The rather literal translation of Revised Standard Version, the guard who stood about him, seems awkward. New Revised Standard Version is not much better with “the guard who stood around him.” But the meaning is clearly conveyed by New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, “the guards standing by.” The singular of Revised Standard Version is collective and translates a plural in Hebrew.

The imperative verb Turn in Revised Standard Version will probably be understood to mean that the guards would have to turn away from the king in order to go out and kill the priests. But the Hebrew may also be understood in the sense of making a circuit or going around from place to place. This is the sense adopted by Anchor Bible, “go around and kill….” New American Bible is similar with “make the rounds….”

The Hebrew verb sometimes means “to surround” or “to encircle.” This is the sense expressed in Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente: “Surround them and kill them!” This understanding seems to fit the context better than the idea of “going around from place to place.” Verse 11 indicates that the priests were all gathered in the presence of King Saul, so Saul gave the order to “surround” them and kill them.

Their hand also is with David: this idiomatic expression means simply that “they too are on David’s side” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “they have assisted David” (New American Bible). Other languages may say “they also have joined with David.”

Fled: see the comments on 19.18.

Disclose it to me: see verse 8.

In those languages where direct discourse is less acceptable here, the following model may be considered for the first part of the verse:

• The king told the guards who stood near him to surround [or, go around] and kill the priests of the LORD because they were on David’s side. Although they knew that David had run away, they had not told the king.

The servants of the king: that is, “the king’s professional soldiers” (New Jerusalem Bible).

Would not put forth their hand to fall upon the priests: a literal translation may be difficult or unnatural in some languages. Revised English Bible provides an idiomatic rendering in English: “unwilling to raise a hand against the priests 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 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Doeg the Edomite: for reasons of English style Good News Translation omits the repetition of the qualifier the Edomite (but see the comments on verse 9). The same is true in verse 22 below. His being an Edomite may have been mentioned to remind the reader that he was a foreigner, perhaps without the normal Israelite attitude of respect for the priests, and certainly a traditional enemy of Israel.

The imperative verb turn as well as turned later in this verse represents the same root as in the previous verse and may also be understood in the sense of “make the rounds” (New American Bible). But since the priests were all gathered together in that one place, a translation such as “You, Doeg, go and strike down the priests” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) seems more appropriate.

The Hebrew verb rendered fall upon means “to attack” someone. In 1 Kgs 2.25 Revised Standard Version renders this same verb “he struck [him] down.” Good News Translation combines the actions of attacking and killing in one verb, “he killed them.”

Eighty-five persons who wore the linen ephod: regarding the ephod, see the comment on 2.18. By inserting the word “priests” here, Good News Translation attempts to make clear that these were all priests. Unfortunately, however, Good News Translation may give the wrong impression that there were some priests who were not qualified and therefore were not killed. The correct sense is “he killed eighty-five priests, that is, eighty-five people who were qualified to carry the ephod.” Revised Standard Version and most other translations say “wore,” but Good News Translation says “carry,” which is the normal sense of the Hebrew verb. Regarding the translation of this verb in this context, see the discussion at 2.28.

The killing of these priests further fulfills the prophecy spoken by the “man of God” to Eli in 2.27-36.

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 .

Nob refers, of course, to the people who lived in the city of Nob. Since the eighty-five priests, whose execution is described in the previous verse, also lived in Nob, Good News Translation rightly speaks of “all the other inhabitants of Nob” in this verse.

The antecedent of the pronoun he may be ambiguous, since Doeg was the last person named in verse 18. The translation in New Century Version, which says “He also killed the people of Nob,” will be understood as referring to Doeg (so also Revised English Bible). New Living Translation clearly makes Doeg the subject in this verse by reading “Then he went to Nob, the city of the priests, and killed….” If translators understand the pronoun to refer to Saul, it may be necessary to use the name “Saul” in place of the pronoun (so New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, as well as Good News Translation). Almost certainly the author did not intend the subject to be ambiguous, but translators may choose to leave the pronoun ambiguous if that is possible in the receptor language.

The Septuagint does not have the second occurrence of the words he put to the sword. Some translations follow the Septuagint and omit these words (so New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). In certain languages the second occurrence will be omitted for translation reasons. But it will be important to translate less literally “he killed them with the sword” or something similar.

On the word sucklings see the comments at 15.3.

The complete destruction of Nob parallels the holy-war practice called “the ban,” in which a city and everything in it is completely destroyed (see 15.3 for comments on this practice).

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: the transition word is important in this context, since it marks a turning point in the story and a contrast between what happened to Abiathar and the rest of Ahimelech’s sons.

As in earlier verses in this chapter, for reasons of English style Good News Translation does not repeat the son of Ahitub.

According to Mark 2.26, it was Abiathar, not Ahimelech, who was high priest when David and his men ate the sacred bread (21.1-6).

Escaped: see the comments on 19.10.

Fled: see the comments on 19.18. Abiathar pursued David, not to attack him but to join him (see 23.6).

Instead of translating fled after David, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible and Revised English Bible, like Good News Translation, indicate that Abiathar “joined David,” and Contemporary English Version says that “he ran to David.”

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 .

In some languages it may be necessary to make explicit the fact that Abiathar had arrived or had joined David. One may say, for example, “And after Abiathar had caught up with David, he told David….”

Killed: this translates a different Hebrew verb from that translated “killed” in verse 18, but the two verbs seem to be used without any difference in meaning. Some versions attempt to make a rather fine distinction between killing and unjustified homicide in the translation of this verb. New Jerusalem Bible, like Good News Translation, has “slaughtered,” and Klein and Contemporary English Version translate “murdered.” It is most unlikely that Saul himself killed the priests. In some languages it will be better to use a causative form of the verb and say that Saul caused the priests to be killed. The Hebrew clearly makes Saul responsible for their deaths, regardless of who actually did the killing.

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 .

As in verse 18 above, Good News Translation omits the words the Edomite for reasons of style (but see the comments on verse 9). But in some languages it will be quite natural to retain the word to emphasize the fact that Doeg was not an Israelite.

On that day refers to the day when David received Goliath’s sword from Ahimelech (see 21.7-9). New Century Version restructures, making a separate sentence of this element: “Doeg the Edomite was there at Nob that day.”

I have occasioned: the Hebrew says “I have turned.” When the first consonant of the Hebrew verb is changed, the verb changes from “I have turned” to “I am responsible.” That latter is the reading found in the Septuagint and in the ancient Syriac and Latin translations. It is adopted by New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible, as well as Good News Translation. But there is, in fact, very little real difference in meaning between the renderings of Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh claims in a footnote to be trying to translate an uncertain Hebrew text that says “I am to blame.”

All the persons of your father’s house: some other models for this phrase are “your father’s whole family” (New International Version) or “all the rest of your family.”

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 transition word rendered for in Revised Standard Version introduces the reason why Abiathar should stay with David, not a reason for being unafraid. If this transition word is retained, it may be a good idea to reverse the two imperatives at the beginning of the verse.

He that seeks my life seeks your life: the word translated life is nefesh (see the comments on this Hebrew word at 1.10). Another way of expressing this is “your enemy is also mine.” Some other possible models are “we have a common enemy” and “Isn’t the same person trying to kill both of us?” (Contemporary English Version). The sense seems to be that before Saul can harm Abiathar, Saul will first have to kill David. Compare “for they must (first) seek my life who seek your life” (Fox).

You shall be in safekeeping: or “You are under my protection” (New American Bible, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). It may also be possible in some languages to make this sound more natural by reversing the positions of the subject and object: “I will protect you.”

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 .