This verse poses a problem because in verse 1.10, it is stated that Judah fought against the inhabitants of Hebron and defeated them. However, as noted earlier, in this particular biblical narrative, facts do not seem to be always presented in strict chronological order. There is a dense history behind this present verse, which serves as a summary of what happened. In verse 14.6-15 the LORD, through Moses, promises Caleb that the land of the Anakim will be his. In verse 15.13-14 Caleb is then given “a portion among the people of Judah, Kiriath-arba, that is, Hebron.” It is possible to see these events as two different steps, the oral “giving” or allotting of the land, and the actual physical possession, which involved driving out the inhabitants. Caleb is part of the line of Judah, and his name, whether appearing in battle or in reference to his inheritance, refers not only to him as an individual, but also to his descendants. According to this account in Judges, it would seem that Joshua had died before Caleb actually drove out the descendants of the three sons of Anak who lived in that place.

And Hebron was given to Caleb is literally “And they gave Hebron to Caleb.” Many languages will have a similar construction, known as an impersonal passive, using an impersonal pronoun and an active verb. We could follow Revised Standard Version or use the impersonal “they” or “one.” For Hebron see verse 1.10. With the mention of Caleb, once again the verb “give” is in focus, as in verse 1.12-15.

As Moses had said: This clause modifies the previous one. Moses had promised that Caleb would inherit this city. Many languages will prefer to reverse the order of the clauses and say “As Moses had said, they gave Hebron to Caleb.” The general verb said can be rendered “promised” or “ordered.” Revised Standard Version uses an anterior past tense, had said, to show that this action happened a long time before the events recounted. To make things more explicit, we might say “Moses had said, ‘Give Hebron to Caleb.’ ”

And he drove out from it the three sons of Anak: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and expresses a sequence or a result. We might say “Then” or “So” here. Though most versions use the singular pronoun he, it is ambiguous, referring either to Caleb or to his clan. For drove out, see verse 1.19. From it is literally “from there.” Translators can also say “from that city.” The names of the three sons of Anak appear in verse 1.10. These Anakim were said to be giants (see Num 13.33). The three sons of Anak in this context refers to the descendants of these three men. Good News Translation gives a good model: “the three clans descended from Anak.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• They gave the town of Hebron to the family of Caleb just as Moses had told them. And that clan drove out the descendants of the three sons of Anak.

• As Moses directed, Caleb was given Hebron, and he drove the three clans descended from Anak from that town.

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 is similar to verse 2.17, since it highlights the unfaithfulness of the Israelites. However, there is a subtle change here, in that the behavior of the fathers is not seen in such a positive light.

But whenever the judge died: In Hebrew this clause begins with the Hebrew expression wehayah (“And it would be”) followed by the temporal particle b- (“when”), which are rendered But whenever. Contemporary English Version says “But afterwards.” The initial waw can be seen as expressing a contrast, as in Revised Standard Version and Contemporary English Version. However in some languages the waw may be omitted as in NET Bible. The long form wehayah refers to a habitual action, well rendered by whenever. For judge see verse 2.16. Died renders the simple Hebrew verb for death. With the exception of Samson, no details are given concerning the deaths of the various heroes in Israel. Throughout the book, the narration gives the impression that they lived long lives and died natural deaths. Possible models for this clause are “But every time a leader died” and “But each time a deliverer died.” Some languages might say “[But] as soon as the [appointed] leader died.”

They turned back and behaved worse than their fathers: This clause shows the immediate reaction of the Israelites, once their leader dies. They fall back into their old ways and offend the LORD. This clause is surprising, since it gives another view of the behavior of the fathers (that is, the ancestors). In verse 2.17 they are seen as an example to be followed, but here their conduct is not characterized positively. The pronoun they refers to the Israelites and can be made explicit if need be. The Hebrew verb rendered turned back (shuv) has a variety of meanings throughout the Old Testament. It can refer to actually “turning around” or “returning” in a physical sense, as in returning from exile (for example, Isa 51.11). In certain contexts it has a more figurative use, referring to repenting and returning to the LORD (for example, Jer 3.22). Here, however, it has the opposite meaning, referring to the people “turning back” to their former behavior, that is, worshiping the gods of the Canaanites. Good News Translation expresses the idea well when it says the people “would return to the old ways.” Other possibilities are “started to do evil again” and “went back to their old evil ways,” though the word “evil” does not occur in Hebrew here.

And behaved worse than their fathers is literally “and they corrupted themselves more than their fathers.” In this book each successive generation is seen as worse than the one that preceded it. The Hebrew verb used here (shachat) may refer to a field that is “spoiled,” but in this context it is used figuratively to refer to “moral corruption.” Revised Standard Version‘s translation may not be strong enough. New International Version is closer to the Hebrew, saying “the people returned to ways even more corrupt than those of their fathers.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “they would again act basely, even more than the preceding generation,” while Contemporary English Version has “the Israelites would become even more sinful than their ancestors had been.” This description of Israel’s behavior is quite unique and emphasizes the downward spiral of sin and rebellion characterizing this period in Israel’s history. In some languages such comparisons can only be made with specific idiomatic expressions, for example, “their way of acting was bad, go past the way of those who put them in the world.” Translators need to ensure that these strong words of condemnation are expressed in a clear and forceful way.

Going after other gods, serving them and bowing down to them: Here in Hebrew there is a series of infinitival expressions that describe more specifically the Israelites’ going back to their old ways. This language is reminiscent of Deut 6.14. For going after other gods and bowing down to them, see verse 2.12. For serving them, see the comments on “served the Baals” at verse 2.11.

They did not drop any of their practices or their stubborn ways means the people refused to abandon any of their evil acts or behavior. The pronoun they refers to the present generation of Israelites, those who, once their hero or leader had died, returned to the old way of doing things. Drop is a very unusual use of the Hebrew verb here (nafal), which usually means “cause to fall” in its causative form. Here it means “abandon,” “let go of,” or “stop.” Though referring here to the Israelites, this verb will become a key term describing the defeat of their enemies throughout this book. Practices renders a Hebrew noun (maʿalal) coming from a root meaning “act [harshly].” It describes deeds, acts, or virtually any kind of activity, used with a negative connotation in contexts describing evil or sinful behavior. Here it refers to the false practices associated with Canaanite religious rites, and this idea can be made explicit. Possible translations are “bad behavior” and “bad actions.” Their practices is potentially ambiguous, possibly referring to the bad behavior of the ancestors. But following the phrase they did not drop, the possessive pronoun their refers more likely to the present generation. Stubborn ways is parallel to these evil deeds. Ways renders the plural of the Hebrew word for “road,” “way” or “path,” the same word that occurs in verse 2.17. Here the ways are qualified as stubborn, rendering a Hebrew adjective that means “harsh,” “hard,” or “severe.” It can be used to describe a difficult legal question, severe language, or even a fierce battle. Here it describes people who will not listen. They stubbornly follow their ancestors. This is well expressed by Contemporary English Version: “The Israelites were stubborn—they simply would not stop worshiping other gods.” The word stubborn can be expressed in a number of ways in different languages, often in relation to body parts, for example, “hard-headed,” “hard-necked,” and “stiff-necked.”

Translations possibilities for this verse include:

• But every time their leader died, the people turned back to their evil ways. They sinned more than their ancestors did and worshiped foreign gods. They refused to abandon any of their evil practices or their stubborn ways.

• After each leader died, the Israelites turned back and were more corrupt that their fathers were. They turned to strange gods, serving and bowing down to them. They stubbornly refused to give up their evil deeds and their stubborn way of life.

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 summary statement of the Israelite victory is expressed in repetitive and rhythmic language. The Hebrew word for “man” (ʾish) occurs three times and the word for “all” or “every” twice. This underlines the total defeat of the Moabite army.

And they killed at that time about ten thousand of the Moabites is literally “And they killed Moab at that time about ten thousand man.” The Hebrew waw conjunction at the beginning of this clause can be rendered And, “Now,” or “So.” The pronoun they refers to Ehud and his army. Killed (literally “struck”) renders the same Hebrew verb translated “defeated” in verse 1.4. At that time is a typical phrase in such a summary or concluding statement. Good News Translation‘s “That day” seems too restrictive. Contemporary English Version prefers a longer temporal phrase: “before the fighting was over.” However, in many languages an initial temporal phrase, such as “At that time” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version) or “On that occasion” (New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), will be more natural.

For the number ten thousand, see verse 1.4. This figure indicates an overwhelming victory. If the number ten thousand is complicated in the target language, other expressions can be used, such as “thousands upon thousands,” “a huge number,” and “so many they could not count.” Translators can also use the figure “10,000” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Revised Standard Version renders the singular “Moab” as a plural Moabites and presents a more natural word order in English. We might say “At that time Ehud and his men attacked the Moabite army, killing about ten thousand men.”

All strong, able-bodied men describes the Moabite soldiers. Similar phrases occur several times throughout this book, especially in the appendices (for example, verse 18.2, 26; verse 20.44, 46; verse 21.10). There is a reason for praising the strength of the enemy, since the stronger the enemy, the greater the Israelite victory! The Moabite army they defeated was not made up of weaklings but of strong and courageous men. All strong renders a literal “every [one] vigorous.” The Hebrew adjective for strong can also mean “fat,” “rich,” or even “fertile” (when describing land). Able-bodied men is literally “every [one] a man of might.” The Hebrew word for “might” can mean “strength” or “courage.” Revised Standard Version focuses on their physical condition, but their courage may be in view also. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh gives a wider rendering here: “they were all robust and brave men,” which is a good model. Good News Translation‘s “the best … soldiers” is perhaps not specific enough. Contemporary English Version reduces the whole description to “warriors,” which loses a great deal of the meaning and impact of this phrase.

Not a man escaped is literally “and not escaped a man.” This clause begins with the Hebrew waw conjunction, and might be rendered “And not a one escaped.” In Hebrew the word for man occurs at the end for emphasis. This may be hyperbole or exaggeration, but the point is that Israel’s victory was complete over this very powerful people. The Hebrew verb rendered escaped is the same one used to describe Ehud’s escape (verse 3.26), and it rounds out the inclusio here. There is strong language here, as Ehud was able to “pass over” and “escape,” but the Moabites are not allowed to do so. Translators should try to express this emphasis by saying “not one [Moabite] soldier survived,” “not a single one was left alive,” or “no one was allowed to escape.”

Some examples for translating this verse are:

• On that occasion the Israelites killed 10,000 of Moab’s soldiers, all of them strong and courageous. Not a man escaped alive.

• So at that time the Israelites killed countless Moabite soldiers, all of them strong and brave. Not one of them escaped.

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 is also well known for its difficulties, so translators will need to understand where the problems lie and what might be done about them.

When new gods were chosen can be directly linked to the accusations found in verse 2.11-13. Once the Israelites entered Canaan, they abandoned Yahweh and served the local gods. Despite this link, the meaning behind this line is not so clear. New gods renders an unusual Hebrew phrase, which is literally “gods new [ones].” The first word is the standard term for “god” (ʾelohim) that can be used for God himself or foreign gods. The context makes it clear that foreign gods are in view. New gods refers to the Canaanite gods, previously unknown to the Israelites. Contemporary English Version says “other gods,” which is a good model to follow. Were chosen renders an active Hebrew verb, which is literally “he chose.” The pronoun “he” probably refers to Israel, so Good News Translation renders this whole line as “when the Israelites chose new gods.” The verb implies adoration or worship, which Contemporary English Version makes clear by saying “The Israelites worshiped other gods.” Revised English Bible is less specific with “They chose new gods” (similarly New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Revised Standard Version‘s passive expression can be changed into an active one, for example, “The Israelites chose to follow new gods.”

Then war was in the gates: Then renders a Hebrew word (ʾaz) that implies a cause-result relationship between Israel’s worship of other gods and the attacks on its cities. Another possible connector is “so.” War expresses the majority reading of a difficult Hebrew text, which seems derived from the verb lacham (“fight”). verse 5.11 says the Israelites were at the gates of the Canaanite cities, attacking them. But here it is Canaanites or other foreigners who attacked Israel. In many languages it will not be possible to use the abstract noun war as an agent, so it may be necessary to use other wording, for example, “and the gates of their towns were then attacked” (Contemporary English Version) or “then fighters appeared in the city gates” ( NET Bible). The gates were the entrances of the Israelite cities or towns that had defensive walls. Often the word gates can refer to the cities and towns themselves or to the people living in them, so we might say “so there was fighting in the towns.” Good News Translation is similar with “Then there was war in the land.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh interprets the Hebrew as a question, saying “Was there a fighter then in the gates?” implying that there was none. This is a possible interpretation, but most translators will prefer to follow the majority interpretation here.

The French version Parole de Vie is particularly dynamic for the first half of this verse:

The Israelites chose [to follow] new gods,
and immediately, it was war.

Other possible models are:

• Israel chose new gods.
And it was then their towns came under attack.

• The Israelites chose to follow foreign gods,
and war broke out in the land.

Was shield or spear to be seen among forty thousand in Israel?: In Hebrew this clause appears as a concession statement, which is literally “If there was to be seen a shield or a spear among 40,000….” Some versions consider it to be a question (Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible), while others see it as a negative statement (Revised English Bible, New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). There is really little difference in meaning, since the question is rhetorical and assumes a negative response. The statement is an exaggeration, but means that the Israelites were basically unarmed. According to the following verse, some Israelite soldiers responded to the call to battle, so evidently there were a few weapons, though certainly not a substantial number. Translators can express this idea in a natural way here. New Jerusalem Bible gives a good model for a rhetorical question:

Was there one shield, one spear to be found
among the forty thousand men in Israel?

However, many languages will prefer a strong negative statement, as in Revised English Bible:

Not a shield was to be seen, not a lance
among forty thousand Israelites.

Shield or spear refers to two basic weapons used by professional soldiers at that time. A shield is a covering held up in front of a soldier meant to protect him from arrows or the blows of a sword. A spear is a long sharpened pole that can be thrust or thrown to kill a person. Most cultures in the world are familiar with “spears,” but not all will know “shields.” Translators should try to use common words, and avoid long descriptions in this poetic context.

The number forty occurs often in this book (see verse 3.11), as does the word thousand (see verse 1.4). Here the word thousand could refer to a military unit, but most translators prefer to speak of “forty thousand soldiers” or “40,000 men.” Forty thousand in Israel may be rendered “40,000 Israelite warriors.”

One model for this verse is:

• The Israelites chose to follow other gods,
and war erupted at their gates!
Not a single shield or spear [could be found]
for the forty thousand soldiers in Israel!

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 repeats what has just been said and adds greater emphasis to the notion of the LORD’s deliverance. Once again, there are parallel clauses in Hebrew:

and I delivered you from the hand of Egypt,
and [I delivered you] from the hand of all those oppressing you,
and I drove them from your faces,
and I gave to you their land.

And I delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered throughout these lines as and can be interpreted in various ways. The first two seem to simply introduce repeated information and so can be omitted, especially in this poetic context. The last two seem to introduce new material and so can be rendered by a conjunction that adds information, such as and or even “Then.” However in many languages poetry has fewer conjunctions than prose, so in fact, any of these conjunctions can be omitted, according to poetic style in the target language.

This is the first time the Hebrew verb rendered delivered is used in this book, which in some forms means “tear” or “snatch away from.” Here it may be translated “rescued,” “saved,” or “set free.” In Hebrew it is not the same verb as appears so frequently in reference to the deliverers in Israel (see, for example, verse 3.9), but the same verb can be used if necessary. You renders an emphatic Hebrew pronoun. For the keyword hand, which occurs twice in this verse, see verse 1.2. The Egyptians is literally “Egypt.” New International Version gives a good model: “I snatched you from the power of Egypt.”

And from the hand of all who oppressed you: In this clause there is an ellipsis, since the verb phrase I delivered you in the previous clause is understood here. Translators can make this explicit or imitate the style in Hebrew, as permitted in their language. The Hebrew expression rendered who oppressed you has a present participle, which many versions translate as “your oppressors” (New International Version, New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) with no time reference. Another rendering might be “those who oppress you.” For comments on this verb, see verse 2.18, where it is translated “afflicted.” Egypt and all who oppressed you do not refer to the same people. Egypt was Israel’s first oppressor, while all who oppressed you refers to other numerous enemies who afflicted Israel over a wide time range. In this context the Canaanites are certainly in focus, since God promised to drive these people out so that the Israelites could live freely in the Promised Land (see verse 4.3).

And drove them out before you: As noted above, the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and could be seen as a temporal link, with the Israelites being delivered and then God driving out their enemies. But this is poetic language, and the conjunction can easily be omitted here. In Hebrew the first person subject is indicated on the verb and so is understood, but many languages will reinsert a pronoun: “and I drove them out….” For drove … out, see the comments on verse 2.3. The pronoun them probably refers to the Canaanites, but it is possible that it refers to Israel’s enemies in general. Before you is literally “from your faces,” which Good News Translation renders as “as you advanced.”

And gave you their land means the LORD gave the Israelites land that once belonged to the Canaanites. In Hebrew the first person is again marked on the verb here, which many languages will have to make explicit: “and I gave you their land.” For gave … land, see the comments on verse 1.2. This line is the last in a series of parallel structures beginning at the end of 6.8, and may be marked for emphasis, as a kind of climax.

A translation model for this verse is:

• I rescued you from Egypt where you were slaves,
I saved you from all the enemies who oppressed you.
I drove them all out,
and, yes, I gave you their land!

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 selection of the Israelite soldiers for the battle against the Midianites. The number of those chosen is announced. It is still not clear here how those selected differ from those not chosen. In the next verse the LORD gives new instructions for the battle.

And the number of those that lapped, putting their hands to their mouths, was three hundred men: God chooses 300 soldiers for the battle. Good News Translation and most other versions omit the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And. The number of those that lapped follows the Hebrew closely. In some languages this clause may be rendered simply “the men who lapped.” For lapped see verse 7.5.

Putting their hands to their mouths is literally “with their hand to their mouth.” This phrase poses serious problems for interpreters and translators. In verse 7.5 it is specified that this group of people are those who lap the water with their tongues “as a dog laps.” Certainly dogs do not bring their hands to their mouths to drink, though it is possible to imagine people lapping water from their hands. Like Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, many other versions retain the Hebrew text, which Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives an {A} rating. For example, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh renders this whole sentence as “Now those who ‘lapped’ the water into their mouths by hand numbered three hundred.” Contemporary English Version is similar with “Three hundred men scooped up water in their hands and lapped it.” New Revised Standard Version moves this difficult phrase to the end of 7.5. Though many scholars support this viewpoint, it seems better to follow New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and Contemporary English Version, which provide an understandable rendering without changing the Hebrew text.

Three hundred men is a very small army, but the number “thirty” and its multiples play an important role in the stories of Gideon and Samson. This is the first time in this episode that the Hebrew word for men is used, rather than the more general word for people, which appears again in the next sentence. It is possible that the narrator is saying these are “the real men,” but there is no evidence in the text for this interpretation. Various constructions can be used here, for example, “There were 300 men who lapped…” and “The men who lapped … were 300.”

But all the rest of the people knelt down to drink water: The remaining soldiers went down on their knees at the side of the stream to drink. But is a good rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction, since it introduces a contrast here. All the rest of the people refers to the remaining twenty-one thousand seven hundred warriors. Knelt down is literally “kneeled down on their knees” (see verse 7.5). To drink water is a literal rendering of the Hebrew. In some languages water may be redundant. One possible model for this whole clause is “but all the other warriors knelt to drink.”

Besides the difficulty of distinguishing the two groups here, it is not clear why the LORD favors those who lap like dogs over those who kneel down to drink. One possible explanation is that those who lap the water with their hands may still be standing, so that they are alert and ready for battle. In contrast, those who kneel not only take their time, but they are also in a position of weakness if the enemy should launch a surprise attack. Others suggest the reference to kneeling may allude to the Israelites bowing down to Canaanite gods, though this is highly speculative. We note that once again the word hands is associated with those who are chosen to deliver Israel, in keeping with its role throughout the book.

Some translation models for this verse are:

• Those who lapped the water with their hands totaled three hundred men, while all the rest knelt down to drink.

• Three hundred men lapped the water, bringing their hands to their mouths. But all the rest went down on their knees to drink.

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 .