And Judah said to Simeon his brother: And translates the Hebrew waw conjunction, but given the context, it might be rendered “Then” (New International Version) or “So,” or omitted (Good News Translation).

Judah and Simeon both refer to tribes and not to individuals. Some languages may be able to use forms such as “the Judahites” and “the Simeonites.”

The Hebrew verb for said is the same here as in verse 1.2. Translators can substitute a more specific verb, such as “invited,” “proposed,” or “suggested” if they prefer.

Simeon his brother gives a literal rendering of the Hebrew singular form, which has a collective meaning here. Most translators will prefer to use a plural. Brother is a kinship term that shows Judah and Simeon were brothers, with the same father (Gen 29.33, 35). Thus the two tribes descended from these two ancestors were closely related (verse 19.1). Later in their history, they actually became one group. In some languages the word “brother” is used in exactly the same way as in Hebrew and so can be retained here. However, some English versions prefer to say “relatives” (Contemporary English Version) or “kinsmen” (Revised English Bible). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh uses the expression “brother-tribe,” which gives the right idea, but is not very natural in English. More explicitly, we might say “The people of the clan of Judah said to their relatives from the clan of Simeon.”

If the word brother, either singular or plural, is retained, in many languages it may be necessary to specify which of the brothers is older. In this case Simeon is older than Judah. If necessary, we might say “The descendants of Judah put a proposal to the descendants of Simeon, Judah’s older brother.”

Come up with me into the territory allotted to me: Once again the key verb “come/go up” refers to going into battle. Thus Judah is requesting Simeon’s help in capturing the land that God has promised to the people of Israel. A military term can be used here, such as “March” (New Jerusalem Bible), or a more general expression, such as “come help conquer,” “take,” or “attack.”

With me refers to the tribe of Judah. The dialogue is presented as if two individuals rather than two tribes are talking. Certainly each tribe had its representatives. In most languages it will be more natural to use a plural “us”: “Come help us conquer…” or “Come with us to help us take….”

The territory allotted to me, which is literally “my lot,” refers here to the land that was given to the tribe of Judah, as assigned by Moses (see verse 15). The Hebrew word for “lot” (goral) refers to the object cast to determine some fact or to make some choice, whether by Jews (verse 14.2-5) or non-Jews (Jonah 1.7). By extension, the word refers here to the land promised by the LORD to each tribe. Translators should try to find a term that differs from the word for “land” in verse 1.2, for example, “portion,” “area,” “region,” or “parcel.” The verb allotted does not occur in Hebrew but if a verb is needed, we might say “given” or “assigned” (Good News Translation). In some languages an agent will need to be specified. Joshua was the one who was in charge of the distribution, but ultimately it was God who determined the lots, so we might say “the land that God has given us.” To me is once again a reference to the tribe of Judah. See above.

That we may fight against the Canaanites gives the goal of the invitation. The pronoun we refers to the combined tribes of Judah and Simeon. May fight renders the same Hebrew verb as in verse 1.1. At that time the Canaanites were living in the land assigned to the tribe of Judah, so the people of Judah needed to drive them out before they could take control of that territory. Some languages may prefer to make this purpose clause into an independent clause, as in Good News Translation: “and we will fight the Canaanites together.”

For the first half of this verse we might say:

• The people of Judah invited their brothers, the people of Simeon to join them in battle against the Canaanites. They were to fight for the territory God had promised them.

• The descendants of Judah said to their relatives, the descendants of Simeon, “Come into our territory and help us fight against the Canaanites so we can capture the plot of land God has given to us.”

