This book begins with the typical introductory expression in Hebrew, wayehi (literally “And it was”). Though many versions do not render it, some languages may have a natural equivalent to begin a new episode or story. We might say “It happened that….” New Jerusalem Bible begins with “Now.”

After the death of Joshua is a solemn way of beginning the story and sets this book in a given time period. A similar phrase referring to the death of Moses opens the book of Joshua. Joshua was the successor of Moses, the great leader who led Israel out of Egypt (Exo 12.41). He was responsible for getting the Israelites across the Jordan River into Canaan and supervising their occupation of that territory. Joshua’s death is recorded in verse 24.29, but is also mentioned as a point of reference twice in this book (here and in verse 2.8).

Possible models for this phrase are “After Joshua’s death” (Good News Translation), “After Joshua died,” “When Joshua died,” and even “Joshua’s having died.” These words assume the readers know who Joshua is. In some languages it may be more natural to begin this verse with “Now [it happened that] Joshua died. Following his death….”

Not all the material in this book is given in chronological order. Thus at verse 2.6 Joshua is referred to as though he is still alive, and then his death and burial are described in verse 2.8-9. This has led a few scholars to propose changing Joshua to “Moses” here. However, this suggestion has no textual support and should not be followed.

The people of Israel inquired of the LORD: The people of Israel is literally “the sons [or, children] of Israel,” an expression used throughout the Old Testament, and especially in the final sections of this book (verse 20.26; verse 21.5-6). Translators should try to be consistent in their rendering of this expression. From the beginning of this book, the narrator gives the impression that the people of Israel are unified and make up a single nation. However, as the stories in this book show, during this time period, this is not necessarily the case. The people of Israel are, in fact, a grouping of related tribes or clans. One of the major themes here is that there was no overall leader or king in Israel at this time in Israel’s history (see verse 18.1). Another Hebrew expression used in this book is literally “the people [ʿam] of Israel,” and it seems best to maintain a distinction between the two expressions. Thus translators could render the expression here literally “the sons/children of Israel” or refer to “the Israelites,” thus keeping distinct the expression with “people.”

The Hebrew word rendered inquired simply means “asked” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). The text does not say how the Israelites consulted God, though in other parts of Scripture (for example, Exo 28.30), priests determined God’s will by casting lots or by using objects called Urim and Thummim. In the last sections of this book (verse 20.18, 27), the narrator again refers to meetings or assemblies where the tribes of Israel gathered to inquire of the LORD. Some languages use a technical term, such as “consult” in such contexts. We might say “the Israelites consulted the LORD, asking.” In some languages it may be necessary to make explicit, especially early on in this book, that “the Israelites met [or, came together] to ask the LORD.”

The LORD translates the Hebrew word YHWH, which New Jerusalem Bible renders as “Yahweh.” This is the most common name used for God in the book of Judges. It occurs 172 times, while the generic Hebrew name for God, ʾelohim, occurs much less frequently.

Who shall go up first for us against the Canaanites…?: This is the first in a series of exchanges between Yahweh and the Israelites, rendered as direct speech in Hebrew. Translators will have to decide whether to translate these quotes as direct or indirect speech in their language. Punctuation should follow standard practices in the target language.

Who is an interrogative pronoun used for human beings. Here it refers to a tribe or group of people, so we could also say “Which tribe,” “Which clan,” or “Which of our tribes” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version).

Go up renders a key Hebrew verb (ʿalah) occurring throughout this book. Though its primary meaning refers to movement in an upward direction, in this book it has a variety of meanings, the most common being “attack” (Contemporary English Version) or “fight against.” Some languages may have a similar idiom that can be used here. The verb is marked as singular masculine in Hebrew, but refers to a group of people or a tribe. Thus Good News Translation says “Which of our tribes should be the first to go…?”

Go up first for us means to lead the rest of the Israelite tribes into battle, so we could rather say “lead us into battle” or “lead the invasion” ( NET Bible). For us refers to the Israelites as a group.

The Canaanites is a broad term for the various groups of people who lived in Canaan, sometimes referred to as “the inhabitants of the land” (verse 1.32-33). Their territory, located west of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea, seems to be named after Canaan, the fourth son of Ham (Gen 10.6). This territory, known today as “Palestine,” is at times linked to the Phoenicians (see verse 5.12 in the Septuagint). In Hebrew this word here is singular “the Canaanite,” but virtually all versions render it as a plural. For translation we can say “the people of Canaan” or “the inhabitants of Canaan.” Some languages will have special suffixes or idiomatic expressions that can be used, such as “the Canaan-people” or “the Canaan-children.”

