Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 12:2

Had very many: the Good News Translation rendering seems a bit weak here. The Hebrew uses both the verb meaning “to be many” (or “to multiply”) and a qualifying adverb that carries the idea of “exceedingly” or “especially.” It is the same word used to qualify the beauty of Bathsheba in 11.2 and the verb “be ashamed” in 10.5. Here New International Version speaks of “a very large number…,” while New Jerusalem Bible has “in great abundance.”

Flocks and herds: on the meaning of these two terms, see the comments on 1 Sam 30.20. In the culture of the Old Testament as in certain cultures today, wealth was measured primarily by the number of livestock a person had.

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 .

Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 12:3

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 .

Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 12:4

Now: the transition word here marks the beginning of a new part of the story after the setting of the stage in the previous verses. The focus now shifts to the rich man, who receives a visitor. English versions show this shift in a variety of ways. Several of them start a new paragraph at this point, and many introduce other markers, such as “One day…” (Revised English Bible as well as Good News Translation), “Now” (New International Version, New American Bible, and New Revised Standard Version as well as Revised Standard Version), and “Then” (New Century Version).

There came a traveler: the sentence structure of Revised Standard Version reflects the Hebrew but is less natural in English than the structure of Good News Translation. The same person is referred to in this verse as a traveler, the wayfarer, and the man. If there is any danger that this will be confusing to the reader or hearer of the story, translators should ensure that these are translated in a more uniform way.

The rich man is said to have been unwilling to kill one of his own animals. The basic sense of the Hebrew verb is “spare” or “have compassion.” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible translates “he didn’t have the heart to take one of his own….” The same word is used again in verse 6; and although it may not be possible to show this relationship between the two occurrences in all languages, translators may consider using a verb like “took pity” or “spared” in both cases. Compare verse 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 .

Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 12:5

Then: this marks the next episode after the end (or interruption?) of the prophet’s story. The transition here may be marked by the beginning of a new paragraph or by the introduction of a word that marks the completion or interruption of a story. Possibly Nathan would have continued the story, but King David was so indignant about the injustice described that he cried out his opinion of the situation. Some other possible transition markers are “At that,” or “Suddenly,” or “Immediately.”

Anger was greatly kindled: the expression used here is quite strong. The image of anger as burning may be carried over into some languages. But others may find a different image such as, for example, “flew into a rage” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and New Jerusalem Bible). Still others will translate the meaning without any special figurative language, as Good News Translation and several other modern versions have done. Anchor Bible has “was incensed,” while Anderson says “became very indignant.”

Against the man: if this is translated literally there may be a question in some languages as to whether David’s anger was directed against the rich man or his guest. Translators should make sure that it was the rich man who was the object of David’s anger.

A literal rendering of the verb said may not be adequate in this context. Something more emotional would be more appropriate. Revised English Bible translates “he burst out.”

As the LORD lives: on this way of swearing see 4.9 and 1 Sam 14.39.

Deserves to die: literally “is a son of death,” which Anchor Bible translates “is a fiend of hell.” And according to the comment in Anchor Bible, David was “characterizing the man’s behavior, not condemning him to death.” If this is the case, there is no contradiction between this statement and the requirement of restitution in the following verse. However, most English versions translate the meaning found in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. Compare also 1 Sam 20.31 and 26.16, where the same kind of expression is found.

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 .

Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 12:6

While the sentence started in verse 5 continues here in Revised Standard Version, many languages may require a new sentence at this point. Good News Translation does so and rearranges the elements by giving the reason before stating the punishment.

Restore the lamb fourfold: the ancient Greek version of this verse has “sevenfold” in place of “fourfold,” but this is followed only by Anchor Bible in English. Fourfold restitution is mentioned in the story of Zacchaeus (Luke 19.8) and is based on a clearly stated law given in Exo 22.1: “If a man steals … a sheep … he shall pay … four sheep for a sheep.” Some translators may wish to include a footnote reference to the Exodus passage as well as to the Septuagint variant. Certain scholars see a fulfillment of this requirement of fourfold restitution in the later life of David, since he eventually lost four of his children: the unnamed child of Bathsheba (12.18), Amnon (13.33), Absalom (18.33), and Adonijah (1 Kgs 2.25).

He had no pity: that is, he did not consider the poverty of his victim. He had absolutely no compassion on the poor man but took his only possession. While he “spared” or “took pity on” his own animals in verse 4, here the negative shows that he had no compassion for the poor man. As indicated above, it will be helpful to use the same verb in both cases if it is natural to do so. Although Anchor Bible uses the same verb in verses 4 and 6, it follows a different text at this point and is therefore not recommended as a model.

Note the change in structure in Good News Translation, which gives the reason before establishing the terms of punishment. Some languages will find the structure of Good News Translation more natural, but others will be more comfortable with that of Revised Standard Version. Translators are advised to follow the structure that seems most natural in their own 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 .

Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 12:7

You are the man: Nathan abruptly changes from an indirect approach to a very direct statement to David. The king is said to be guilty of a crime that he himself has judged totally unacceptable and deserving of death. In some languages translators may have to say “You are that rich man!” or “You are the person I have been talking about!”

