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 .

Israel’s failure to obey leads the LORD to make three further pronouncements. First, the LORD will not help the Israelites drive out the local people. Second, there will be increased conflict between the Canaanites and themselves, and third, they will “fall into the trap” of the Canaanites’ religion.

So now I say (literally “And also I say”) introduces God’s stern warning. Many languages have similar emphatic expressions to introduce an important statement, for example, repetitive expressions such as “I say that, I say.” Another possibility would be to replace the general verb say with a verb such as “warn,” for example, “So now I warn you that these are the consequences.” The Hebrew verb here is perfect, which might refer to a past action still relevant in the present. At least one version opts for this: “At that time I also warned you” ( NET Bible). But most see a present: “Now therefore I tell you” (New International Version). Some also take this verb as expressing a kind of solemn decision: “Therefore, I have resolved” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). This is another possibility.

I will not drive them out before you: The LORD had promised to help his people capture the land and he carried out his promise on several occasions (verse 1.4, 19). The people of Israel were then supposed to drive out the inhabitants, but on numerous occasions they failed to do so (verse 1.19, 27, 29). Because of this, the LORD declares that he will take away his support from Israel. For not drive … out, see verse 1.19 even though the Hebrew verb is different here. This verb occurs less frequently and seems to express the idea of dispossession more powerfully. It is used also in verse 6.9. Revised Standard Version; verse 9.41; verse 11.2, 7. The pronoun them refers to the Canaanite inhabitants. Before you (literally “from your faces”) gives a picture of Yahweh going before the Israelites and driving the Canaanites out as the Israelites advanced. Good News Translation expresses this idea with “as you advance.” But in some languages it might be easier to say “I won’t remove the Canaanites for you” or “I’ll stop helping you defeat your enemies” (Contemporary English Version).

But they shall become adversaries to you expresses the nature of the relationship that will develop between the original inhabitants, the Canaanites, and the invaders, the Israelites. But renders the Hebrew waw conjunction. There is a sense in which it introduces an alternative situation, but a contrastive conjunction seems out of place here. Some languages may say “and” or prefer to omit the conjunction. As adversaries the Canaanites will become “hostile to” or “enemies of” the Israelites. The word for adversaries does not appear in Hebrew. Rather, there is the Hebrew term tsiddim that usually means “sides.” Some commentators believe a word may have dropped out of the original text or is implied, suggesting a reading like “thorns in your sides” (New International Version). Others think the word means “snare,” based on parallelism with the next clause, and read the two clauses as “and they will turn into a snare for you, and their gods will become like a trap for you.” However, with a small change, the text can also be read as tsarim, which is the Hebrew word for “enemies/adversaries.” This change requires only a tiny adjustment of d to r, two letters that are almost identical in Hebrew, and some ancient translations reflect this reading. Many modern translations opt also for this reading, speaking of “enemies,” “oppressors,” or “adversaries.” If this reading is adopted, a footnote can be added, as in New Revised Standard Version, to inform readers that this is an emended text and that the Masoretic Text has a word meaning “sides.”

And their gods shall be a snare to you: Yahweh’s concern is that, by associating with the Canaanites, the people of Israel will be drawn away from their covenant with him to serve the local gods. The commandments given to Moses at Sinai were clear. The Israelites were to worship only Yahweh, the LORD God, and reject all other forms of worship (Exo 20.2-3). This clause describes what will happen when the LORD withdraws his support and the people are left living together with those they have supposedly conquered.

Their gods refers to the various gods that the Canaanites acknowledged and worshiped. The Hebrew word rendered gods (ʾelohim) is often one of the most difficult terms to translate in the Old Testament. In Hebrew the plural form ʾelohim is the same word used to refer to the unique God, Yahweh. But this word is ambiguous, since the plural form can refer to the one and only God of Israel or to the gods worshiped by the other nations. In English and other languages, there is a convention that when the word refers to the unique God, a capital letter is used, but when it refers to multiple deities, a small letter is used (“gods”). Some translations adopt this solution. Others try to take the word for God in their language and make it plural to render gods here, but this is most often not a good solution. It is better to find a different word or expression, for example, “worship-things,” “idols,” or even “fetishes.” Some languages may have a word for “religion” as an abstract concept, which might fit the context here. Nevertheless, translators will need to find a word for gods not just for this book, but for all the texts in the Old Testament.