And I likewise will go with you into the territory allotted to you is literally “and I also, I will go with you in your lot.” In typical Hebrew fashion the first suggestion is balanced by the second one. If Simeon helps Judah, then Judah will in turn help Simeon. Since there is a kind of pact being set up, it may be possible to use a condition-consequence construction, for example, “If you help us fight … then we will help you….” Though the two clauses are almost identical, the Hebrew verb for go is more general than the verb rendered Come up. However, the meaning is the same and identical verbs can be used if necessary. I likewise is emphatic, showing this is a solemn promise. Another way to show the emphasis is to use a verb such as “promise,” or a word such as “surely” or “certainly.” For example, we might say “If you do, then we promise to join you in capturing the land allotted to you” or “We will [in return] certainly help you fight for the territory God has given you.” The pronouns I and you are singular, but as noted above, will be better rendered as plurals in most languages, for example, “Come with us to help us conquer the land God gave to us, and we too, we will come and help you conquer the land God gave to you.”

So Simeon went with him indicates that the tribe of Simeon agreed to fight with the tribe of Judah against the Canaanites. So effectively renders the Hebrew waw conjunction here, which introduces the result of the discussion. Simeon accepts Judah’s invitation. Went renders the general Hebrew verb for “go” used in the previous clause. The pronoun him refers to Judah. We can follow Revised Standard Version here, or say “Simeon agreed to fight with Judah.” Good News Translation has “So the tribes of Simeon and Judah went into battle together,” which may slightly shift the emphasis. Here the focus is on Simeon’s acceptance of Judah’s request.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Now translates the initial Hebrew waw conjunction. It is not a time marker here, but rather introduces a new episode in the book. Translators should look for a good introductory expression. In some languages this might be a time expression such as “One day.” However, some versions choose to omit this conjunction (see Good News Translation).

The angel of the LORD is literally “the messenger of Yahweh,” whom he sends to speak with his people. This messenger appears first in Gen 16.7, where he comes to speak to and comfort Hagar, the mother of Ishmael. It is also the angel of the LORD who calls out to Abraham, preventing him from sacrificing his son Isaac on the mountain (Gen 22.11). In the book of Judges the angel of the LORD also appears at crucial times, both to reprimand the Israelites (verse 2.1-5; verse 5.23) and to appoint certain leaders (verse 6.11; verse 13.3). The angel of the LORD is not just a messenger, but a unique representative of Yahweh. Throughout the Old Testament, the angel of the LORD is used interchangeably with “the LORD.” When this angel speaks, he speaks for God in the first person.

Angel renders a Hebrew word designating a “messenger,” someone who represents another person and speaks on his or her behalf. For example, Jacob sent “messengers” to his brother Esau to ensure he would be well received (Gen 32.3). Many languages already have a word related to angel, itself derived from the Greek word angelos. This is the word the Septuagint uses to translate the Hebrew word found here, as well as appearing throughout the Greek of the New Testament. Some languages will rather translate angel as “God’s messenger,” “God’s representative,” or “God’s spokesperson.” However, in rendering this key term, translators must be careful not to confuse this word with other key terms, such as “prophet” and “apostle,” which are somewhat similar in meaning. In the Old Testament this angel is also called “the angel of God” (verse 6.20; verse 13.6, 9). Within this book as elsewhere, the angel of the LORD is presented as a known character, and the rendering of the phrase should be consistent throughout this book and the rest of Scriptures. See also the discussion of this phrase in A Handbook on Genesis at Gen 16.7.

Went up from Gilgal to Bochim: The key verb rendered went up is used in verse 1.1 and in many other places in this book with a military meaning of “attack” or “go into battle.” But in other contexts it refers to movement (upward), as in verse 1.16. This seems to be the meaning here. The multiple uses of this word make up part of the storyteller’s style and are a particular feature of this book.

The place names Gilgal and Bochim refer to locations that are unknown today. In verse 4.19 Gilgal is described as being on the east border of Jericho. It obviously was an important center because Joshua had set up a memorial there to mark the Israelites’ crossing of the Jordan River. Twelve stones representing the twelve tribes marked the spot (verse 4.19-24). Also, the Israelites were circumcised at Gilgal (verse 5.8-9) and it remained an important place for religious ceremonies at least until the time of Amos (Amos 4.4; verse 5.5). Bochim is another place name, despite the fact that in Hebrew it is preceded by a definite article. In this passage Revised Standard Version gives the name in its transliterated form, Bochim, while at the end of the section (verse 2.4-5), its meaning “the weeping ones” is made clear. This is a good solution in most translations. It is good to use the transliterated name Bochim here, since the point of the passage is to explain this proper name.

