So they passed on and went their way is literally “And they passed on and went.” For the ironic use of the Hebrew verb rendered passed on, see verse 19.12.

And the sun went down on them is literally “and the sun came to them,” another idiomatic expression that means the sun had set (compare the expressions in verse 19.8-9, 11). Most languages will have an idiomatic way to express this idea. The literal phrase on them does not need to be kept in the translation, unless it is part of a natural expression.

Near Gibe-ah, which belongs to Benjamin: Once again Gibe-ah is literally “the Gibeah,” but most languages will omit the definite marker. Which belongs to Benjamin means Gibeah was in the territory of the tribe of Benjamin. This is the first time the name Benjamin appears in this appendix, though the name itself seems to form an inclusio around the whole book (verse 1.21; verse 21.23).

Two translation models for this verse are:

• So they continued along the road. As they came close to Gibeah in Benjaminite territory, the sun went down.

• So they kept going, and as the sun set, they came to Gibeah, a town belonging to the tribe of Benjamin.

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 people of Israel rose in the morning: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered Then may also be translated “So” (Good News Translation) in this context. Once again the people of Israel is literally “the sons [or, children] of Israel,” as the Israelites are presented as a group of people moving together. There is no specific mention of their leaders here. Once again the Hebrew verb rendered rose (qum) marks an important event on the story line, as elsewhere in this book (see verse 2.10). Here it is obviously ambiguous, referring to getting up in the morning, as well as starting out on the journey, but mainly used to tie this part of the story back to all the other times when God “raised up” individual men and women to save Israel.

In the morning probably means “the following morning” or “the next day.” Revised English Bible suggests “at dawn,” but this rendering is probably not accurate, since the Hebrew phrase here is more general.

And encamped against Gibe-ah: The story may seem to move too quickly here for some readers. The Israelites could not have gotten up and encamped without moving from Bethel to Gibeah. Many languages will have to add verbs to show this movement from one place to another (see first model below). Encamped against Gibe-ah means they set up their camp near the town of Gibeah in order to attack it (see verse 6.4).

Translation models for this verse are:

• The following morning the Israelites got up and set off for Gibeah. When they arrived there, they set up their camp near the town.

• The next morning the Israelites arose and camped near Gibeah, planning to attack it.

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 .

The first part of this verse continues the quote within a quote begun in the previous verse, making clear the terms of the covenant. See Num 33.50-56.

And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land: A counterpart of this agreement between Yahweh and his people is that the Israelites should not make any alliance with the people they conquer. The Hebrew waw conjunction introduces this second part of the agreement. In many languages this linking will be expressed by and. Some may see a contrast here between the LORD’s covenant with his people and the covenant the people might make with someone else, and say “But.” The LORD reminds the Israelites that he had promised never to break his alliance (verse 2.1), but also that he had commanded them to make no covenant with the people they would find when they entered the Promised Land.

You shall make no covenant is a negative command. The Israelites are to make no pact or alliance with the Canaanites. In Hebrew, subject pronouns are usually marked on the verb, but here there is also an emphatic you that focuses attention on Israel’s responsibility. We might say “as for you…,” “you, for your part…” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh; similarly New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible), or “you in turn…” (Revised English Bible). The Hebrew verb form rendered shall make no has the function of a strong imperative, which may be translated “must not make” or “should not make.” The phrase make … covenant reflects a special Hebrew idiom that is literally “cut a covenant.” Some languages may have a similar idiom. Translators must be careful to distinguish between “making” and “breaking” a covenant (verse 2.1), which means ending or dishonoring an agreement. Here in Hebrew “cutting” a covenant means entering into an agreement, thus “enter into a covenant” or “make an alliance.” In Hebrew the word rendered covenant is the same whether the agreement is with God (as in verse 2.1) or as here, with other human beings. But in some languages it may be necessary to use different terms, one for the agreement between Yahweh and his people, and another for the alliance Israel might make with her neighbors. If at all possible, however, it is best to keep the same word. Though the text does not say whether this covenant is written or oral, certainly, the initial covenant with Yahweh was oral.

The inhabitants of this land refers to the Canaanites, who were in place when the Israelites arrived. See comments on verse 1.11 and verse 1.32.

You shall break down their altars: This clause further qualifies what the Israelites are to do. The LORD knows the people will be tempted to adopt foreign forms of worship and thus turn their backs on him. One way to prevent this from happening is for the Israelites to wipe out the religious practices of the Canaanites by breaking down their altars. In Hebrew this clause has no introductory conjunction. As a slight contrast might be perceived between this clause and the preceding one, translators are free to insert a contrastive word such as “instead,” “rather,” or “but” as needed.

You shall break down again has the force of an imperative, which might be rendered “You must/should break down.” The Hebrew verb rendered break down has no connection to the verb for “breaking” a covenant in the previous verse. This verb means “pull” or “tear down” a structure such as a wall or a house. Most altars were in some way raised above the ground, so we can say “tear down,” “demolish,” or “destroy.” Altars renders a Hebrew word that is related to the verb for “slaughter” or “sacrifice.” The same word is used whether these altars are constructed to worship Yahweh (Gen 8.20) or foreign gods (verse 2 Kgs 21.3). In Old Testament times, altars were made out of earth, stone or bronze, but here the text does not specify what material the altars were made of. Many languages have a general word or expression for altar, such as “sacrifice-place” or “mound for sacrifice.” If no word exists, we might say “worship places.” Contemporary English Version is very explicit, referring to “the altars where they sacrifice to their idols.” In Hebrew their altars is emphasized in sentence-initial position, literally “their altars you will tear down.” Translators may try to imitate this style.

But you have not obeyed my command: With the end of the preceding clause, the quote within a quote ends. Translators will need to use appropriate punctuation. Now the LORD addresses his people directly, making his chief accusation against them. Israel’s disobedience is one of the major themes of this book. The Hebrew waw conjunction is well rendered here as But, since it highlights the fact that despite what God has commanded them to do, the Israelites have not obeyed him. In Hebrew the text is literally “But you have not heard/obeyed my voice,” which seems to carry a note of sadness or disappointment. Obeyed renders the key Hebrew verb shamaʿ, which means “hear” or “obey.” My command is literally “my voice,” referring to the voice of the LORD and, by extension, what the LORD says. There seems to be a play on words here, since the word “voice” will appear again in verse 2.4 to describe the people’s response when they begin to weep.

Though the immediate context here seems to refer only to tearing down the Canaanite altars, there is more behind this statement. The LORD told the Israelites to attack and drive out the people inhabiting the land, as well as to tear down their altars. So we might say “But you have not done what I told you to do” or “But you did not listen to what I said.” This is an extremely important sentence and translators need to ensure that it is clear and to the point.

What is this you have done?: This rhetorical question expresses the LORD’s dismay at the people’s disobedience and condemns them for their actions. The demonstrative pronoun this refers back to the people’s disobedience, in the context of their failing to drive out the Canaanites. In many languages a question form can be retained, for example, “Why did you do this?” However, in many other languages an exclamatory statement will be more effective. For example, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “look what you have done!” Good News Translation is even stronger with “You have done just the opposite!” Translators need to find an effective way of expressing Yahweh’s anger and frustration with his people. For example, we might say “How could you do such a thing!”

In some languages the last two clauses may be reversed, for example, “How could you do such a thing—not listening to my voice!”

Some suggestions for the translation of this verse, continuing from the previous verse, are:

• You must not make an agreement/pact with the Canaanites who live in this land. Rather, you should destroy their places of worship.’ But what have you done? You have not obeyed me!

• Therefore you shall not make any alliance with the people of this land. You must smash the places where they worship [their gods].’ But you have not done what I commanded you. How could you do such a thing!

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 the people of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab eighteen years: This verse uses words that have been discussed in the previous text. And, which renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, introduces consecutive action here, but also the result. Thus a conjunction such as “So” (New Revised Standard Version) would also be appropriate. For served see verse 3.8. In this context the verb does not mean “worshiped” or “followed,” but “were subject to” (Good News Translation) or “worked [as servants/slaves] for.” Translators should render eighteen years as it stands.

One translation possibility for this verse is:

• The Israelites were enslaved by Eglon, the king of the Moabites, for eighteen years.

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 .

Here several characters who have been previously introduced come together in this important turning point in the story. The appearance of several characters in full noun form and a change in word order in Hebrew indicate there is a new paragraph beginning here (see Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New International Version). Now the “aside” at verse 4.11 becomes pertinent. Several words link back to the previous text: Sisera, fled away on foot, tent, and Heber the Kenite. The identity of the “woman” in verse 4.9 is also now revealed.

But Sisera fled away on foot …: But renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here. In this clause the focus shifts away from the battle scene back to Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, who is attempting to escape (verse 4.15). In Hebrew the subject precedes the verb in order to bring Sisera to the forefront (compare also the beginning of verse 4.11). The repetitive language, fled away on foot, is obviously intended to make fun of Sisera (see verse 4.15). Fled here implies that Sisera is running or at least moving very quickly, as he looks for a place to hide.

To the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite: According to verse 4.11, the family of Heber the Kenite had moved to a place near Barak’s hometown. He “pitched his tent” there, meaning he established a home there. Even if an idiomatic expression was used there, here translators will need to render the word tent. Tents were temporary dwellings, consisting of poles stuck in the ground covered with animal skins. The skins of a tent were pulled and attached to tent pegs (iron or wooden stakes), which were driven into the ground to fix the tent in place. Though this description sounds rudimentary, some tents were quite extravagant and comfortable. It is important to express the idea of a tent, since very soon in the story, it will be necessary to refer to the parts of the tent, especially the tent peg (verse 4.21). In some languages tent may be rendered “house of cloth” or “house of skin.” Others have words for temporary structures that could be used here. Including an illustration within the text will help readers visualize what a tent in biblical times looked like.

Interestingly, Jael, the heroine of the story, is introduced through the mention of her tent, the location of the eventual death of Sisera. Jael is described as the wife of Heber, mentioned in verse 4.11. Like often in the Old Testament, females in this book are usually presented through their husbands (verse 4.4), while males are introduced through their fathers (verse 3.15; verse 4.6; verse 6.29; verse 9.1, 30). It may seem odd that Jael had a tent belonging to her. In polygamous cultures, usually each wife has a dwelling, but no details are given here concerning the number of wives in this family.

For there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite: For renders the Hebrew conjunction ki. Here it introduces the reason Sisera takes off in the direction of Jael’s tent. He goes there because there was some kind of alliance between Jabin and the family of Heber. Sisera hoped to receive help and protection from this family. It may even be possible that he knew Heber and Jael. This fact is somewhat surprising, since Jabin was known to cruelly oppress the Israelites (verse 4.3). It may be yet another case of “cooperating with the enemy,” which God disfavored but seemed at times to use to eventually defeat those enemies. Samson’s involvement with the Philistines (verse 14.1-3) is another example of this phenomenon.

Peace renders the Hebrew word shalom, which has many meanings, including “well-being,” “harmony,” and “contentment.” In this context it speaks of “good relations” between Jabin and the family of Heber. New International Version says there were “friendly relations” between them, while New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh speaks of “friendship.” Contemporary English Version says there was “a peace treaty,” which is possible, but may be saying slightly more than the text. If need be, we could say there was “an agreement” or “an alliance” between them.

For Jabin the king of Hazor, see verse 4.2. The house of Heber the Kenite refers to Heber’s extended family, who had moved into the area. Some think that the Kenites were blacksmiths, specializing in metalwork.

Another play on words occurs here. Sisera flees Barak’s “sword” (chereb in Hebrew) in verse 4.16 to go to the family of Heber (cheber) for protection. Sisera does not understand that death waits for him there. If the clan of Heber really were blacksmiths, then the irony would be even stronger since Sisera fled from the sword, only to go to Heber, a maker of swords, where he is killed by a tent peg, also possibly made out of metal.

Translation models for this verse are:

• But Sisera ran away to the tent of Jael, wife of Heber the Kenite, because Jabin the king of Hazor and Heber’s family had a treaty with one another.

• Sisera fled and came to the camp of Heber’s wife, Jael. He went there because the family of Heber the Kenite was on friendly terms with Jabin, king of Hazor.

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 song now turns to a more detailed account of what Jael did, but in a very poetic form.

He asked water and she gave him milk is literally “Water he asked, milk she gave.” This is a good example of the point-counterpoint rhythm so appreciated in Hebrew poetry. This shortened form, together with the placing of objects before verbs, represents a change in the normal word order. It thus draws special attention to what Sisera requested and what he received. There is irony here, and suspense as well, since the one about to be killed is given the treatment accorded a special guest (see comments on verse 4.19).

The pronoun He refers back to Sisera, even though the last-mentioned male is Jael’s husband, Heber. The name “Sisera” may replace this pronoun, if necessary (so Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). But in this poetic celebration of Israel’s victory, hearers will know without being told who is in view. Water renders the general Hebrew word for it. Though this word is plural in Hebrew, the normal form for drinking water should be used. Some translators may want to expand He asked water by saying “Sisera asked for water to drink,” but they must remember that this is poetry and in most languages brevity is appreciated.

In the clause and she gave him milk, the conjunction and is not present in the Hebrew text. In many languages such connectors will not be common in poetic texts. However, some may need to add the conjunction “but” here to mark the contrast. The Israelites had herds of animals, so milk was readily available. Though this could have been milk from a cow, it was most likely goat’s milk (see comments on verse 4.19).

She brought him curds in a lordly bowl is literally “in a bowl of nobles, she brought curds.” This line adds information about how Jael treated Sisera. Its details slow down the action and heighten the suspense before the climax of the song. The pronoun she refers to Jael, who brought curds instead of water. Curds is a form of curdled milk, a well-known food in many cultures around the world. Some translations use “cream” as a substitute here, but it is probably more accurate to render the Hebrew word here as “curds” or perhaps “yoghurt.” Milk products are known to induce sleep, so this may have been part of Jael’s strategy in trapping Sisera.

In a lordly bowl emphasizes Jael’s deception. She brought the curds in a bowl fit for nobles. Jael recognized the status of her visitor and treated him appropriately. Translators should not have a problem finding a word for bowl or “cup,” but of course, it should not be made out of a modern material such as plastic. At that time such containers for those in power were made of bronze, silver, or gold. For the Hebrew word rendered lordly, see the comments on verse 5.13, where it is translated “noble.” Lordly is an uncommon way of describing a bowl, so it might be better to render a lordly bowl as “a beautiful bowl” (Good News Translation) or “a fancy cup” (Contemporary English Version). Revised English Bible preserves the poetic language by saying “a bowl fit for a chieftain.”

Some translation models for this verse are:

• Sisera asked for water,
and Jael gave him milk.
She brought him curds
in a bowl fit for a king.

• Sisera asked Jael for water,
but she gave him milk.
In a magnificent cup,
she brought him curdled milk.

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 .