A snare is a trap for catching animals and birds. A small bit of food or a “lure” is placed in the trap to attract their attention. The animal is drawn to the trap and eventually captured, leading to the death of the animal. Here the word snare is being used as a figure of speech, meaning that Canaanite gods or their religion could lure or pull the Israelites away from the worship of God toward other religious practices. If possible, translators should maintain the figure of speech, for example, the whole clause may be rendered “and they will trap you and lead you into worshiping their idols [or, gods].” Good News Translation takes this approach by saying “and you will be trapped by the worship of their gods.” If the imagery of a trap is not acceptable or not easily understood, we might say “and they will tempt you to follow their own gods.”

These words pronounced by the LORD are very strong and almost poetic. Translators may also want to use an emphatic or special kind of speech form to render the LORD’s message here. Translation suggestions for this pronouncement are:

• I will not drive out the Canaanites for you. They will become your enemies, and tempt you to follow their own gods.”

• I will no longer help you rid your land of the Canaanites. Instead, they will become hostile to you and their idols will trap you [and lure you away from me].”

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 .

But when the people of Israel cried to the LORD: See the comments on verse 3.9 for this expression. Since there is a change in time and participants, most versions begin a new paragraph here.

The LORD raised up for them a deliverer: For this crucial step in the judges’ stories, see the comments on verse 3.9. Translators should pay special attention to the keywords raised up and deliverer.

Ehud, the son of Gera, the Benjaminite, a left-handed man: The second judge, Ehud, is introduced in the typical Hebrew way as the son of Gera, that is, through the name of his father. Gera is listed as one of the ten sons of Benjamin (Gen 46.21). The Benjaminite designates a person from the tribe of Benjamin (see verse 1.21). In Hebrew the Benjaminite could be describing Gera, rather than Ehud. But since this is a family line, the Benjaminite refers to both of these men. New International Version has the Benjaminite modifying Gera by saying “Ehud, a left-handed man, the son of Gera the Benjaminite,” while New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “the Benjaminite Ehud son of Gera, a left-handed man.” It may be easier to follow Good News Translation, which has “Ehud, a left-handed man, who was the son of Gera, from the tribe of Benjamin.” The name “Benjamin” itself means “son of the right [hand],” a meaning that will immediately be significant here.

A left-handed man refers to Ehud. Immediately the play on words becomes clear: a “son of the right [hand]” is left-handed. The phrase left-handed expresses a Hebrew idiom that means “bound/restricted in his right hand.” Some think that Ehud may have actually been physically handicapped, but most see this idiom as a way of stating he was left-handed. Once again, the word “hand” plays an important role in the narrative.

In many cultures left-handed people are subject to mockery, since the left hand is often considered impure or unclean. Care is taken never to greet, wave, or offer an object with the left hand. In some parts of Africa this taboo is so strong that people will even wound a child’s hand in order to “correct” a left-handed child. However, in biblical times and in some cultures still today, left-handedness can convey the idea of dexterity, since many left-handed people are ambidextrous, and can use both hands equally well. These persons are often known for their skills in certain tasks such as warfare. Unfortunately the text does not give an idea of what is meant specifically here. There could be an element of satire as an “unclean” king is killed by an “unclean” hand. There could be mockery as well, as a fat and powerful king is killed by a man with a physical impediment. On the other hand, Ehud’s left-handedness may put emphasis on his dexterity and cleverness in defeating this foreign king. The expression left-handed is part of an inclusio binding together the beginning and end sections of this book (verse 20.16). For left-handed translators should use idiomatic expressions in their language.

The people of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab: Because Eglon had power over the Israelites, they had to pay him a tribute or a tax. In Old Testament times defeated peoples often had to pay gold, silver, or crops to the foreign overlord. A Hebrew waw conjunction introduces this sentence, but most versions omit it, as in Revised Standard Version. Sent renders the key Hebrew verb shalach, which is often used in connection to Israel’s interaction with the enemy (verse 9.31; verse 11.17). However, many languages will need to use another verb describing the giving of tribute. Possible renderings are “paid,” “put forth,” and even “poured.”