To fight against them: This infinitive phrase describes the purpose of “going up.” Fight renders a common Hebrew verb (lacham) meaning “go to battle,” “make war,” or “attack.” Some versions prefer to use one verb to express go up … to fight, as in Contemporary English Version “attack.” But most versions prefer keeping two verbs: “to go … attack” (Good News Translation), “to march … to make war” (New Jerusalem Bible). Against them in Hebrew is literally “against him,” but most versions use a plural here.

Translation models for this verse are:

• Now, after Joshua died, the Israelites asked the LORD, “Who should lead us into battle against the Canaanites?”

• After Joshua’s death, the tribes of Israel came together and asked Yahweh, “Which tribe should lead the attack against the inhabitants of Canaan?”

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 LORD said: This clause begins with waw, the most common conjunction in Hebrew. Here, most English versions do not translate this word, though it is possible to say “And” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “Then.”

The Hebrew verb rendered said is a very general one, so some languages may prefer to say “replied” or “answered” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). However, the text does not say how the Israelites discovered what the LORD said. This clause introduces a direct quote, but if indirect speech is required, we could say “The LORD told Judah to….” Translators should be especially careful when dealing with quotes from the LORD to ensure that they communicate the content precisely and preserve the emphasis of the original.

Judah shall go up indicates what the divine decision was. Judah refers here to the tribe descended from Judah, one of the sons of Jacob (Gen 29.35). Since this is a context of war, the meaning is even more restricted, referring to the men who were capable of fighting, the warriors of the tribe of Judah. It is not surprising that Judah is picked as a leader. In the book of Genesis Judah’s father, Jacob, already “prophesied” this about his son (Gen 49.8, 10):

Judah, your brothers shall praise you;
your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies …
The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet….

Shall go up translates a Hebrew verb form that could be rendered as a future, but in many languages another verb form will be needed, for example, “should go” or “is to go” (New International Version). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “Let [the tribe of] Judah go up,” which may not be forceful enough. Contemporary English Version reduces the clause, with the LORD responding simply, “Judah!” which may be appropriate in some languages. However, in others a more explicit answer will be needed, for example, “The men from Judah are to go into battle first” or “The tribe of Judah should be the first to wage war against Canaan.”

Behold, I have given the land into his hand: This is the LORD’s promise as he tells the soldiers of Judah to go to battle. Behold renders the Hebrew introductory word hinneh, which is often used to express emphasis or emotions such as joy or surprise. Here it introduces the news that God will give victory to the tribe of Judah. Many languages will have particles or words to express such a notion. Some versions omit this word (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New International Version), but if possible, it should be included. Some languages use a word such as “Look!” or “Listen!” NET Bible says “Be sure of this!” which may be too explicit, but it does convey the strong emotion here.

I is the LORD referring to himself. He is the one who is responsible for the outcome of the battle the people of Judah are about to wage.

The Hebrew perfect verb form rendered have given indicates a completed action. Thus this verb phrase could refer back to the time the LORD promised the ancestors of Israel that he would give them the land. However, this same verbal aspect can refer to an event that is sure to happen or is considered to have happened already. Many languages have a perfect aspect that is used in a similar way to Hebrew. However, if this is not the case, other solutions must be found. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “I now deliver the land into their hands.” Good News Translation is quite effective with a present progressive form, “I am giving them control of the land.” Contemporary English Version makes it explicit that God will help them in the future: “I’ll help them take the land.” However, this gives a slightly different meaning from the original text. Along with expressing the idea that God is handing over the authority for the land to his people, it is good if this event can be viewed as accomplished or “as good as done.”

“Give … into someone’s hand” is a very common Hebrew expression used throughout the book of Judges. In other contexts it means to give victory over an enemy army. But here, where the object is the land, it means God will give control of the land to the people of Judah or give them possession of it. We could also say “I will allow/help them conquer/take over the land.”

The land (Hebrew ha-ʾerets) is a very important key term in the books of Joshua and Judges, as well as throughout the rest of the Old Testament. This is the land God promised to Abraham (Gen 12.7) and to Moses (Exo 3.17). If necessary, translators can make explicit “the land that I have promised [to you, my people].” Land may be rendered with any natural equivalent, for example, “country” or “territory.” Translators should try to render this key term consistently throughout this book and the rest of the Old Testament.

This is the first time the keyword hand (yad in Hebrew) is used in this book. It occurs in many idiomatic expressions throughout these stories, and comes into special focus when the various judges or heroes win victories over the enemies of Israel. Here into his hand means “into his control” or “into his possession.” God’s message is that Judah will occupy the land. It will be “under Judah’s control.” In many African languages a similar expression using “hand” in its singular or plural form exists and can be used here. If not, another idiomatic expression can be substituted. The pronoun his refers to the tribe of Judah, though most languages will use a plural: “into their control.”

Translation examples for this verse are:

• The LORD replied: “Judah should go [first]. I have given the land into their control [or, into their hands].”