For this first sentence of the verse we can say:

• One day the messenger of the LORD went from Gilgal to Bochim.

Since the angel of the LORD has not been introduced previously, in some languages it will be clearer to say:

• One day Yahweh sent his messenger from Gilgal to Bochim.

And he said: Since said translates a very general Hebrew verb, we might prefer “declared” or “announced” as the angel delivers this solemn message. Curiously, the writer does not specify whom the angel is addressing, but it is clearly the people of Israel. See verse 2.4 where the addressee is named as “all the people of Israel.” Translators can make the addressee clear if need be. For example, Contemporary English Version says “and gave the Israelites this message from the LORD.”

I brought you up from Egypt: This clause is surprising because it shows that when the angel speaks, he uses the first person I, representing God. Thus this messenger is completely identified with the one who sent him. He gives the LORD’s exact words. It is as though the LORD himself is speaking. God first reminds the people that he set them free from Egyptian slavery. Although this theme occurs frequently in the Old Testament, this is its first appearance in the book of Judges. If possible, translators should render this key clause in the same way throughout Scripture.

Brought … up renders a form of the key Hebrew verb meaning “go up.” In this context, however, it does not have a military meaning (verse 1.1). Here it is a causative form meaning “caused to go up” and refers to the Exodus, when the Israelites left Egypt and traveled to the Promised Land, Canaan. While it may maintain some of its directional meaning here (up), the verb here also seems to convey the idea of “brought out” or even “deliver.” Translators should try to find a suitable verb. Good News Translation, for example, says “I took you out of Egypt.” Though the pronoun you seems to refer to the Israelites who are at Bochim, it is clear that this pronoun refers to the generation that was brought out of Egypt, and by extension their descendants. So the pronoun you includes both past and present generations, reflecting Israel’s understanding that all generations of a people are linked as one.

Egypt refers to the country on the African continent, corresponding roughly to modern-day Egypt. When the Israelites heard these words, a whole series of events would have come to mind. For most, the word Egypt was synonymous with “slavery,” since this was where the people of Israel were held in bondage (Exo 1.11), made to work as slaves (Exo 1.13-14), and suffered great violence (Exo 1.16). These words reminded them of how Moses led them out of Egypt, how the LORD delivered them at the Sea of Reeds (Exo 14.21-31), and how they came to the place they are now. Thus it is possible for translators to make explicit here “I freed you from slavery in Egypt” or “I brought you out of Egypt where you had been slaves.”

And brought you into the land which I swore to give to your fathers: The goal of the journey from Egypt was to enter Canaan, the land that God promised to the patriarchs. Translators can render the land as “this land” or “the land of Canaan.” See verse 1.2 for more comments on the land.

Which I swore to give to your fathers refers to the LORD’s promise to give the land of Canaan to Abraham (Gen 12.1-7). That promise was renewed with each generation. The Hebrew verb rendered swore means “made a [solemn] promise” or “took an oath.” When a person swears to do something, it means that whatever happens, the person will do what he or she says. In most languages there are idiomatic expressions to express this idea, for example, “give mouth.” If such an expression does not exist, translators might say “I said strongly that I will [without fail]” or “I promised.”

In Hebrew there is no verb for give here, and the text simply says “which I swore to your fathers.” Some languages will need to add a verb here, as Revised Standard Version has done, and translate this clause as “that I promised to give to your fathers” or “that I promised your fathers would inherit/acquire.” Your fathers refers here to the ancestors of Israel, going all the way back to Abraham, who first received this promise. Many languages use the word fathers in a similar way to Hebrew. But others will say “ancestors” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation), “forefathers” (Revised English Bible), or “grandfathers.”