Tribute renders a general word in Hebrew for “offering,” but in this context it has no religious significance. Probably the Israelites were obliged to pay large sums of money or goods to King Eglon. Later in the story it becomes clear that many men carried this tribute, so it could have involved more than just money. While translators might refer to “gifts” (Good News Translation), a word such as “taxes” (Contemporary English Version) may communicate well in this context. However, it is possible that behind the word choice there is again irony, since the “gift” Eglon will receive is not what he is demanding.

By him is literally “by his hand,” referring to Ehud. Ehud carried the gift.

The king of Moab may seem an unnecessary addition in many languages, since Eglon has already been identified, but as noted above, Hebrew prefers this kind of repetition, especially when the narrator wants to mock the person.

These extensive literary features point to the oral origins of this story. While the judges’ stories are meant to teach elements of Israel’s history, they are also meant to entertain. Translators will have to determine how to treat these oral features, by deciding, for example, how much repetition can be kept in the translation. Many of the plays on words will not be picked up by modern-day readers, so some may be explained in footnotes. However, it might also be possible to convey some of these features in the translation itself. For example, this verse may be rendered:

• Once again, the Israelites called to the LORD for help, and he sent them a deliverer, Ehud, the son of Gera. Ehud was left-handed, coming from the Benjaminites, the right-handed ones! The Israelites sent him to pay taxes to Eglon, the king of Moab.

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 raises some interesting questions. It would appear that Jael knows Sisera, since she addresses him as my lord. Her warm welcome is explained by the fact that there are friendly relations between her husband Heber’s family and the king of the region (verse 4.17). This family probably asked permission before settling in the land. Some commentators wonder about the openness of this man-woman encounter, especially when it is clear that Jael is a married woman. There may be a parallel to Rahab, a prostitute who opened her home to the Israelite spies and saved their lives (verse 2.1-21), in which case some irony or satire may be intended.

And Jael came out to meet Sisera: And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which many versions leave untranslated. The Hebrew verb rendered came out (yatsaʾ) expresses here the idea of going out to welcome a person to one’s home. However, besides this common meaning, this verb is also used in several other contexts. It can have a military meaning, as in verse 4.14, when Deborah says, “Does not the LORD go out before you?” But it is also often associated with sad events, as when Jephthah makes his vow, saying, “whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me…” (verse 11.31). Later in the book the verb plays an important role when the evil men of Gibeah try to get the Levite to come out, so that they can have sex with him (verse 19.22). Despite these links and possible connotations, translators can only render the text as it stands, for example, “Jael went out to welcome Sisera” or “Jael came out to greet Sisera” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

And said to him: Here Jael addresses Sisera. Jael seems to have already conceived her plan.

Turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me: This repetition stresses the warmth of Jael’s welcome. There is another remarkable play on words here, since the Hebrew root for Turn aside (sur) sounds like the name Sisera. Some even suggest that the name Sisera means “the one who turns aside.” This root is repeated three times in a very short space: “she says to s-r, s-r, my lord, s-r to me.” The s sound is also often associated with mockery in the Old Testament (see Eccl 7.6), so this series of s here probably does play that role. Furthermore, the Hebrew verb for Turn aside is often used in this book in connection with intrigue and impending danger, as when Samson turns aside to see the lion carcass (verse 14.8), leading him to break his Nazirite vow. Later in the final chapters, the Levite and his concubine decide not to turn aside to go into the city of Jebusites (verse 19.12), but meet a terrible fate in another city. However, Turn aside is not very natural English, so most versions say “Come in.”

Jael is using a common title of respect when she addresses Sisera as my lord. It may mean she knows him and she may even know what rank he holds as the head of Jabin’s army. Both Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version say “sir.” Some languages may say “chief” or “boss,” while others may actually use a term similar to my lord. The Hebrew word for lord (ʾadon) links back to two other episodes, where lords or men of high status are defeated. Early on in the book, Adoni-Bezek (“lord of Bezek”) is captured and disfigured (verse 1.6), while the Moabite king’s servants discover “their lord dead on the floor” (verse 3.25). Some languages may prefer to put this vocative first in the clause by saying “My lord, please come in….”

The Hebrew expression rendered to me can also mean “with me.” Once again, the woman’s acts and language seem somewhat ambiguous. Some even see the repetitive “Come in, my lord, come in to me” as some kind of sexual enticement. However, most versions describe this scene as a woman politely receiving a guest. We could say “Sir, come into my tent [or, home]. Please come in.”

Have no fear (literally “do not fear”) is a standard address form used by God when speaking to the patriarchs (Gen 15.1; verse 26.24; verse 46.3). It is also found in the deuteronomic material (for example, Deut 1.21; verse 3.2; verse 8.1; verse 10.8) and in Isaiah (for example, verse 41.10, 13; verse 43.1, 5) in contexts in which people are assured of God’s help. It seems quite surprising for a woman to tell an army general to not be afraid! Certainly this clause is meant to make the audience laugh at the ironic situation. Translators can use a natural equivalent in their language, such as “Don’t be afraid.”

So he turned aside to her into the tent: Here the narrative “mirrors” the dialogue as Sisera turned aside. This verb is repeated here for the third time, emphasizing the fact that Sisera is indeed falling into Jael’s trap. The expression to her is also a repetition. If possible, the same wording should be used here as above, since this will show Sisera is doing exactly as Jael says. If this is not possible, we can simply say “So he went into the tent with her.”

And she covered him with a rug: Jael seems to immediately understand that Sisera is on the run and needs a place to hide. The storyteller seems to leave out a number of steps in this description, since Sisera would need to find a place to hide and lie down before she could cover him. The Hebrew word rendered rug is also difficult, since this is the only time the word occurs in the Old Testament. There were carpets or rugs on the floor of most tents, so it is probable that this is the correct rendering. However, Contemporary English Version and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh think she covered him with a “blanket.” Good News Translation‘s “she hid him behind a curtain” cannot be correct, and should not be followed. Certainly Sisera is lying down; otherwise, she would be unable to kill him in the way described here. The Hebrew verb rendered covered, which appears again in the next verse, is the same one used when Tamar enticed her father-in-law, Judah (Gen 38.15). But what seems in focus here is actually hiding Sisera, as Rahab hid the Israelite spies (verse 2.4). So we might say “she hid him under a cover.”

Translation examples for this verse are:

• Jael welcomed Sisera, and said to him, “Come in, sir; come into my tent. Don’t be afraid.” So he went in, laid down, and she covered him under a rug.

• Jael went out to greet Sisera. She said, “My lord, please come in, please come in! Don’t be afraid.” So Sisera went in and laid down, and she hid him with a cover.

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 .

Though Jael is never overtly named in this verse, she remains the subject of all the actions here. In many languages at the climax of a story, key characters are often referred to by pronouns. The clauses build one by one as Jael executes her plan, moving slowly to the climax: the assassination of General Sisera. First two slow and careful actions are described as Jael takes the tent peg in one hand and the hammer in the other. Now suddenly she attacks. Four verbs are used to describe what happens next: she strikes Sisera, crushes his head, and shatters and pierces the side of his head. There seems to be one step missing between 5.25 and 5.26, since the poet does not say Sisera is asleep. Once again, in poetry these details are not important, because people already know the story behind the song.

She put her hand to the tent peg is literally “Her hand to the tent peg they reached out.” It seems that even though hand is singular, the Hebrew verb here is meant to serve for both hands. The keyword hand is once again brought to the forefront, this time at the climax. It ties Jael to many other deliverers. The Hebrew verb rendered put (shalach) often has the sense of “send.” It is another keyword that appears at several high points in this book (see, for example, verse 3.15; verse 4.6). Her hand can only be her left hand, since Jael uses her right hand for the next action. Translators can render the text as is or say “her left hand” (New American Bible). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh also includes the detail of which hand in square brackets. However, if it is necessary to include this detail in the text, then it is better to do so without any marking. Good News Translation takes a more dynamic approach by rendering the first two lines of this verse as “She took a tent peg in one hand, a worker’s hammer in the other.” If possible, translators should use an appropriate expression that includes the word hand, for example, “She took/grabbed/seized the tent peg in her left hand.” For tent peg, see verse 4.21.

And her right hand to the workmen’s mallet is parallel to the previous line, but the verb phrase She put is elided. In many languages this verb phrase will need to be inserted: “[and] she took the hammer in her right hand.” Her right hand seems to put emphasis on the fact that she uses her right, rather than her left hand. This contrasts with Ehud who used his left hand to carry out the fatal blow. Most languages will have idiomatic expressions for designating the left and right hands.

The workmen’s mallet refers to a wooden hammer used to drive the tent peg into the ground. The use of the Hebrew word for workmen may be part of a wordplay involving repetitive sounds. In Hebrew the words for workmen (ʿamelim), mallet (halmuth) and she struck … a blow (halemah) have many l, m, and h sounds. Revised Standard Version preserves the plural workmen, but the singular “workman” (Revised English Bible, New American Bible) can also be used. Good News Translation uses the word “worker.” Contemporary English Version omits this word, but it is significant, since it shows that Jael, with no military training and no formal weapon, kills the enemy of Israel with a simple household tool. Mallet does not render the same Hebrew noun translated “hammer” in verse 4.21. Here the noun is taken from the Hebrew root of the verb for struck … a blow that occurs in the next line, providing yet another play on words. Revised Standard Version has tried to preserve the difference by using two different words in English, but the same word “hammer” can be used in both passages if need be (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). The exact size of this hammer is not known.

She struck Sisera a blow is literally “and she struck Sisera.” The brevity here is typical of a story climax. As noted above, the Hebrew verb rendered struck … a blow is from the same root as the noun for mallet. It is also the same verb used to describe the pounding of the horses’ hoofs in verse 5.22. This is poetic genius at work, using words for dramatic effect, to describe the climax of the story: Sisera’s death. The sounds in the text help the reader hear the horses galloping away and the pounding of Jael’s hammer. Translators may perhaps be able to express these wordplays by using repetition or various sound effects in their own languages, such as ideophones.

She crushed his head follows the Hebrew quite closely. The Hebrew word rendered she crushed (machaqah) uses many of the sounds found in the preceding words. Translators must be careful to not give the impression that she took the hammer and smashed his head. Rather, it is the tent peg going through his temple that kills him.

She shattered and pierced his temple: There is another wordplay here since the Hebrew word rendered she shattered (machatsah) sounds like the word for she crushed (machaqah). Pierced may be rendered “passed through.” The tent peg evidently went into the side of Sisera’s head. For temple see verse 4.21. New Jerusalem Bible reverses the verbs in this line, saying “she pierced his temple and shattered it.” Revised English Bible creates more drama: “with a shattering blow, she pierced his temple.”

The quick succession of four verbs in the last three lines of this verse describes a swift but significant act. However, if necessary, the number of verbs may be reduced, for example, “She drove the peg deep in his skull and pierced his head.” Contemporary English Version says “And with a blow to the head, she crushed his skull.”

As in many parts of the book of Judges, the Hebrew style used here is intended to create suspense. Once again the storyteller delights the audience with “the gory details” of the death of an enemy of the Israelites. Translators should try to maintain the dramatic effect here.

A translation model for this verse is:

• Jael took a tent peg in one hand
and a simple hammer in the other.
Striking Sisera, she split his skull.
With a shattering blow,
she pierced his temple.

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 the men of the town said to Joash: Then is a good rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction here. For the men of the town, see verse 6.27. Here the leaders of the town may be in focus. The use of the full noun phrase the men of the town may show that a new stage in the action is beginning. Now that the culprit has been identified, they go into action. Not surprisingly, they address Joash, holding him responsible both for Baal’s altar (verse 6.25) and for the act of his son Gideon (verse 6.11).

Bring out your son means that Joash should hand over his son. As his father, he is responsible for what Gideon has done. Bring out renders the causative form of the Hebrew verb meaning “come out” (yatsaʾ), which is a keyword in this book, especially in the latter chapters (see comments on verse 1.24). Though it sounds like Gideon might be hiding in the house, this is not certain. Translators can use more general expressions, such as “Give us your son” and “Hand over your son” (similarly Contemporary English Version).

