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 .

And they gave him seventy pieces of silver out of the house of Baal-berith: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And introduces what happens once the leaders decide to support Abimelech. He has not asked for money, but they apparently decide to give him seventy pieces of silver. To link the verses we might say “So” or “Then” (Contemporary English Version). The pronoun they probably refers to the town leaders, who seem to be in charge of the temple treasury. However, if the pronoun is impersonal, we might say “Abimelech was given…” or “Abimelech received….” Seventy pieces of silver is literally “seventy silver,” but most translations add “pieces” (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version), “coins” (New Living Translation), or “shekels” (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh; see the comments on verse 8.26). Contemporary English Version inserts a footnote that says seventy pieces of silver is equivalent to about 28 ounces of silver. In New Testament times a silver coin was the daily wage of a laborer, but no one knows what its value was in Abimelech’s time, so a general translation should be used here. Translators should not use modern equivalents for money since their values often change and the translation could become dated quickly. Most languages have a word for silver, so it can be used, but “pieces of money” could also be instead, especially if silver is not used as currency. For seventy see verse 9.2. The house of Baal-berith was the temple dedicated to the worship of the god Baal-berith (see verse 8.33). The narrator makes clear the money to support Abimelech comes from this temple, thus from an unholy source.

With which Abimelech hired worthless and reckless fellows is literally “and Abimelech hired with them [the coins] men worthless and reckless.” The text does not say whether this was the intention of the town leaders for the money, but this is what Abimelech did with it. He gathered together a group of scoundrels who would support him as ruler. Hired renders the common Hebrew verb used for employing workers for a set sum. Up till now, no judge of the Israelites has had to hire men to work or fight for him. Abimelech may have had to hire these men because he did not have much support from the community or because he did not trust his own relatives! The men he hired are described as worthless and reckless. A similar expression is found in verse 11.3 referring to Jephthah and his followers. The Hebrew word for worthless also means “empty,” which Revised English Bible renders well as “good-for-nothing.” Some languages might say “zero” or “worth nothing.” The Hebrew term for reckless occurs rarely in the Old Testament, but seems to describe people who do whatever they want, without regard for anyone or anything. They are people without principles, so New American Bible says “ruffians.” Good News Translation combines these two words, saying “worthless scoundrels.” Contemporary English Version is also very dynamic: “Abimelech used the silver to hire a gang of rough soldiers who would do anything for money,” though it is not clear that these men were soldiers. Translators should look for vivid expressions describing people who are socially unacceptable. If vocabulary is limited, one adjective instead of two can be used here.

Who followed him renders a common Hebrew idiom, which is literally “and they went after him.” Here it conveys the idea of the scoundrels joining Abimelech. It may be rendered “who joined his cause.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• The leaders gave Abimelech seventy pieces of silver taken from the temple of the god, Baal-of-the-Agreement, and he used the money to hire a number of low-lifers to join him.

• These men took seventy silver coins from the temple of their god, Baal-of-the-Covenant, and gave them to Abimelech. He then hired worthless rascals, who joined his cause.

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 Gaal went out at the head of the men of Shechem: Gaal has no choice but to comply with Zebul’s challenge to fight with Abimelech. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “So” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version) to introduce Gaal’s response. Went out renders the same Hebrew verb translated “Go out” in verse 9.38. At the head of is literally “before the face of.” Gaal is in front of the men of Shechem (literally “the baʿal [lords] of Shechem”; see comments on verse 9.26). The use of this phrase marks the end of an inclusio for this episode, so it should be rendered the same as in verse 9.26, for example, “So Gaal led out the leaders of Shechem.” In some languages it may be necessary to add a step that is implied in the text by saying “So Gaal called together the leaders of Shechem and led them into battle.”

And fought with Abimelech: See verse 9.38.

A translation model for this verse is:

• So Gaal headed up the leaders of Shechem and led them out to battle against Abimelech and his army.

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 .

Jephthah’s daughter seems to respond to the news of her father’s vow quite calmly. Readers may ask: does she realize what she is saying and what her father intends to do? Here she may be trying to understand the full significance of what he has said. The word mouth occurs twice in this verse, pointing to the role words can play in someone’s life.

And she said to him may be rendered simply “She replied.”

My father: These words express the girl’s respect for and obedience to her father. Many languages will begin this speech in the same way. Contemporary English Version says simply “Father.” Translators should use the expression that is natural in their culture.

If you have opened your mouth to the LORD: See verse 11.35. Jephthah’s daughter uses the same expression her father used. This conditional clause is an independent one in Hebrew, which is literally “you have opened your mouth…” (similarly New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible). If possible, the word mouth should be retained here and in the next clause. But if this is not possible, translators may simply say “since you have made a vow…” (Revised English Bible).

Do to me according to what has gone forth from your mouth is literally “do to me just as it has come out of your mouth.” Jephthah’s daughter willingly submits, whether she knows or not at this point what the content of the vow was. The imperative do to me signals her acceptance. Has gone forth renders the Hebrew verb yatsaʾ meaning “come out,” which plays such a crucial role in this and other stories (see verse 11.31, verse 34). If this play on words is not understood, this clause may be rendered “do to me what you have vowed to do” or “keep your promise concerning me.”

A possible model for this clause and the previous one is “you made a solemn promise to the LORD concerning me, so you must keep it.” Contemporary English Version adds “even if it means I must die” to the end of this clause, but these words are not in the Hebrew text, so should not figure in the translation.

Now that the LORD has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites: Now that is literally “after that,” which introduces why the girl submits to her father’s vow. She is willing to do what is necessary in return for what Yahweh has done for her father. A more natural connector here in English is “because” (New American Bible) or “since” (Good News Translation). The LORD has avenged you on your enemies is literally “Yahweh has done for you a revenge from your enemies.” The Hebrew verb meaning “do” here balances out its use in the previous clause. The Hebrew noun meaning “revenge” refers to punishment or repayment for a wrong. The Ammonites (literally “the sons/children of Ammon”) defines your enemies. Good News Translation proposes here “since the LORD has given you revenge on your enemies, the Ammonites.” Another possible model is “because Yahweh has avenged your Ammonite enemies.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• She replied, “Father, you have made a vow to the LORD. So do to me whatever you have vowed, for the LORD has given you revenge over your enemies, the Ammonites.”

• The girl replied, “Father, you have made a promise to Yahweh, so do to me what you have promised [to do]. After all, Yahweh has helped you get revenge on your enemies, the Ammonites.”

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 Manoah said to the angel of the LORD …: Manoah’s request here is similar to that of Jacob in Gen 32.29 and that of Moses in Exo 3.13 when they met God. In many languages the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And can be omitted (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version), or translated “Then” (New International Version). The general verb said may be rendered “asked” (New Living Translation) in this context.

What is your name…? is literally “Who is your name…?” The Hebrew word for name has a wider sense than just a person’s name, including his/her whole personality. So this question may be rendered “Who are you [really]?” See also verse 13.6.

So that, when your words come true, we may honor you: These two clauses explain why Manoah wants to know the messenger’s name. So that has been added by Revised Standard Version here to introduce Manoah’s purpose in asking this question. He and his wife want to show their gratitude to their visitor after his promise of a son is fulfilled. The birth of a son is a sign of God’s blessing and a removal of the curse of childlessness. For when your words come true, see verse 13.12. The Hebrew verb rendered honor comes from a root meaning “be heavy” (see verse 9.9), but here has the meaning of “thank.” In some languages the order of these two clauses can be switched (as in the second model below).

Translation models for this verse are:

• Then Manoah asked Yahweh’s messenger, “Who are you? We need to know so that we can thank you when what you have promised comes true.”

• Then Manoah asked the angel of the LORD what his name was so that they could honor him once his words were realized.

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 .