Once caught, Adoni-bezek admits that he deserves his punishment.

And translates the Hebrew waw conjunction, but we could also say “Then” (New International Version). Some languages may have a conjunction such as the old English word “whereupon,” which might serve as a good transition here. This shows that the king’s comment is directly related to what the soldiers did to him.

Adoni-bezek said: The repetition of the full noun referent Adoni-bezek again suggests that this person is being mocked. If a similar stylistic device exists in the target language, the translator should use it to full advantage here.

Seventy kings with their thumbs and their great toes cut off used to pick up scraps under my table: The ruler of Bezek seems to be reflecting on his fate. He recognizes that what he has done to others has been done to him. Seventy indicates the number of kings that this king supposedly captured. It is common to find multiples of seven throughout the Bible. Though this seems like an exaggerated account of the king’s victories, translators should render the text as it stands. The Hebrew word for kings (melek) is different from the word for “lord” used to describe this particular leader (see comments on verse 1.5). The word king is a key term that will become even more important in the last sections of this book. Its appearance here is the first part of an inclusio around the whole book (verse 1.7; verse 21.25). Translators need to ensure this word is distinct from the one referring to the “judge-deliverers.”

Two Hebrew participles describe these kings. The first refers to the thumbs and big toes of these other kings being cut off. The second describes them as people who used to pick up scraps from under Adoni-bezek’s table. Of course, it was not Adoni-bezek himself who cut off these body parts, but it is clear that it was he who ordered this done. In many languages it will be necessary to state who is the agent of the action, even if it is an impersonal “they.” We might also say “I had the thumbs and toes of seventy kings cut off.” Some languages will have to be a little more explicit: “Me too, I captured seventy kings and ordered my men to cut off their thumbs and big toes.” It is hard to know if the king is boasting or showing regret here.

Used to pick up scraps under my table is strong imagery. Dogs often fought for scraps that fell from their master’s table. Here Adoni-bezek is boasting that he had made these kings depend on him for all they needed. In most languages this figurative expression will be understood and so can be maintained in the translation. We might say “They were like dogs eating the scraps from under my table.” However, if the image has no meaning in the target language, we can simply express the meaning by saying “They depended on me for every bit of food they ate.”

As I have done, so God has requited me: This sentence shows a typical Hebrew balance: “As … so….” Adoni-bezek recognizes that justice has been done. He is receiving the same treatment as he gave others. This is the “eye for an eye” principle that underlies much of the Old Testament legal code. It is interesting to note that Adoni-bezek goes so far as to even recognize the role of God in his punishment.

As I have done renders the Hebrew literally, which uses the general verb meaning “do” or “make.” Some languages will need to express this subordinate clause differently as “the things I have done” or “the way I have done.” In some languages it may be necessary to specify “the things I have done to other people.”

So is a conjunction that links God has requited me to the previous clause in a cause and effect relationship. So can also be rendered “thus” or “in the same way.”

The Hebrew word for God is ʾelohim, a generic word that refers to the God of Israel, but in other contexts to the “gods” other peoples worshiped. There may be some justification in translating “gods,” because Adoni-bezek was a Canaanite, and did not worship Israel’s God. However, most versions maintain “God” here.

The Hebrew verb rendered has requited is a word that can be used positively or negatively, that is, with the sense of “reward” or “punish.” Here the latter meaning is in view, since this king thinks God is “paying him back” for the evil things he did. Some languages may use a verb such as “return.”

If possible, it would be good to keep the balanced nature of these two clauses. If this is not possible, some languages may say “The things I have done, God is paying me back for them.” Most languages will respect the order of the Hebrew, but some may prefer to reverse the clauses by saying “God has paid me back for what I have done” or “God has paid me back by doing to me what I have done to others.” Other translation models for this part of the verse are:

• As I have done to others, in the same way, God has done to me.

• The things I have done to others, God is now paying me back for that.

Considering the book as a whole, it is striking that this pagan king seems to have some knowledge of God and his justice. He acknowledges the wrong he has done. This contrasts sharply with events at the end of the book, where the Israelites, and more specifically the men from the tribe of Benjamin, never once acknowledge their evildoing.

And they brought him to Jerusalem: The pronoun they refers back to the warriors of Judah who captured Adoni-bezek, with the pronoun him referring to the king himself. However in many languages, in this concluding line of the subsection, the king’s name or a full noun phrase such as “the king” will be natural.

Brought renders a causative form of the Hebrew verb meaning “come,” so we might say “they made him come to Jerusalem.” New Jerusalem Bible uses a passive verb: “He was taken to Jerusalem.” In some languages it will be easier to spell out that the king was taken to Jerusalem as a slave or captive, for example, “And they brought him as a captive to Jerusalem.”