Thus says the LORD: here Nathan uses the common prophetic formula to introduce a solemn declaration to the king. On the meaning of this formula in general, see 7.5, 8 as well as 1 Sam 10.18 and 15.2. The actual word from the LORD which follows is, in most English versions, a quotation within a quotation, which may present certain problems in other languages. In some cases the problems may be solved by using indentation to mark the words of the LORD, which continue through the end of verse 12. In other languages the direct quotation of what the LORD says may be made indirect by using the third person pronoun in place of the first person, beginning “The LORD God of Israel says that he anointed you king of Israel….” But if possible it will be better to retain the force and directness of the first person.

Anointed you king over Israel: on the verb anointed in this context, see 1 Sam 2.10; 9.16; and 10.1. See also 1 Sam 15.17, where Samuel uses this same expression as he denounces Saul.

Delivered you out of the hand of Saul: this is a reminder of David’s past experience of God’s deliverance from Saul. Here, as often elsewhere, the word hand stands for the power of Saul. See 1 Sam 23.12 and 27.1.

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 .

Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 12:8

Your master’s house, and your master’s wives: the “master” referred to in this passage is Saul, and this should be made clear in translation. This may be done either by using the name of Saul specifically in this verse, or by using third person pronoun references back to the previous verse, as Good News Translation has done. The house does not mean simply the royal palace but either the royal “household” (New Jerusalem Bible) or the whole kingdom that Saul had ruled over (so Good News Translation).

Anchor Bible and Revised English Bible, on the other hand, follow the Syriac version, which reads “your master’s daughter” (that is, Michal; see 3.13-14) and “the daughters of Israel and Judah.” A small spelling change in the Hebrew noun “house” would make these readings possible. And, in view of the nature of David’s crime, this possibility has considerable appeal. But the textual evidence for this is not very convincing, and Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives an {A} rating to the Masoretic Text.

Into your bosom: the addition of these words may be understood as stressing the possibility of intimate female contact that should have made it unnecessary for David to have taken the wife of another man. But this wording also ties in with the vocabulary used in the image of the lamb on the lap (“bosom”) of its master in verse 3. New International Version, for example, translates “into your arms.” On the other hand, some translations take this expression as nothing more than an indication of “possession” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Similarly Revised English Bible has “to be your own.”

The house of Israel and of Judah: following the Syriac again, Anchor Bible and Revised English Bible have “the daughters of Israel and Judah.” This is in keeping with the notion that David had all the women that anyone could have wanted, and that most of this verse has to do with women rather than including certain other privileges of the king.

If this were too little, I would add to you as much more: the verb tenses here in English present a problem. The second verb may mean “I would have added…,” as indicated in the renderings of Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version. Or possibly it means simply that the LORD could have gone on enumerating more and more benefits that he had given to David, if what was already listed was considered insufficient. New American Bible may therefore be correct in translating “I could count up still more.” The context, however, seems to most interpreters to favor the interpretation clearly expressed in New Jerusalem Bible, “and, if this is still too little, I shall give you other things as well.”

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 .

Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 12:9

Despised the word of the LORD: some observers have pointed out that, in the affair with Bathsheba, David had violated three of the ten commandments (those forbidding murder, lying, and adultery). He apparently considered himself above the law of God and therefore held it in contempt. The verb here has been translated “flouted” (Revised English Bible), “spurned” (New American Bible), “show contempt for” (New Jerusalem Bible), and “ignore” (New Century Version). Many scholars, including the editors of Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, think that the word of was added by later scribes because of their horror of the very idea of “despising the LORD” (see also comments on verse 14 below). Certain manuscripts say simply “despised the LORD,” and this is reflected in the renderings of New American Bible, “spurned the LORD,” and New Jerusalem Bible, “show contempt for Yahweh.” Both Anderson and Anchor Bible also adopt this position. Whichever textual decision is made, translators should note that it is the LORD who is speaking here. It will therefore be unnatural in many languages to have him refer to himself in the third person. So the translation should read “despised my word” or “despised me,” depending on which textual evidence is followed. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, in fact, recommends the shorter reading, “despise the LORD,” giving it a {B} rating.

To do what is evil in his sight: once again, since it is Yahweh who is being quoted directly, it will be more natural to say “… in my sight” here. The words what is evil, of course, refer to the whole affair with Bathsheba, including the murder of Uriah. Some may have to say “these evil things.”

Smitten … with the sword: since David did not actually take the sword in his own hand and use it against Uriah, it will be both more natural and more accurate to say “you had Uriah killed” (Good News Translation) or “you have put Uriah the Hittite to the sword” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). The expression at the end of the verse, slain him with the sword of the Ammonites, shows clearly that the literal killers of Uriah were the Ammonites, but there is no doubt that it is David who is ultimately responsible. That the word sword is not to be taken literally is clear from the fact that Uriah was actually killed by an arrow from an archer’s bow (11.24) rather than by a sword. Because swords were so prominent in fighting in the time of David, this term came to be used for war in general. It will be better in most languages to drop the biblical image, which is likely to be understood literally, and say something like “killed in the war by the Ammonites.”

Revised Standard Version uses two different verbs, smitten and slain, to translate synonymous verbs in Hebrew. It is not necessary that different verbs be used in the receptor language (compare Good News 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 .