Revised Standard Version differs from Good News Translation in its placement of the verse number for verse 3. It is following the verse numbering of the King James Version. The numbering used by Good News Translation is that of all recent versions, including New Revised Standard Version. This should be followed.

Who are you, Achior, and you hirelings of Ephraim: There is another textual problem here. It is related to the problem in the previous verse. Since Achior is an Ammonite, one would expect his hirelings (“mercenaries”) to be Ammonites. So New English Bible translates “who are you, Achior, you and your Ammonite mercenaries.” Good News Translation omits hirelings of Ephraim, but adds a footnote to explain that some manuscripts add “your hired soldiers from Ephraim” and other manuscripts add “your mercenaries from Ammon.” Moore (also Contemporary English Version and New Revised Standard Version) keeps the reference to Ephraim by translating “who are you Achior and you Ephraimite mercenaries,” but he adds a footnote for the other two options. It is recommended to translators that Ephraim be kept along with a footnote on the textual problem. Ephraim is another name for Israel, so some translators may want to use Israel here for clarity. The hirelings were “mercenaries” hired by Israel for the war. One could also label them “sympathizers” with Israel in this context. There is another direction one could take with the word hirelings. Some scholars believe with good reason that the word is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew, which would have read “drunkards.” The Hebrew words for hirelings and “drunkards” are quite similar, so they could be confused. This exact mistake was made in the Greek of Isa 28.1, which reads “mercenaries of Ephraim” instead of “drunkards of Ephraim.” There could have been a play on words with the image of mountains drunk with blood in 6.4. “Drunkards” is a possibility, but there is no Greek manuscript support for it, so it is not recommended. Some possible renderings for the first part of this verse are “Who do you think you are Achior, you and your sympathizers with the Israelites?” or “Who are you, Achior? Are the Israelites paying your men?” Note that these are sarcastic rhetorical questions being asked by Holofernes. They function as sarcastic statements. If the question form cannot be kept, the sarcasm should not be lost; for example, “You and your men are no prophets! Are the Israelites paying your men?”

To prophesy among us: Holofernes sarcastically refers to Achior as a “prophet” through the use of the verb prophesy. The sarcasm here should not be lost by reducing prophesy to “tell us” (Good News Translation). The word in this context means “to speak in the name of a god.” Achior has functioned like the Gentile prophet Balaam in Num 22-24, since he is unable to speak a word against Israel. He has delivered what amounts to a prophetic oracle, and Holofernes is now about to do the same thing, though in the name of another god.

Tell us not to make war against the people of Israel may be rendered “warn us not to fight against the Israelites.”

Because their God will defend them: Good News Translation‘s use of “some god” to refer to the Israelite God is an excellent translation; it conveys the sarcasm of Holofernes’ their god.

Who is God except Nebuchadnezzar?: Good News Translation is less successful with “Nebuchadnezzar is our god, and that’s all that matters.” It is difficult to justify stretching out the short Greek text that far. Further, Holofernes is not saying “our god”; he is claiming that Nebuchadnezzar is the only god. Still further, the question form conveys something important (as long as it is not misread as a request for information). This is a dramatic point, like Pharaoh’s outburst in Exo 5.2: “Who is the Lord, that I should … let Israel go? I do not know the Lord….” Before the story is over, Pharaoh will know the Lord very well indeed. Craven, in her study (1983), makes the important observation: “The question which subtly motivates the entire narrative is who is most powerful: Nebuchadnezzar or Yahweh.” Holofernes’ rhetorical question here will receive a definitive answer later. Further still, there is a nice contrast between the who are you that opens the verse and Who is God here. In languages that do not use rhetorical questions as the equivalent of an emphatic statement, Contemporary English Version‘s model will be helpful: “But King Nebuchadnezzar is the only god!”

Their God will not deliver them: Again Good News Translation has small “god,” while Revised Standard Version and Contemporary English Version have God. Translators should be consistent.

Two alternative translation models for verse 2 follow, the second one with a footnote:

• Achior, who do you think you are? Are the Israelites paying your men? What right have you to claim to speak for some god as you have done today, and tell us not to fight against the Israelites because that god will defend them? King Nebuchadnezzar is the only god! He will send soldiers and wipe these Israelites from the face of the earth. Their god won’t be able to help them.

• Achior,* you are not a prophet! Are the Israelites paying your men? You have no right to claim to speak for some god as you have done today, and to tell us not to fight against the Israelites because that god will defend them. King Nebuchadnezzar is the only god! He will send soldiers and wipe these Israelites from the face of the earth. Their god won’t be able to help them.
* Achior; some manuscripts add you and your hired soldiers from Ephraim; others add you and your hired soldiers from Ammon.

We the king’s servants: It will be good to start a new sentence here; for example, “But we serve Nebuchadnezzar…” (Good News Translation) or “We are Nebuchadnezzar’s servants…” (Contemporary English Version). Revised Standard Version‘s footnote simply says that the Greek reads “his,” which they have changed to the king’s to avoid confusion of pronouns.

Will destroy them as one man: Good News Translation has “we will beat them easily as if their whole army were one man,” and Contemporary English Version has “we will defeat them as if their entire army were only one soldier.” It is also possible to say “we will defeat all their soldiers as easily as if we were fighting only one soldier.”

They cannot resist the might of our cavalry may be rendered “We have such powerful cavalry [or, so many soldiers riding on horses] that they will not be able to fight against us.”

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Judith. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.