I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you: This sentence begins with the waw conjunction in Hebrew, so “and” can be added if necessary. I said renders the general Hebrew verb for “say.” But here the LORD is quoting himself, that is, the past promise he gave them. Translators must decide if they want to retain the quote within a quote, as in Hebrew and Revised Standard Version, or if it is better to use indirect speech here, for example, “I told you that I would never….” Whatever the choice, translators should use standard punctuation.

I will never break my covenant with you is literally “I will not break my covenant with you forever.” Never is a good English rendering of the Hebrew expression loʾ … le-ʿolam (“not … to eternity”). This type of language has its roots in the covenant traditions of Abraham and David, which use the same word ʿolam to describe the covenant (Gen 17.13; verse 2 Sam 23.5). Some languages may have ideophones to express the notion of “not forever,” somewhat like the English expression “never, ever.” Though it is better to retain the strong negative statement here, in some languages it may be necessary to transform this negative statement into a positive one. In this case we might say “I will always keep my promise to you” or “For all time, I will honor our alliance.” However, if possible, the negative expression should be maintained. This first negative statement will be balanced out by a second negative clause, an imperative, in what follows.

Break my covenant refers to breaking a promise, that is, stopping an agreement or an alliance between two parties (see, for example, Gen 17.14). In many languages one “spoils” an alliance rather than “breaks” it. Translators may use an idiomatic expression here. The Hebrew word for covenant (berith) is one of the most profound theological ideas found in the Bible, so translators should take great care in finding the right term. It designates an official relationship between two parties, sometimes with stipulations as to how that agreement can be maintained or broken. In a non-religious sense, it is the word used when alliances or treaties were made between nations, for example, to help each other in times of war. In a religious sense, this word conveys a special relationship between God and humans, and here it points specifically to the promise God made to Abraham in Gen 12.1-7. This word was translated “testament” in English to refer to the Old and New Testaments, since “testament” once had the same meaning as covenant. Translators need to look to their own culture to find the best word to describe this agreement between two parties or between ethnic groups. If a term already exists and is used in an older translation of the Bible, translators should reevaluate the term and propose a change if necessary. If a term does not exist, possibilities might be “alliance,” “pact,” “promise,” “agreement,” “special relationship,” “commitment,” and “contract.”

The LORD first made the promise to the fathers, so the pronoun you refers to all the Israelites, from the ancestors all the way down to the present generation hearing these words.

Translation models for this clause might be:

• I will never break the solemn promise I have made to you.

• I will forever keep the covenant I made with you.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse begins with a Hebrew waw conjunction that many versions choose to omit.

He gathered to himself the Ammonites and the Amalekites means that King Eglon rallied more than his own people to join him in battle against the Israelites. Gathered renders a Hebrew verb form that sounds like the verb for “added” in the previous verse, so there may be a play on words here. Gathered to himself expresses a Hebrew idiom that can be rendered “gathered around himself,” “brought together [to fight with him],” or simply “assembled.” The Ammonites (literally “the sons [or, children] of Ammon”) were people who lived in the territory north of Moab, in a region of the country today called Jordan. This group was located near Amman, the present capital of Jordan. The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, who was the grandson of Esau (Gen 36.15-16). These enemy people attacked the Israelites as they made their way from Egypt to the Promised Land (Exo 17.8-16). We might say Eglon “brought the Ammonites and the Amalekites together under his command” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) or “invited the Ammonites and the Amalekites to join him to fight Israel.”

And went and defeated Israel: In Hebrew the verbs here are singular, with Eglon as the subject. This is to be expected since Eglon is the one leading the combined forces that attacked and defeated Israel. In many languages it will appropriate to keep Eglon as the subject. If not, the translator can use the pronoun “they.” Went renders the simple Hebrew verb that means “go,” and defeated renders the verb that means “strike” (see comments on verse 1.4).

And they took possession of the city of palms: The combined armies crossed the Jordan River and captured Jericho. Took possession of renders the key Hebrew verb (yarash) that figures so prominently in the introductory sections (see comments on verse 1.19). Translators are free to add the name “Jericho” to the text, since this is what the original audience understood when they heard this phrase.

