant, even though he is speaking directly to the king. This will be unnatural in many languages and may in fact be confusing to the reader, since these expressions may be understood as referring to other persons. Translators should look for ways of showing respect while at the same time communicating the meaning “Why have you come to visit me?”

In the context of this exchange between the two men, the words David said may be better rendered “the king responded” or “David answered” as in Good News Translation.

David’s response is not really a complete sentence in Hebrew, and this is reflected in Revised Standard Version. It may be necessary in some languages to supply what is understood and begin the answer with “I have come….” The answer may also present problems for translators because it contains three purpose clauses. The first indicates the purpose of his coming (to buy the threshing floor). The second indicates the purpose of buying the threshing floor (to build an altar), and the third indicates the purpose of building the altar (to stop the spread of the terrible disease).

In some languages it will be better to make two separate sentences of this instead of following the literal rendering of either Revised Standard Version or Good News Translation. The latter seems to place the purchase of the threshing floor and the building of the altar on equal footing by connecting the two phrases with “and.” A possible model is:

• I have come to buy your threshing floor. I want to do this because I would like to build an altar so that I can offer sacrifices to the LORD. Then the terrible disease will stop killing my people.

The idea of offering sacrifices is not directly stated but is clearly implied in the building of an altar. However, it was not the building of the altar that would cause the epidemic to cease, but the offering of sacrifices on that altar. For this reason it may be better to mention specifically the offering of sacrifices at this point. The following verse, however, does make this clearer.

Plague: although the word is not the same as the one rendered “pestilence” in verses 13 and 15, the reference is to the same event. The term used here sometimes carries the idea of a slaughter. Anchor Bible speaks of “the scourge,” while New Century Version has “the terrible disease.”

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 .

As in the previous verse, the words my lord the king and to him (rather than the more direct “to you”) are a way of addressing David with respect. But translators should show respect in a way that is natural, as in verse 21.

Take: in the context of verse 23, this indicates that the threshing floor is offered to David as a gift, for no payment. What follows shows that Araunah is also willing to provide everything else that was needed to make the sacrifice.

Offer up what seems good to him: literally “offer up the good in his eyes.” What is implied here is offering to Yahweh anything David might consider suitable. But the fact that the offering would be to Yahweh is not explicitly stated. The ancient Greek version, however, adds “to the LORD.” This addition may be made in the receptor language if needed for translation reasons, even though the textual evidence for these words is not very strong.

Burnt offering: see the comments on 1 Sam 6.14.

Threshing sledges were heavy boards that were used in the process of separating the husks from grain. They were normally dragged across the stone floor on which the grain had been spread out. A yoke was a wooden bar or collar used to bind one or two animals to something heavy they had to pull, such as a wagon or a plow. Since the threshing sledges and the yokes of the oxen were made of wood, they were offered to David to provide fuel for burning the sacrifices. Since these items will not be known to many readers, the translation may have to fill in a certain amount of detail. Contemporary English Version has “You can use the threshing-boards and the wooden yokes for the fire.” Some translators may even have to resort to a rather general statement like “here are some things made of wood that you can use for the fire.”

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 traditional Hebrew text at this point is confusing. The most likely meaning is either “Everything Araunah the king gives to the king…” or “Everything Araunah gives, O king, to the king.” The first of these has led some interpreters to believe that Araunah was the Jebusite king of Jerusalem. The second possibility is at best awkward. Anchor Bible suggests that the original reading was “I give all this to my lord, the king…” and that the word for “my lord” was at some point in the transmission of the text mistakenly taken to be “Araunah.” Good News Translation follows the Septuagint in omitting the words “the king,” which are translated O king in Revised Standard Version. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament recommends with a {B} rating the reading “… Araunah gives, O king, to the king.”

Good News Translation changes the direct discourse of Araunah to indirect speech in the first half of this verse. This may be a good model for some other languages to follow. If the direct discourse is retained, it will be awkward in many languages to have Araunah referring to himself by his own name as if he were talking about another person. So some adjustments will have to be made.

All this: this may be better translated “all these things,” referring to the threshing floor, the sacrificial animals, and the wooden instruments to be used as firewood.

If the first part of the verse is taken as direct speech, it may be unnatural in some languages to interrupt the discourse in the middle of the verse with the words And Araunah said to the king, since what follows is merely a continuation of Araunah’s speech. This type of indirect reference, in which the speaker refers to himself in the third person, has already been seen, and translators should be aware that its purpose was to show respect and deference to the person spoken to. The translation of such forms should be those that are normally used to show respect in the receptor language, but they must at the same time be natural and not sound awkward.

The LORD your God accept you: this is an expression of a wish on the part of Araunah with regard to David. The Hebrew verb translated accept expresses the idea of “be pleased with” or “treat favorably.” In Contemporary English Version it is worded “I hope the LORD your God will be pleased with you.” However, Good News Translation speaks of “your offering” instead of referring to the person of David. But since it was David himself who had displeased God earlier, it is probably better to retain the meaning “you” instead of “your offering.” Since David was presumably in a good relationship with God before the census, it may be necessary in some languages to say “accept you again,” “once again receive you,” or something similar.

In view of the confusion in this verse, the following model is offered as a summary of the recommendations of this Handbook:

• I am giving all these things to you, King David [so that you can make sacrifice]. And it is my wish that the LORD your God will welcome you again.

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 .