This is the first mention of the city Jerusalem, a name that appears only in this opening section (verse 1.7, 8, 21 [two times]) and at the end of the book (verse 19.10), forming yet another inclusio. Jerusalem is a city that has existed from very ancient times located in the mountains of Judah between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. At an elevation of 790 meters (2,600 feet), the city was first inhabited over 4,000 years ago, as peoples were drawn to a water source, the Gihon springs, there. Its ancient name mentioned in the Armana Letters, Ur-salimmu, seems to have been replaced during a certain time by the name “Jebus” (see verse 19.10). It was not until David conquered the city and defeated the Jebusites, that the city regained its name. Its mention here as Jerusalem is thus evidence that this account was not written until during or after the time of David.

And he died there: This does not mean that as soon as Adoni-bezek arrived in Jerusalem, he died. There was certainly a time lapse. For the last two clauses we could say “Judah’s warriors took him captive to Jerusalem where he eventually died.”

The exact time line here is difficult to establish, since in this narration, nothing has been said yet about the capture of Jerusalem by the Israelites (see verse 1.8 and verse 1.21). However, in these introductory remarks the narrator does not always respect a strict time line. Translators are more or less obliged to follow the text as it stands.

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 .

Two elements enclose this section, the references to Bochim and to Yahweh, the LORD (verse 2.1, 5).

And they called the name of that place Bochim: The opening Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And can be translated “So” (New Revised Standard Version), “Because of this,” or “Therefore.” Good News Translation has “and that is why,” which is also a good way to introduce this clause. While the pronoun they can refer just to the people who were there at that moment, it probably has a wider meaning here. Good News Translation uses a passive construction: “the place is called….” Called the name is the same phrase that appears in verse 1.26. In verse 2.1 Bochim is introduced as a proper noun, but here its meaning, “weeping ones,” is in view. In many cultures the goal of many narratives is to explain place names (see verse 1.17). Translators need to ensure readers understand what is being communicated here. Some translations add a footnote explaining its meaning, but it is often easier to put the meaning in the text, for example, “Bochim, which means ‘those who cry.’ ” Contemporary English Version is very clear, putting the proper name “Bochim” at 2.1 and translating that name here: “From then on, they called that place ‘Crying.’ ”

And they sacrificed there to the LORD: This second occurrence of the pronoun they is not impersonal, but rather refers to the Israelites who were present that day at Bochim. After the people heard the message and reacted through their tears, they decided to give a sacrifice to the LORD. The Hebrew root of the verb rendered sacrificed (z-b-ch) refers to a general sacrifice, so translators can use a general expression, such as “offered a sacrifice.” There may be some plays on words here, since the Hebrew word for name sounds like the word for there, and the word for sacrificed comes from the same root as the word for “altars” in verse 5.2.

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 he presented the tribute to Eglon king of Moab: The story now jumps from the time Ehud prepared his weapon, to the time when he is in front of the king. In many languages a transition will be needed, such as “So having prepared himself, Ehud arrived in front of Eglon, king of Moab, and presented his tribute” or more simply “Then Ehud went to present his tribute to Eglon.” Since there is a change in location and participants, Contemporary English Version puts a paragraph break here. If a new paragraph begins, then translators may want to replace the pronoun he with the name “Ehud.”

He presented the tribute means Ehud handed over the tax required by the Moabites. Presented translates a Hebrew verb meaning “brought near,” but translators can say “he took the tribute” or “he went with the tribute to give.” It is likely that the tribute was not something Ehud could carry alone, and the next verse makes it clear that other people were accompanying him. Contemporary English Version decides to bring this information forward by saying “Ehud and some other Israelites took the taxes,” which is one possibility. For tribute see verse 3.15.

Eglon king of Moab repeats the king’s full title once again. This repetition highlights the mocking tone here. However, some versions prefer to say simply “Eglon” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) or “the king.”

Now Eglon was a very fat man: This sentence is yet another aside or comment giving background information. It notes that Eglon was very fat. As with the previous aside, at first this seems an unimportant detail, but it prepares the reader for something that is about to happen. Of course, the Israelites would know that the name Eglon in Hebrew sounds like the word for “fatted calf” or “young bull” (verse 3.12), so this would make the audience smile. These kinds of descriptions also slow the story down, which is a well-known technique for creating suspense. The readers/hearers are clearly waiting to see what will happen next. Now renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, here marking an aside rather than a time period. A word such as “incidentally” might show that this information is going to be important later on. Some versions put this description of Eglon into a relative clause, for example, “who was a very fat man” (Good News Translation). Translators need to decide how to best introduce this idea, which has special relevance to the story.