A model for the translation of this verse is:

• Eglon brought together [into his army] the peoples of Ammon and Amalek, and together they went out and defeated Israel. They captured the town of Jericho, the city of palm trees.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

While Sisera runs away on foot, his army also tries to flee. In some languages this implicit information may need to be made explicit, for example, “As Sisera’s army fled, Barak pursued….”

And Barak pursued the chariots and the army to Harosheth-ha-goiim: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be omitted or rendered by another conjunction in the target language. Despite their efforts, the enemy army could not get away. Barak refers obviously to Barak and his warriors, for he did not do this alone. The Hebrew words for Barak pursued are baraq radaf, an apparent play on words, since they seem to rhyme. Pursued the chariots and the army is literally “pursued after the chariots and after the army.” Finally Barak is giving the battle his all. Translators may say “chased after Sisera’s chariots and men,” “ran after…,” or “went after….” For chariots see verse 1.19; for army see verse 4.15. The mention of Harosheth-ha-goiim (Good News Translation “Harosheth-of-the-Gentiles”) makes the point that the enemy is forced back to their starting point (see verse 4.2, verse 13) and also underlines the fact that the enemy soldiers are pagans, that is, they do not believe or follow Yahweh.

And all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword: It is now that all Sisera’s men are killed. In the meantime Sisera has abandoned his troops and is running for his life. All the army refers to both his soldiers riding on the chariots and his foot soldiers. Army renders the same Hebrew word as in the previous clause. Fell by the edge of the sword is a Hebrew idiom meaning these men were massacred. The Hebrew verb rendered fell (nafal) occurs once again, describing the death of the enemy (see verse 3.25; verse 5.27; verse 9.40). In many languages a similar idiom with the verb “fall” may express death. For the edge of the sword, see verse 1.8, where it is noted that this expression can be omitted. If the verb fell cannot be retained, translators could say “and Barak’s troops killed them all” or “Barak and his men killed all of Sisera’s soldiers.” In some languages it will be easier to use a passive expression, for example, “Sisera’s whole army was killed” (Good News Translation).

Not a man was left is literally “not it was left up to one.” The destruction was complete, with no enemy soldier remaining alive. The word man does not occur in Hebrew, but can be added as Revised Standard Version has done. Was left renders a Hebrew word that refers to survivors. This clause may be translated “not even one remained.” It may be possible to combine this with the preceding clause by saying “Every single soldier of Sisera’s army was killed” or “Barak killed every single one of Sisera’s soldiers.” But following the Hebrew closely can also be effective: “Barak killed all Sisera’s soldiers—not one was left” or “Barak killed all Sisera’s soldiers—every single one!”

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The content and importance of this verse is underlined by its chiastic structure. On either side of the chiasm is the key term blessed, and at its center stands Jael, the heroine of the story. Thus the focus is clearly on this brave woman and her stunning victory.

Most blessed of women be Jael … is literally “She will be blessed from women Jael….” Blessed is the counterpart of “curse” in verse 5.23, and like that word, has a deuteronomic background. It expresses God’s pleasure with those who obey his Law. The Hebrew verb rendered blessed … be (barak) occurs in a passive form. It expresses a wish that a blessing might come upon Jael. She was faithful to her people and obedient to God and thus deserved God’s blessing. This line may be rendered “May Jael be blessed…” or more explicitly “God bless Jael….” Contemporary English Version says “honor Jael,” and Good News Translation has “fortunate … is Jael,” but these renderings are both weak and do not express the keyword blessed adequately. Most … of women is literally “from women,” which most versions take to be a superlative, meaning Jael is to be more blessed than other women. This praise of Jael is similar to that addressed to Mary, the mother of Jesus in Luke 1.42, who also participated in saving Israel!

For Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, see verse 4.17. This phrase may be a vocative, but more likely it is an emphatic statement of her full name, allowing her to be properly remembered in the community.