• The LORD said that the tribe of Judah should lead the battle. He had already given them authority to take the land.

The direct quote gives a much more powerful rendering than the indirect speech form. Translators will have to decide which speech style communicates the message most effectively in this context.

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 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 .

Then Judah went up: Then renders the Hebrew waw conjunction. “So” (New Jerusalem Bible) would also be appropriate in this context. The King James Version (King James Version) says “And” while some versions omit this word (Revised English Bible). Curiously, though Judah has joined together with Simeon and Simeon is historically the older brother, Judah alone is mentioned here. This goes counter Jewish culture and many cultures worldwide. But this is in keeping with the story line both at the beginning and end of this book, which puts the emphasis on the tribe of Judah. Contemporary English Version adds the word “Together,” but it is probably better to keep the focus of the Hebrew here.

For went up, see comments on verse 1.1, where the same Hebrew verb is rendered “go up,” with the meaning “attack.”

And the LORD gave the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand: The LORD does exactly as he has promised and the Israelites are victorious. The waw conjunction rendered and signals the next event in the time line, even if the actor changes. In some languages a different verb than gave may be needed. In verse 1.2 the LORD gave “the land into his hand.” Here he is delivering Israel’s enemies into their hand. Though Judah is singular, the pronoun used here is the plural their, which could refer to Judah alone or to the combined tribes of Judah and Simeon. We could use plural pronouns throughout and still retain some emphasis on Judah by beginning this verse with “Then they went to battle, and the LORD gave Judah the victory over….”

For the Canaanites, see verse 1.1. The Perizzites are a small group that is part of the larger Canaanite group. They lived alongside the Canaanites at the time of Abram and Lot (Gen 13.7). The LORD promised their land to the Israelites in Gen 15.18-21. The Hebrew root p-r-z seems to refer to someone living in the countryside or an unwalled village, so most scholars think they lived in the wooded regions in Ephraim. However, others think their name is a deformation of the word for “Philistines.” It is important to remember that in English the suffix “-ite” designates an inhabitant of a place, so when transliterating this name, it is better to say “people of Periz,” “Periz inhabitants,” or “Periz-children.” The “-ite” suffix should not be a part of the transliterated name.

And they defeated ten thousand of them at Bezek: The pronoun they refers to the two tribes of Judah and Simeon. The Hebrew verb rendered defeated (nakah) is literally “struck.” It is a key verb that also occurs in verse 1.5, 8, 10, 12, as well as throughout the rest of the book. This verb has many meanings in the Old Testament: “hit [on the cheek],” “hit with a slingshot,” or even “thrust through,” as with a fork. However, in this context it means “strike and kill.” Defeated may be too weak. New International Version says “struck down,” while New American Bible has “slew.” Translators should use a word that not only means “defeat” but implies that those defeated died.

The numeral ten thousand represents a huge number, probably a number that cannot be counted. In the book of Judges this number appears frequently (verse 3.29; verse 4.6, 10, 14; verse 7.3; verse 20.34), as one of many numbers that reoccur and seem to have some symbolic significance. Some Asian languages have parallel idioms in which 10,000 represents the highest number anyone can imagine. However, in many languages citing such a number might involve long, complicated expressions with very little significance. If so, translators may use an idiomatic expression, such as “so many they could not count,” “thousands and thousands,” or an appropriate ideophone. Instead of giving word equivalents, many versions use numerals (“10,000”), which are often much easier to read and understand. The Hebrew word for thousand has another meaning, referring to a military unit. Thus it is possible that this phrase refers rather to “ten military units” or “ten companies of soldiers.” However, it seems in this context that the focus is on the vast number of the enemy soldiers who were killed, and most versions maintain the figure here. Ten thousand of them is literally “ten thousand men” (Good News Translation), which probably refers to fighting men or soldiers. Contemporary English Version says “an army of ten thousand.”

The location of the city of Bezek is uncertain. In verse 1 Sam 11.8 Saul leads the people to battle at Bezek, but it is not certain that these two cities are the same. If necessary, Bezek can be identified as a place name by saying “the town of Bezek.”

Some translation models for this verse are:

• So Judah went into battle against the Canaanites and Perizzites and Yahweh gave Judah the victory over them. They defeated ten thousand of their enemies at a place called Bezek.

• Then Judah attacked the people living in Canaan and Periz. The LORD helped Judah strike down 10,000 men at the town of Bezek.

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 .

They came upon Adoni-bezek at Bezek: The narrator now focuses on one individual, Adoni-bezek, who represents the combined forces of the Canaanites and Perizzites. The previous verse seems to give a summary of what happened, while this one focuses on some details of that fight. Thus instead of rendering the Hebrew waw conjunction at the beginning of this verse as a sequential “Then,” we might say “At that time.”

The pronoun They may refer to the warriors of both Judah and Simeon, but the last reference in the text is to Judah. While some versions translate in a way that refers to both tribes (see Good News Translation), the last full referent is Judah (verse 1.4). The Hebrew verb rendered came upon is literally “found,” which New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh translates as “encountered.” The text does not say whether this was a chance discovery or the result of a search. Contemporary English Version proposes “Judah’s army found out where the king of Bezek was.” If a more specific verb cannot be found, we might say “They saw….”

Adoni-bezek means literally “lord of Bezek,” so it is clear that he is the leader of the group of people living in the area where the battle took place. The Hebrew word for “lord” (ʾadoni) is the same word, though not the same form, used to refer to God as “Lord.” Adoni-bezek is obviously a compound word, and it is hard to know if this is his personal name, as Revised Standard Version seems to imply, or whether it is his title, “lord of Bezek.” While at least one French version (La Bible de Jérusalem [Bible de Jérusalem]) proposes a slight variant (“Adoni-zedek”), most versions retain Adoni-bezek, which Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives an {A} rating. Contemporary English Version calls this person the “king of Bezek” here. The repetitive Adoni-bezek at Bezek may convey irony or mockery of this king. Some versions have chosen to avoid the repetition by linking this verse back to the previous one, beginning with “In that city they came upon….”

And fought against him: Fought renders the same Hebrew verb translated “fight” in verse 1.1, appearing so frequently in this book (verse 1.1, 3, 8, 9; verse 5.19; and so on). The pronoun him refers to the leader of Bezek. When the text says that the men of Judah fought against him, it obviously means they fought against the king and his armies, as the next clause makes clear. Combining the first two clauses, we might say “They saw Adoni-bezek and attacked him.”

And defeated the Canaanites and Perizzites: This information has already been given in the previous verse. If repetition is not appreciated in the target language, 1.4-5 can be combined, as in Contemporary English Version.

Some translation models for this verse are:

• In that city they found the king of Bezek and fought against him and his men, defeating the people of Canaan and Periz.

• At Bezek they came across Adoni-bezek and fought against him and defeated the Canaanites and Perizzites there.

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 .

Adoni-bezek fled: The Hebrew text here begins with a waw conjunction omitted in Revised Standard Version, but there are several possible renderings for it depending on the way the clauses are combined. It is possible to say “The soldiers of Judah fought against Adoni-bezek, but he fled.” However, some may want to omit the conjunction here and use a contrastive conjunction “but” later in the verse (“Adoni-bezek fled but they pursued him”). Many versions choose to omit the initial waw.

Here the name Adoni-bezek refers to the leader himself, rather than to him and his army. Instead of staying with his troops and dying, he fled or simply “ran away.” The repetition of this name may be the narrator’s way of mocking the leader’s cowardice. This is the first, but not the last time, an enemy of Israel flees (see verse 4.15; verse 7.21; verse 8.12). Because the Israelites eventually caught him, Contemporary English Version says “The king tried to escape.”

But they pursued him, and caught him: But renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which expresses a counter-expectation here. By fleeing, the king hoped to escape, but the Israelite soldiers captured him. They pursued him is literally “they followed after him.” Several versions say “they chased him” (Good News Translation, New International Version). Caught renders an unusual Hebrew verb, used in other contexts to refer to grabbing onto something, such as the branches of a tree. Most versions simply say “caught,” but New Jerusalem Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh use “captured.” In some languages a word such as “grabbed” might be the best equivalent. In light of what follows, they evidently grabbed him and held him down.

And cut off his thumbs and his great toes: Once the soldiers of Judah had captured the king of Bezek, they cut off his thumbs and big toes. This action of hacking off these body parts is not only a cruel and painful punishment, it is also a sign that the king is now their subject. Without thumbs it would have been impossible for him to hold a weapon or any other tool, and without big toes, it would be difficult for him to walk and impossible to run. Thumbs will be easy to render in most languages. Great toes refers to what are commonly known in English as “big toes.” Interestingly, in Hebrew the words for thumbs and great toes are the same. Thus his thumbs and his great toes is literally “thumbs of his hands and his feet.” Translators should look for a natural way of expressing these ideas in their language.

Good News Translation renders this verse as “He ran away, but they chased him, caught him, and cut off his thumbs and big toes.” This way of chaining the clauses is similar to the Hebrew and expresses well the excitement of the pursuit and quickness of the action.

We can translate this verse as follows:

• The king of Bezek fled, but the warriors of Judah chased him, caught him and held him down. Then they cut off his thumbs and his big toes.

• Adoni-bezek tried to escape but was caught. And then, the soldiers of Judah cut off his thumbs and big toes.

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 .

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 .