The adjective fat does not refer to height but to weight. Eglon was not necessarily big or muscular, but fat. This notion should be easy to express in any language, though in some languages it will be expressed by a verb rather than by an adjective. The word for fat in Hebrew is followed by an adverb for very, so an appropriate intensifier should be used.

This verse can be translated as follows:

• Then Ehud went to present the tribute to Eglon king of Moab, who, incidentally, was a very fat man.

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 he said to her …: To the delight of the storyteller’s audience, Sisera’s fear is getting the best of him. Instead of keeping quiet, Sisera keeps making what seem to be childish requests. So now Sisera asks Jael to stand at the entrance of the tent and protect him. The Hebrew word for man (ʾish, referring to a male, not a person) appears twice in this verse, implying that this “great” general would be afraid of even a single man or even perhaps that he is not “man enough” to protect himself. The great detail of Sisera’s instructions to this woman brings more comedy to the scene.

Stand at the door of the tent: Obviously Sisera is asking Jael to “stand guard.” The door of the tent is literally “the opening of the tent.” The Hebrew root for door is the same one used for the verb rendered “opened” in verse 4.19, so this is another play on words. Certainly this door was not a hard surface, but probably a kind of curtain. We could also say “entrance” or “opening.” The storyteller is depicting Sisera as ridiculously afraid. This clause may be rendered “Stand [or, Stay] at the door and be on the lookout.”

And if any man comes and asks you is literally “and it will happen if a man comes and asks you and says.” These short clauses may show Sisera’s way of speaking. He may be breathless from fear. Also the details seem almost ridiculous. Jael and Sisera both know that the Israelites will come looking for him. Any man can be rendered more generally as “anyone” or “someone,” even though Sisera is probably thinking of an Israelite warrior.

Is any one here? is literally “Is there here a man?” Once again “man” can be rendered “anyone” or “someone.” This question is a quote within a quote, so translators have to decide if this is appropriate in their language. Many languages will switch to indirect speech at this point as Good News Translation and most versions do.

Say, No is literally “and you will say, ‘There [is] not.’ ” Sisera tells Jael to give a negative response. In many languages it will be sufficient to say “No,” as in Revised Standard Version, but if more explanation is needed, translators can supply a complete sentence by saying “No. There isn’t anyone here” or “No, there isn’t.” No is another quote within a quote, so if this style is acceptable, a possible model is “tell him, ‘No.’ ” If indirect speech is preferred, translators may say “tell him there is no one here.” Sisera seems to be underestimating Jael, which makes his death at her hand all the more ironic.

Translation examples for this verse are:

• And he said to her, “Stand guard at the entrance to the tent, and if someone comes and asks, ‘Is anyone here?’ say, ‘No, there’s nobody here.’ ”

• And he said to Jael, “Stay at the opening of the tent. If anyone comes in search of me, say, ‘There’s no one here.’ ”

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 .

As with previous stanzas (verse 5.19, 24), this one begins with a chiasm or X pattern.

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 concludes the episode by explaining why Gideon’s name was changed to Jerubbaal.

Therefore renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction, since it introduces a conclusion here. Another possible connector is “So” (New International Version, New American Bible).

On that day refers to the day on which the altar was destroyed. Contemporary English Version says “That same day.” Good News Translation sees this event as happening in the present but having future repercussions, so it has “From then on.” Another possibility is “From that day on.”

He was called Jerubbaal is literally “he called him Jerubbaal.” Some versions think it was Joash, Gideon’s father, who renamed him (so Contemporary English Version, Revised English Bible). But other versions, like Revised Standard Version, prefer to leave out the agent. In such contexts many languages use an impersonal form, for example, “they named him Jerubbaal” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Good News Translation says “Gideon was known as Jerubbaal,” which is very natural in English but does not refer to the actual renaming. In some languages it might be appropriate to put the new name in quotes by saying “his name was changed to ‘Jerubbaal.’ ” The Hebrew name Jerubbaal means “let Baal contend,” which is stated in the next clause. Instead of transliterating this name, some translators put the meaning directly into the text by saying “he was called ‘Let Baal contend against him.’ ” However, since the narrator provides the meaning, it is better to follow the text here. Without knowing Hebrew, the audience can hear or see that Baal’s name is being used in derision.

That is to say renders a Hebrew quotation marker, the participle meaning “saying.” Here it introduces the meaning of the name Jerubbaal, so translators might say “which means.” It is very important for readers to understand that the name Jerubbaal has a meaning in connection with the story that is told. In many cultures it is a well-known practice to give the meaning of names.

Let Baal contend against him gives the sense of the name Jerubbaal. In Israel some other people were also given names with Baal being mentioned. For example, King Saul had a son named Esh-baal (verse 1 Chr 8.33), which means “man of Baal.” Contend is the same verb used in the previous verse. The pronoun him refers to Gideon.

Because he pulled down his altar: This is exactly the same clause that ended the previous verse but here it explains why Gideon was given a new name. In this context it is clear that the pronoun he refers to Gideon and the pronoun his refers to Baal. In some languages it may be helpful to make this clear by rendering this clause as “because Gideon pulled down Baal’s altar.” Some languages may prefer to put this reason clause at the beginning of the verse (see second model below). It is obvious that Gideon is now considered a kind of hero, and his name “Let Baal defend himself” is a way to mock that god and the people who followed him.

Translation models for this verse are:

• So from that day on, Gideon was called “Jerubbaal,” meaning “Let Baal defend himself,” because Gideon had pulled down the altar of Baal.

• Because Gideon had broken down Baal’s altar, from then on, people called him “Jerubbaal,” meaning “Let Baal defend himself.”

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 .

There is an important step left out of the narration here, namely that Gideon and his men arrived at the town of Succoth. Good News Translation tries to make the transition more natural by beginning with “When they arrived at Sukkoth….” Contemporary English Version is similar with “The town of Succoth was nearby, so he went there….” In many languages it will be necessary to add this transition material. The previous verse mentions that Gideon and his men were hungry, so the logical thing is for them to look for food.

So he said to the men of Succoth: So renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction, since Gideon and his men are hungry. Depending on the transition, the conjunction may be omitted (so New International Version, Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). The pronoun he refers to Gideon, which may be made explicit. The men of Succoth refers to the inhabitants of Succoth, not just its males. The town of Succoth was on the east side of the Jordan River, probably near the mouth of the Jabbok River, which flows into the Jordan. The Hebrew name Succoth means “huts” or “shelters,” as in the Festival of Shelters (Lev 23.34). The people living in this town were presumably from the tribe of Gad.

Pray, give loaves of bread to the people who follow me: Gideon politely asks for food from the people of this town. Pray renders the Hebrew politeness marker naʾ, which may be translated “Please” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) or “I beg you” (see comments on verse 1.24). Loaves does not render the same Hebrew word translated “cakes” in verse 7.13. This word is plural, so it certainly refers to several loaves. However, the Hebrew word for bread (lechem) can also refer to any kind of food, so Contemporary English Version renders loaves of bread as “some food.” The people who follow me is literally “the people who [are] at my feet.” People renders the key Hebrew word (ʿam) often used in this book to refer to the Israelites in general (see verse 2.4), but in this context Gideon is obviously referring to his soldiers, so Contemporary English Version says “my troops.”

For they are faint, and I am pursuing … repeats in dialogue form two keywords that occur in the narrative in verse 8.4 (see comments there). This is typical Hebrew style. For renders the Hebrew particle ki, which clearly introduces a reason here. We can say “because” or “since.”

And I am pursuing after Zebah and Zalmunna, the kings of Midian: And is a good rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction here, since Gideon is giving an additional reason for his request of food. In 8.4 the text says all of Gideon’s men were “pursuing” the Midianites. However, here Gideon says specifically and emphatically I am pursuing…. Gideon was probably a known figure in the region. With the emphatic I, Gideon is making a personal request, based on his status in the area. There may also be a note of pride here, because Gideon claims that his troops are exhausted, but he, Gideon, is still pursuing the enemy. It is also possible that Gideon meant to leave his men there, while he continued on. Though it is possible to change the singular I into a collective “we” (Contemporary English Version), it is better to stay closer to the pronoun in the original text. Zebah and Zalmunna, the kings of Midian probably represent the last Midianite threat. The names Zebah and Zalmunna mean “sacrifice” and “protection is refused” respectively. Translators can choose whether to transliterate these names or render their meaning. Contemporary English Version, which often translates names, does not do so here. Most commentators believe that there are wordplays on these unusual names. For the Hebrew word rendered kings (melek), see the comments on verse 1.7. There may be some irony here since Gideon had told the Ephraimites that they had accomplished a great deed by killing “the princes of Midian” (verse 8.2-3). Obviously complete victory has not yet been achieved, since the two top leaders, the kings of Midian, are still loose in the territory. Many languages may prefer to change the word order in this clause by saying “I am still trying to capture the [last] kings of Midian, Zebah and Zalmunna.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Having arrived in Succoth, Gideon said to the men of the town, “Please give my warriors some food. They are really tired, and I am still pursuing the Midianite kings, Zebah and Zalmunna.”

• When they arrived in the town of Succoth, Gideon said to the people there, “Please give my men and me some bread. They are completely exhausted, but I have to keep pursuing Zebah and Zalmunna, the Midianite kings.”

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 .