Of tent-dwelling women most blessed is literally “from women in the tent she will be blessed.” Like the first line, this is another superlative expression. It means “she is to be more blessed than the women dwelling in tents.” Tent-dwelling describes Jael’s community. She was married to a Kenite, and her people are described as moving from the south to pitch their tents in the north (see verse 4.11). Though probably most Israelites lived in tents, Jael used her skills setting up tents to kill one of Israel’s most important enemies. She also killed him within her own tent. This line may be rendered “Of all the women living in tents, may Jael be the most blessed.” In a way, this may be like saying “Of all the women of our tribe, may Jael be the most blessed.”

Translation examples for this verse are:

• “May she be more blessed than any woman,
more than any woman in her clan,
Jael, wife of Heber, the Kenite.

• “O Jael, wife of Heber, the Kenite,
may God bless you more than any other woman,
more than all women living in tents.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

When the men of the town rose early in the morning is rendered in many versions by a similar time clause. We can follow Revised Standard Version or the Hebrew text, which is literally “And the men of the town arose early in the morning.” The men of the town is the same expression used in verse 6.27 (see comments there). However, in many languages it may be simpler here to refer to “the people,” “the townspeople,” or “the inhabitants of the town.” Rose early does not render the Hebrew keyword qum, which is found throughout the book of Judges, but a more specific word referring to “waking up early.” It may be translated “woke up” or “got up” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). Gideon took down the altar during the night. Rose early in the morning refers to the people getting up early the next morning. Many languages will have an idiomatic expression or even an ideophone to emphasize that this took place very early in the day. This whole clause may be rendered “Early the next day, when the people of the town got up” or “As soon as the townspeople got up the next morning.” The word morning reappears in verse 6.31, right before the conclusion, thus forming an inclusio around this subunit.

Behold renders the Hebrew word hinneh, which can call attention to a particular situation, express surprise, or mark a climax in a story. Here it seems to have all these functions. It expresses the townspeople’s surprise when they woke up to discover that their altar and idol were destroyed. It also marks this discovery as a high point in the story, as readers and hearers wonder what the townspeople will do to Gideon for such an audacious act. Some languages will have particles or ideophones to express the surprised reaction. We may also say “Look!” or “to their great surprise, they discovered.”

The altar of Baal was broken down, and the Asherah beside it was cut down: The vocabulary used here is similar to that in verse 6.25 (see comments there). The major difference is the use of passive verbs without agents. These verbs do not specify who did the action and thus enables the storyteller to continue the suspense. The townspeople did not know who performed these acts that many would consider a sacrilege. Some languages do not have such passives, so these clauses must be cast in active form, perhaps with an indefinite subject as follows: “someone had broken down the altar of Baal and had cut down the Asherah pole beside it.” In verse 6.25 the verb “pull down” is used for the destruction of the altar, but here it is broken down, which is the same verb used in verse 2.2 (see comments there). There is little difference in meaning between the Hebrew verbs rendered “pull down” and broken down. In some languages it may be necessary to use the same verb for both of them.

And the second bull was offered upon the altar which had been built: This clause shows what the townspeople also saw. At the place where the altar to Baal stood, they found a different altar, one with a sacrifice on it. The second bull refers to the same bull as in verse 6.25-26 (see the comments there for the textual problems affecting this expression). In many languages it will be more natural to say simply “the bull.” Was offered and had been built are two more passive verbs without an agent. They maintain the suspense. Again, if this verb form does not exist in the receptor language, this clause may be rendered “and they saw that someone had offered/sacrificed a bull on a new altar that someone had built.” In many languages it will be more logical to say “and they saw a new altar [in its place] with a bull sacrificed on it.” It is important to preserve the secret of who did all these things until the storyteller decides to reveal his name.

Translation models for this verse are:

• Next morning, very early, the townspeople got up and discovered that the altar to Baal had been broken down and the pole for Asherah cut down. In their place was a new altar with a bull sacrificed on it.