That he may die is literally “and may he die.” The Hebrew verb form here is a subjunctive or jussive, which expresses a wish: “he should die” or “let him die!” The people of the town want to personally kill Gideon or see him put to death. In their way of thinking, Gideon has offended the gods and therefore would be bringing harm on their town. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered that may be translated “so that” (Good News Translation) to clearly express purpose. Die does not imply here that Gideon will die of natural causes, but rather that he will be put to death. Contemporary English Version provides a good model for this clause and the previous one by saying “Hand him over, so we can kill him!” Another possibility is “Hand him over. He deserves to die.”

For he has pulled down the altar of Baal and cut down the Asherah beside it: See the comments on verse 6.25. This clause begins with the conjunction for (ki in Hebrew) and tells why Gideon should die. There are many ways to present this information. Some introduce the clause with “because,” while others omit the conjunction (Good News Translation). In many languages the logical link between the clauses is obvious. Contemporary English Version expresses this logical connection by inverting this and the preceding clause: “Your son Gideon knocked over Baal’s altar and cut down the sacred pole next to it. Hand him over, so we can kill him!” This will serve as a good model in many languages. Pulled down renders the same Hebrew verb translated “broken down” in verse 6.28 (see comments there). Though Baal is often thought of as the most important Canaanite god, the townspeople here seem equally concerned that the goddess Asherah has been offended. This shows the importance of preserving the name Asherah in the translation.

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 .

Gideon tries to calm the Ephraimites by reasoning with them and using a proverb that might convince them of his viewpoint.

And he said to them: Gideon responds to the Ephraimites’ question with two rhetorical questions of his own to appease their anger. The verb said may be rendered “answered” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version) or “replied” (Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible).

What have I done now in comparison with you?: As with the Ephraimites’ questions, Gideon’s first question is more general than the second one. This first one is literally “What have I done now like you?” Here Gideon tries to assure the Ephraimites that they have played an important role, doing more than he has in the war. The pronoun I refers to Gideon as leader, and by extension to him and his troops. The verb done may be rendered “accomplished” (New International Version, Revised English Bible) or “achieved” (New Jerusalem Bible). The pronoun you refers to the Ephraimites as a group, so in some languages it may be helpful to say “you Ephraimites” or “you people of Ephraim.” For this whole question New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “After all, what have I accomplished compared to you?” Some languages may say “Comparing you and me, what did I do?” Instead of using a question, translators can use a strong statement. For example, Contemporary English Version says “Even though you came later, you were able to do much more than I did.” Other possible models are “Nothing I have done surpasses what you have done” and “What you did was far more significant than what I did!”

Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abi-ezer?: Gideon’s second rhetorical question resembles a proverb. Using figurative language, Gideon compares his and the Ephraimites’ role in the war. The gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim is imagery for the capturing and killing of the two Midianite commanders by the Ephraimites (verse 7.25), while the vintage of Abi-ezer is imagery for Gideon’s defeat of the Midianites (verse 7.22), since he came from the clan of Abiezer (verse 6.11).

Gleaning refers to a common practice in Israel, in which poor people were allowed to go through the fields after the harvest and pick up what was left behind. Here Gideon refers to the harvest of grapes, small sweet fruits that are squeezed to make wine and dried to make raisins. The vintage refers to the grape harvest in general. Translators can try to preserve this figurative speech, for example, “Aren’t the grapes you picked up after the harvest better than the whole crop I harvested?” In some languages it will be better to render the question as a strong statement, for example, “What you Ephraimites picked up after the harvest is better than the crop I was able to harvest!” Is … better than may be rendered “surpasses,” “is more significant than,” or “is worth more than.” This statement expresses some humor since gleaning represents far fewer grapes than an entire harvest. Here Gideon is clearly trying to flatter the Ephraimites. Some versions choose to remove the imagery. For example, Good News Translation says “Even the little that you people of Ephraim did is worth more than what my whole clan has done.” While Good News Translation‘s rendering is acceptable, we do not recommend it since Gideon explains his images in what follows. It is better to try to render the text as it stands.

Translation models for this verse are:

• But Gideon replied, “Come on, what have I done compared to you? The fruits you Ephraimites picked up after the harvest are more important than my crop!

• And he said to the Ephraimites, “But what I have done is nothing compared to what you did! The little fruit you were able to glean is worth much more than my whole harvest.

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 .