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 .

Once again there are steps left out of the narration. In his search for revenge, Gideon moves on to the next city, Penuel. The combination of sentences in verse 8.16-17 shows that in a short period of time, Gideon takes his revenge on all those who wronged him. In some languages it may be necessary to add the implicit information, beginning this verse with “Then Gideon went to the town of Penuel….” However, such an addition should not slow down the narrative. In Hebrew, word choice and quick short sentences portray Gideon’s decisive acts of vengeance.

The message in this verse is highlighted in Hebrew since it is in chiastic form.

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 .

Having interrupted his first condition-consequence statement (verse 9.17-18), Jotham now comes back to it with another condition and the consequence.

If you then have acted in good faith and honor with Jerubbaal and with his house this day: This conditional clause is an almost exact repetition of the phrases found in verse 9.16 (see comments there). For this day, see verse 9.18. This clause is very ironic, since it is clear that Jotham does not believe the condition to be true. For him, neither Abimelech nor the people of Shechem treated Gideon and his family fairly. To express this, we might say “If you think you have acted today in complete good faith with Jerubbaal and his family” or “If you are so sure you treated Jerubbaal and his family fairly today.”

Then rejoice in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you: This is the consequence of the three conditions in verse 9.16, as well as the one here. Jotham is, in fact, being very ironic, since he thinks the opposite of what he is saying. For him the worthless people of Shechem deserve a worthless king. There are two parallel lines here, emphasizing the irony as follows:

Rejoice in Abimelech,
and let him also rejoice in you.

Revised Standard Version supplies the connector then, which is not in the Hebrew text. In English a condition-consequence relationship is signaled by the words if and then, so this addition is justified. The Hebrew verb for rejoice appears twice in these two clauses, first as a plural imperative, and then as a singular jussive (let him … rejoice). The imperative is addressed to the people of Shechem, and the jussive to Abimelech. Rejoice may be rendered “be happy” (Good News Translation), “be joyful,” “be pleased,” or “be satisfied.” The pronoun you refers to the people of Shechem who have decided to make Abimelech their king. Jotham expresses a new idea here: while the people may not be satisfied with Abimelech as leader, it is also possible that he will not be satisfied with their behavior. To express the two-sided nature of the relationship, we might say “then may you and Abimelech be happy with each other.” Translators should try to maintain the ironic tone expressed here. Contemporary English Version, for example, says “then I hope you and Abimelech will make each other very happy.” Another possible model is “then I hope you people and Abimelech are satisfied with each other.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• So, if you think that you have been completely honorable in your dealings with Jerubbaal and his family, then go ahead, enjoy Abimelech and I hope he enjoys you!

• If you are sure you have treated Gideon and his family as you should, then I hope you are satisfied with Abimelech’s leadership, and he is satisfied with you!

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 brief verse ends the episode.

And when the men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead is an independent clause in Hebrew, which is literally “And the men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead.” Here the phrase the men of Israel uses the generic Hebrew term for “man” (ʾish), where hearers might expect the word for “people” (ʿam). Once again the narrator reflects that there was some kind of Israelite unity at this time, a view that does not fit the historical facts. Translators should render the men of Israel as it stands, even though it is only a small portion of the Israelites who saw Abimelech die. For this phrase see verse 7.23. Since not all the people physically saw the body of Abimelech, some versions may want to say “learned,” “heard,” or “realized.”

They departed every man to his home is literally “and they went [each] man to his place.” This clause signals the end of the revolt led by Abimelech and his men. His attempt to gain power came to an end, and with it, this first attempt to establish a kingdom in Israel had ended. Translators should use language here that is appropriate for a conclusion. Good News Translation has “they all went home,” but the narrator again uses the Hebrew term ʾish (“man”). Though such stylistic features will be hard to render in translation, it is clear that the narrator is marking this text in a very particular way.

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 then sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying: Here Jephthah continues to tell the story of the Israelites. There is probably quite a time gap between the events described in verse 11.16 and here. Therefore a conjunction such as “Later” might be more appropriate than then. There is a certain sense in which this “story within a story” reflects Jephthah’s present situation. As he sends his messengers to the Ammonite king, so the Israelites of that day sent messengers to the king of Edom (see verse 11.12). Edom was the territory to the southeast of the Dead Sea, with Moab on its northern border (see verse 5.4). The Edomites were related to the Israelites, but very early on they became their enemies.

Let us pass, we pray, through your land is the appeal of the Israelites to the king of Edom. Let us pass is literally “Let me pass,” since Israel as a nation is speaking here. However, like Revised Standard Version, many languages will prefer to use a plural expression here. For the Hebrew verb translated pass (ʿavar), which is found in many Old Testament books, see verse 3.26. We pray renders the Hebrew particle naʾ, which may be translated “Please” (Contemporary English Version). The phrase through your land shows that the Israelites recognized the Edomites’ claim to this territory. Land renders the Hebrew word ʾerets, which often refers to the Promised Land in Judges (see comments on verse 11.12). Good News Translation uses indirect discourse for this embedded quotation by beginning this verse with “Then they sent messengers to the king of Edom to ask permission to go through his land.” This may be a helpful model for other languages.

But the king of Edom would not listen: The Hebrew waw conjunction at the beginning of this clause introduces a contrast, so but is a good rendering. We may also say “Despite their pleas.” The king of Edom would not listen is a literal rendering of the Hebrew, which does not mean that he did not hear, but rather that he did not grant their request. We might say “But the king of Edom would not allow them to do so” or “But the king of Edom did not agree.”

And they sent also to the king of Moab: Sent renders the Hebrew verb shalach, which occurs frequently in this book (see, for example, verse 4.6; verse 6.35; verse 9.31). In some languages it will be necessary to supply an object for this verb, such as “messengers” or “a message.” This clause may be rendered “They also asked the king of Moab for permission to pass through his land.”

But he would not consent: The king of Moab was not willing either to let the Israelites pass through his land. Consent renders a Hebrew verb meaning “agree” or “be willing.” This clause may be translated “but he was not willing either” or “but he would not let them pass through his land either.”

So Israel remained at Kadesh: So renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here, since this clause closes an incident. The verb remained is literally “settled” or “lived,” and appropriate equivalents may be used here.

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 .