• When the people of the town got up early the next morning, to their great surprise, they saw that the altar to Baal and the Asherah pole had been destroyed. In their place they saw an altar that someone had built, with a bull offered as a sacrifice on top of it.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And they took the two princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb: And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which introduces the next event. Some languages may prefer to say “And they also took…,” but this may not be the best rendering here. Many versions leave this conjunction untranslated (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation). The pronoun they refers to the Ephraimite soldiers, which 8.3 makes clear. Took does not render the common Hebrew verb meaning “take,” but a word that means “capture” or “seize.” It is the same verb translated “seize” and “seized” in verse 7.24. Here Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version say “captured.” Oreb and Zeeb were Midianite leaders or princes. For the Hebrew word rendered princes (sar), see the comments on verse 4.2, where it is translated “commander.” This word does not refer to the sons of a king, but to rulers or officials, so here it is better rendered “leaders” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version), “commanders” (New Living Translation), or “chiefs” (Good News Translation). Oreb and Zeeb are both names of animals in Hebrew. Oreb designates a “raven,” a large black bird, and Zeeb a “wolf.” These could be their real names, but more likely, they were their war names, since both are aggressive. Contemporary English Version translates these names, which is quite effective: “These troops captured Raven and Wolf, the two Midianite leaders.”

They killed Oreb at the rock of Oreb, and Zeeb they killed at the wine press of Zeeb: The pronoun they refers to the Ephraimites. Throughout the Old Testament, stories are told that explain why people or places have certain names, and this seems the case here. In all likelihood, Oreb was killed at a particular rock, and because people remembered this event, they named the place the rock of Oreb. In the same way, the wine press where Zeeb was killed became known as the wine press of Zeeb. The Hebrew word for wine press is different from the one in verse 6.11. There the word refers to the wine press in its entirety, but here the word refers to only the lower portion. Contemporary English Version gives a good rendering here: “They killed Raven at a large rock that has come to be known as Raven Rock, and they killed Wolf near a wine-pit that has come to be called Wolf Wine-Pit.” The location of these landmarks is unknown today.

As they pursued Midian is literally “and they pursued to Midian.” The Hebrew waw conjunction (“and”) introduces the next step in a series of actions. Though some versions omit it, a connector such as “Then” would be appropriate. Many scholars think the Hebrew text is incorrect here. The Septuagint and the Syriac change the Hebrew preposition for “to” into the Hebrew object marker, a change involving only one letter. This change leads to a more comprehensible text that reads “and they pursued Midian.” Like Revised Standard Version, most other versions follow this interpretation. Good News Translation, for example, says “They continued to pursue the Midianites.”

And they brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon is literally “and the heads of Oreb and Zeeb, they brought to Gideon.” The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and again introduces the next action in a series, but several versions omit it here. The Ephraimites brought the heads of these commanders to Gideon as proof that they had died. Obviously there is a step missing here, since the Ephraimites would have had to cut off their heads before transporting them to Gideon. In some languages it would be better to say “As for Oreb and Zeeb, they cut off their heads and carried them to Gideon.”

Beyond the Jordan: This phrase explains where Gideon was. It could mean that Gideon was on the other side of the Jordan River from the storyteller, but most often this phrase refers to the eastern side of that river (so Good News Translation; see the comments on verse 5.17). This means that Gideon had crossed the river with his troops in pursuit of the fleeing Midianites.

Translation models for this verse are:

• They captured the two Midianite commanders, Oreb and Zeeb. They killed Oreb by a rock later called “Oreb’s Rock,” and they killed Zeeb near a wine press later named “Zeeb’s Wine Press.” And then they continued to chase the Midianites. They brought the heads of these two enemy leaders to Gideon, who was on the east side of the Jordan River.

• The Ephraimite soldiers captured Oreb and Zeeb, the two Midianite leaders, and then they killed them. Oreb was killed at a rock later known as “Rock of Oreb,” and Zeeb, at a wine press later named “Wine Press of Zeeb.” Then the Ephraimites kept on chasing the Midianites, but they carried the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon who was across the Jordan River.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .