So they turned and departed: There is a change in scene here, so some versions insert a paragraph break here (Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). However, many other versions let the story flow (Contemporary English Version, Revised English Bible). In Hebrew there is little to indicate a break. So renders the Hebrew waw conjunction here, but we could also say “Then” (Contemporary English Version).

They turned and departed means the Danites left Micah’s compound and continued their journey. The pronoun they designates the 600 soldiers, the five spies, and the young Levite. Some languages may prefer to say “the Danites” for clarity. Turned does not render the same Hebrew verb translated “turned aside” in verse 18.3, 15. The verb here means “turn away” or “turn around.” Departed renders the Hebrew verb meaning “go.” This clause may be translated “Then they turned and left” (Contemporary English Version) or “They set out again” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

Putting the little ones and the cattle and the goods in front of them: Once again the author’s irony and mockery are clear here. Up till now the readers or listeners have only heard about the Danite soldiers, but suddenly here is the whole population, organizing their group just as the Israelites did in the past (see, for example, Gen 33.2). In many cultures worldwide, when groups are moving across large distances, they organize themselves into a certain pattern with the weaker members (women, children, old and sick) in the front and the stronger members in the back. This clause is an independent one in Hebrew, literally “and they put the little ones, the livestock, and the heavy things before them.” Though some versions mention “the women and children,” Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives an {A} rating to the Hebrew text. But scholars agree that the Hebrew word rendered little ones (taf) does not refer just to children, but to all who are defenseless, that is, children, women, and elderly people. While many versions render little ones as “children” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, NET Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), it would be good to use a broader term if one exists in the target language, such as “weaker ones” or “defenseless ones.” The Hebrew noun for cattle is a generic one, including various types of domesticated animals (see verse 6.5). Some languages make a distinction between “animals of the village” (domesticated animals) and “animals of the bush” (wild animals), and here it is the former that is in view. The goods (literally “the heavy things”) refers to their property, including their tents, cooking utensils, and other personal belongings. These things were often loaded on carts pulled by oxen. We might use a generic term here, such as “belongings” (Good News Translation), “possessions” (New International Version), or “property.” In front of them means this group moved out first in front of the Danite soldiers, as in Good News Translation: “with their children, their livestock, and their belongings going ahead.” We might also say “they sent ahead all the children, women, elderly, livestock, and possessions [and followed after them].” In many Western cultures, in dangerous situations, the stronger often go first to lead the way, but in many parts of the world, it is the opposite. If this needs an explanation, a footnote can be added.

Translations models for this verse are:

• Then they left and continued on their journey, with the weaker members, cattle and belongings taking the lead.

• And they set out again, with their children, women, elderly, cattle and goods going ahead.

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 presents a very dramatic and sad scene.

And as morning appeared, the woman came is literally “And the woman came at the turning of the morning.” The idiomatic Hebrew phrase “at the turning of the morning” means the sun was beginning to rise. We may say “As the day was breaking” or “By the time it was morning.” The Hebrew word for morning is the same one used in verse 19.25 and verse 19.27. This is the first time the Levite’s concubine is called a woman (Hebrew ʾishshah), which would stand out in contrast to the repetitive Hebrew word for “man” (ʾish). The Hebrew verb rendered came (boʾ) is used often in the book of Judges. Here it describes how the woman moved from the place where the men left her to the house of the old man. Despite the abuse, she was able to make her way back to his house.

And fell down at the door of the man’s house: This is yet another poignant clause, using many words that evoke the previous judges’ stories. The Hebrew verb rendered fell down (nafal) is a keyword, very often used to describe the defeated enemy (see verse 3.25; verse 4.22; verse 5.27). Here instead of Israel’s enemies being sprawled dead on the floor, it is a helpless and innocent Israelite woman who has “fallen.” If possible, it would be good to use the same expression as elsewhere. If this is not possible, the verb “collapsed” (Contemporary English Version) fits well here. The woman made it to the door of their host. This recalls Jael standing at the door of her tent as the enemy Sisera arrived (verse 3.18). That day was a day of courageous acts, while this one is filled with shame. The door may be rendered “the entrance,” especially in cultures that do not have doors that close. The man’s house refers to the home of the old man.

Where her master was: This is a heavily loaded statement. For the first time the concubine’s husband is referred to as her master. The Hebrew word for master is ʾadon, which is used in verse 19.11 in relation to the Levite, who is the master of his servant. Sarah uses the same word when speaking of her husband Abraham in a reference to sexual pleasure (see Gen 18.12, where it is translated “husband”). Again irony is high here as a master is supposed to care for and protect others, but here the Levite sacrificed his wife to save himself. The word master forms an inclusio around this book (verse 1.5; 19.26), since it refers first to a pagan king and here to a heartless Israelite. The verb was is not in the Hebrew text but is implied. Translators may supply any appropriate verb, for example, “where her master was staying.”

Till it was light is literally “until the light.” This phrase appearing at the end of the verse seems to form an inclusio with as morning appeared. The woman was lying at the doorstep till it was light. There is a subtle contrast throughout this episode between night and morning, between dark and light. In many languages it will be necessary to make explicit “she was there until it was day” or “she lay there till it became day.” There is something extremely ironic about the woman lying outside the house dying while her husband is inside sleeping.

Translation models for this verse are:

• As the day began to break, the woman fell at the doorstep of the old man’s house where her husband, her master was, and she lay there until it was day.

• The woman made it to the old man’s house as the first light of day appeared. She fell at the entrance of the house where her master was and lay there until it became day.

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 battle began as the other battles, but this encounter was different, since the Israelites used a new strategy. They attempted to draw the Benjaminites away from the security of their city, as they awaited in ambush.

And the Benjaminites went out against the people: This clause, introduced by the Hebrew waw conjunction (And), tells what happened next. But in many languages this clause might be translated as a dependent clause, for example “When the Benjaminites came out against the Israelites.” Went out against is literally “went out to meet,” meaning “came out to attack” (see comments on verse 20.25). As was their custom (verse 20.21), the Benjaminites emerged from the city of Gibeah to attack the Israelite soldiers. The people refers to the Israelites, which may be made clear by saying “the other tribes of Israel.”

And were drawn away from the city: This scene is similar to the one described in verse 8.16, with the Benjaminites emerging and getting further and further from their city. This time, however, when they saw the Benjaminites come out of the city, instead of rushing forward into battle, the Israelites dropped back and withdrew. Given the Israelites’ previous heavy losses, the Benjaminites must have assumed they were retreating. So they advanced even further to attack and chase them. Thus the Benjaminites were enticed to leave the safety of their town, leaving them in a vulnerable position. The conjunction and is added by Revised Standard Version to introduce a new sequence in the action and can be maintained in most languages. Were drawn away renders a passive verb in Hebrew, showing that the Benjaminites were falling into the Israelites’ trap. The city is Gibeah. Good News Translation says the Benjaminites “were led away from the city,” but this is not exactly the case. Rather, they “allowed themselves to be drawn [or, pulled] away from the city.”

And as at other times they began to smite and kill some of the people … is literally “and they began to strike down from the people pierced as footstep by footstep….” The narrator informs the audience that, as before, the Benjaminites first appear to have the upper hand and they begin to kill some of the Israelites (verse 20.21, 25). For as at other times (literally “as footstep by footstep”), see the comments on verse 16.20 and verse 20.30. The pronoun they refers to the Benjaminites. In this context the Hebrew verb for smite (nakah) does not refer to hitting, but to actual killing (see verse 1.8). In Hebrew there is emphasis on the word rendered kill (literally “pierced”), which is sometimes used to refer to sexual acts. Indeed, there may be an ironic reference to the initial act that provoked this war (verse 19.25). However, here it clearly refers to those killed in battle (see verse 9.40), who are “pierced through.” There is a wordplay here in Hebrew, since the words for began and kill have the same consonants (ch-l-l).

In the highways, one of which goes up to Bethel and the other to Gibe-ah is literally “in the roads that one went up to Bethel and one to Gibeah.” The word highways could be misleading to modern readers, since the Hebrew word here does not refer to large highways, but rather to well-traveled roads. One road went to Bethel and the other to Gibe-ah. The repetition of the number one is an ironic reminder that the Israelites were not one! The Hebrew verb rendered goes up (ʿalah) is the same one often used to mean “attack” (see verse 1.1). Here it seems to heighten the irony. In some languages it will be better to translate goes up to as “going to” or “leading to” (New International Version). For Bethel see verse 1.22 and verse 20.18. Revised Standard Version follows the Hebrew by leaving the verb goes up implied in the phrase and the other to Gibe-ah, but in many languages it will be better to be explicit, for example, “and one leading to Gibeah.” The two roads mentioned here may have connected Bethel and Gibeah. Some commentators think Gibe-ah is incorrect and should be “Gibeon” (Revised English Bible, New American Bible), a small town nearby. However, the mention of these two towns, Bethel and Gibe-ah, marks an important contrast, since Bethel was the town where the Israelites worshiped the LORD, and Gibe-ah was where evil men carried out evil deeds. So it seems best to follow the Hebrew text here, as recommended by Hebrew Old Testament Text Project.

And in the open country is literally “in the field.” The Hebrew text does not have the connector and, so the phrase in the open country could modify highways. For example, Good News Translation says “As they had before, they began killing some Israelites in the open country, on the road to Bethel and on the road to Gibeah. They killed about thirty Israelites” (similarly Revised English Bible). However, some versions link this phrase to what follows. For example, New International Version has “They began to inflict casualties on the Israelites as before, so that about thirty men fell in the open field and on the roads—the one leading to Bethel and the other to Gibeah” (similarly New Living Translation). The text is open to either interpretation. The Hebrew word for open country refers to a flat open stretch of land here.

About thirty men of Israel refers to the number of Israelites killed in this early attack. These men probably knew they were likely to die as they drew the Benjaminites into the Israelite trap. The number thirty is a common one in Judges, especially in the Samson story. The Hebrew expression rendered of Israel can also mean “in Israel.” This phrase is the object for the verb smite, so it might be helpful to say “about 30 Israelites died” or “killing about thirty men of Israel” (New Revised Standard Version).

This verse is quite long and to ensure ease of comprehension, can be divided into three or more shorter sentences. Possible models are:

• The Benjaminites charged out after the Israelites and were drawn away from the town. They began their attack along the roads leading to Bethel and Gibeah, fighting and killing [the Israelites] as they had done before. Around thirty Israelites lay dead in the open field.

• The Benjaminites came out to attack the Israelites, but they drew them away from the town. As before, the Benjaminites began attacking and killing the Israelites. In the fields along the two roads that led to Bethel and Gibeah, around thirty Israelites lay dead.

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 elders of the congregation said: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered Then introduces the next action or the result of the Israelites’ feelings of pity, thus it may be translated “So” (Good News Translation). The elders of the congregation were the leaders of the Israelites who had gathered at Bethel. For elders see verse 2.7, and for congregation, see verse 21.10. The general verb said may be rendered “asked” (New Living Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), since it introduces a question.

What shall we do for wives for those who are left…?: See verse 21.7. When the Israelites first attempted to find wives for the 600 surviving Benjaminite men, they found only 400. They now think about how they might find an additional 200 young women. If possible, the same wording should be used here as in verse 21.7.

Since the women are destroyed out of Benjamin: This is a new piece of information that has been assumed but not made explicit. Apparently, during the battles most of the Benjaminite women were also killed. The Hebrew says literally “for she is destroyed from Benjamin the woman.” The singular word “woman” has a collective sense here, so it is correctly rendered women, referring to the older or married Benjaminite women who were killed. The Hebrew verb rendered are destroyed is a very strong word meaning “exterminate” or “annihilate.” The passive form are destroyed is used purposely, and if possible, it should be maintained. The Israelites themselves were responsible for this state of affairs, but they do not want to claim responsibility. If passive forms do not exist, an impersonal form may be substituted, for example, “since they killed all the women in the tribe of Benjamin.” Other possible models are “since there are no more Benjaminite women left” and “since all the Benjaminite women have been killed.”

In Hebrew this quote of the Israelite leaders is marked by important sound effects, including repetitions of the consonants m, n, and sh, as well as alternations of the vowels a and i. This seems yet another stylistic device used by the narrator to mock the Israelites for their “compassion” for their brothers and their attempts to “right” their wrongs. In most languages it will be impossible to imitate this style, but translators could try to express the irony here. In some languages an interjection such as “Oh!” “Oh, no!” or “How sad!” might show that the narrator is not entirely convinced of the good intentions of those speaking.

Translation models for this verse are:

• Then the leaders of the Israelites asked what they could do to find more wives for the remaining Benjaminite men since [pity!] there were no more Benjaminite women left.

• Then the Israelite leaders said, “Oh no! Where can we find wives for the remaining Benjaminite men since all their women have been killed?”

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 .

When Israel grew strong: This verse begins with two key Hebrew expressions wayehi ki (“And it was that when”), which show a possible time lapse, as well as a new paragraph. Translators can look for an appropriate transition, for example, “Later on” or “But some time later.” We might also say “And when” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “But when” or “As.” For Israel see verse 1.1. This verse seems to be a summary statement applying to all of the tribes.

The Hebrew verb rendered grew strong has various meanings but here refers to the Israelites gaining strength militarily or becoming stronger in number. Many versions say “grew stronger” (New American Bible; similarly Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible). Contemporary English Version‘s “grew more powerful” correctly implies that at first they were not strong enough to subjugate the Canaanites, but later became so. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh’s “gained the upper hand” is possible but seems to put too much emphasis on political power. At this point in their history, the tribes of Israel seem to be loosely connected, joined by alliances. Some believe the tribes of Israel formed a kind of federation, but certainly there were no formal structures to speak of during that time period.

They put the Canaanites to forced labor indicates an important change in the relationship between the Israelites and the Canaanite population. This expression follows the Hebrew quite literally and is repeated throughout the section (verse 1.28, 30, 33, 35).

Forced labor refers to work that people are obliged to carry out by the authorities in control. Though in some situations forced labor is considered a contribution toward the payment of taxes, while in other cases it borders on slavery. The notion of forced labor will be known in many cultures around the world, especially where colonial powers once ruled, and thus there will be idiomatic expressions to express this reality. If not, we can simply say “they forced the Canaanites to work for them.” New International Version says “they pressed the Canaanites into forced labor,” while New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh translates “they subjected … to forced labor,” which are both good models. Contemporary English Version‘s “they made slaves of the Canaanites” may be too specific. Translators need to be cautious using the word “slave” here and elsewhere in translation, as types of forced labor and slavery may differ considerably throughout the world.

For the first two clauses of this verse, we might say:

• Later when the Israelites became more powerful, they obliged the Canaanites to work for them.

• But later on, the Israelites grew stronger, so they pushed the Canaanites into forced labor.

But did not utterly drive them out: Here and elsewhere the text does not say whether the Israelites were unable to drive out these peoples or whether they simply chose not to do it. As they became stronger, they may have been able to drive them out, but perhaps chose not to do so. Certainly the Canaanites had now become a source of cheap labor and the two cultures may have also begun to merge.

But (Hebrew waw conjunction) introduces an unexpected event. Even though the Israelites became strong, they did not obey the LORD by removing the Canaanites. We might say “nevertheless,” “still,” or “however.”

The Hebrew expression rendered did not utterly drive them out is a forceful one, using a compound verb construction that is literally “driving out, they did not drive them out.” There is heavy emphasis on the fact that the people of Israel failed to do what Yahweh had requested of them. This is the theological justification for the fact that other peoples dominated Israel during the Judges period. Translators need to find a very strong expression, such as “they never did completely drive them out” or “they never did completely remove the Canaanites from the land.” For drive … out, see verse 1.19.

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 .

These are the nations: This clause is not part of the original Hebrew text, but some versions repeat it from verse 3.1 in order to provide an appropriate link. Most translations will need a transition clause here, such as “Here are the peoples the LORD left” or “Those left in the land were” (Good News Translation).

The five lords of the Philistines: This phrase refers to the leaders of the five major Philistine towns, which were Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath (see verse 1.18 for three of them). Lords renders the word seren borrowed from the Philistines. Some say “tyrants,” but a better rendering is “rulers” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version) or “chiefs” (New Jerusalem Bible). Translators should use a word here that is distinct from the key terms “king” and “judge” in this book. The Philistines were located on the Mediterranean coast in what is known today as Palestine. Good News Translation has simply “the five Philistine cities,” but this is incomplete. Contemporary English Version is better with “the Philistines and their five rulers.” The rest of the groups are presented without mentioning their lords or leaders. They are linked together in each case by the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered throughout as and.

And all the Canaanites: In chapter 1 the text says that at least some of the Canaanites were driven out (verse 1.5, 17). In other books of the Old Testament, Canaanite territory is described more narrowly, referring to peoples living on the coast and in the Jordan Valley (Num 13.29), but in this book the Canaanites seems to be a cover term for many different groups (see comments on verse 1.1). The phrase all the Canaanites is probably a reference to all these groups. The word all may modify not just the Canaanites, but the following groups as well.

And the Sidonians refers to people who lived in the coastal town of Sidon and the surrounding area. This was a Phoenician town on the coast in what today is Lebanon.

And the Hivites who dwelt on Mount Lebanon: There is little certainty concerning the identity of the Hivites. Appearing first in Gen 10.17, they are presented as the descendants of Ham, through Canaan. Thus they seem to be part of the wider Canaanite group. Hivites is the name of a people, as the English “-ite” suffix shows, and not the name of a country or region. There is a textual problem here, however, since Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia suggests changing Hivites to “Hittites,” a non-Semitic group originally from much further north, and this reading is followed by some versions (New Jerusalem Bible, Bible de Jérusalem). Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives Hivites an {A} rating, so it should be followed here. Mount Lebanon may not to refer to one mountain peak, but rather to the chain of mountains running parallel to the coast in the region that is modern-day Lebanon. Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version have “the Lebanon Mountains,” which is a good model to follow. Many languages will prefer to say “the mountain region of [or, in] Lebanon.” Dwelt on Mount Lebanon means the Hivites inhabited these mountains.

From Mount Baal-hermon as far as the entrance of Hamath describes in more detail the area in which the Hivites lived. This phrase indicates the boundaries of the Hivite territory. Translators may need to begin a new sentence to introduce these details, for example, “Their territory ran from [or, started at] Mount Baal-hermon….” Mount Baal-hermon (literally “mountain of the lord of Hermon”) was one of the high mountains in what is known as the Anti-Lebanon range. The entrance of Hamath renders the Hebrew words leboʾ hamath, which New Revised Standard Version and Revised English Bible transliterate as “Lebo-hamath.” According to Num 34.7-9, this place marks the northern boundary of the Promised Land. Some scholars take leboʾ to be the infinitive meaning “to enter,” so they propose the entrance of Hamath, that is, the entrance to the city of Hamath. Others speak of “Hamath Pass” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version), that is, the mountain pass to the south of Hamath. Translators can choose between these different options, but normally translations are preferred over transliterations.

Translation suggestions for this verse are:

• The peoples remaining in the land included the Philistines with their five chiefs and all the Canaanites, including the Sidonians, along with the Hivites who lived in the mountains of Lebanon between Baal-hermon and Lebo-hamath.

• Those remaining in the land were the Philistines, governed by five lords, all the Canaanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites who occupied the Lebanon Mountains in the territory beginning at the mountain of Baal-hermon and ending at Hamath’s Pass.

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 I will draw out Sisera: Deborah continues to give the message of the LORD. She is quoting words from the LORD. The pronoun I refers to Yahweh and not Deborah. Some languages will prefer indirect speech, saying “He says that he will draw out Sisera.” Draw out renders the same Hebrew verb translated “gather” in verse 4.6. Here it has a slightly different meaning: the LORD will draw out or “lure” the enemy troops into a place where they will be vulnerable. Contemporary English Version has “The LORD will trick Sisera into coming out,” but this rendering may have negative connotations in relation to the LORD. Translators can say “I will lead Sisera out” or “I will entice Sisera.” Good News Translation has “I will bring Sisera.”

The general of Jabin’s army refers to Sisera. The Hebrew word for general is the same one translated “commander” in verse 4.2. Translators should choose one word and use it consistently.

To meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops: The word meet does not occur in the Hebrew but is implicit in the text. This is not a casual meeting. The LORD purposely draws the enemy troops to a place where they can be defeated. By the river Kishon is the place where the battle will occur. The river Kishon runs through the Jezreel Valley toward the sea, entering the Mediterranean near Mount Carmel. Several versions speak of “the Wadi Kishon” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh; similarly Revised English Bible) or “the Torrent of Kishon” (New Jerusalem Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible [Traduction œcuménique de la Bible]), which are other possible renderings for the Hebrew here. A “wadi” (nachal in Hebrew) is not a standing river, but a dry valley-like area that fills up when there are flash floods. These areas can be very dangerous, and till today people caught in these circumstances may die from drowning or being beaten by the water against the rocky sides. The text does not make this explicit, but it is possible that the very nature of this place may have played a role in the defeat of Sisera’s troops. Perhaps the iron-rimmed chariots could not maneuver well in such a muddy and wet place. In some areas of the world, such as on coral atolls or in some desert areas, rivers may not be known, in which case the translator might say “place where there is a lot of water.”

With his chariots and his troops refers to Sisera’s chariots and fighting men. For chariots see verse 1.19. Chariots may refer here to the soldiers driving the chariots, not just the vehicles themselves.

And I will give him into your hand is the second part of the divine promise, the first being that the LORD will bring Sisera out to do battle with Barak. Once again, the pronoun I refers to the LORD, who promises to give Barak victory over the Israelites’ enemies. The key term hand is used once more. For the idiomatic expression here, see the comments on verse 1.2 and verse 1.4.

A translation example for this verse is:

• I will bring [or, draw] Sisera, commander of Jabin’s army, out to the Kishon River to fight with you, along with his chariots and foot soldiers. But I will give you victory over him.’ ”

If indirect speech is needed, the following model may be helpful:

• He said that he would lure the head general of King Jabin’s army, Sisera, into battle against you at the wadi of Kishon. He will come against you with chariots and troops, but the LORD will not allow him to defeat you. You will have the victory.”

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 list of Israelite tribes continues in this verse, but with the last two lines there is an important shift, since the singers begin to criticize the tribes who refused to respond to the call to help their brothers. The last two lines also begin an important inclusio that sets apart verses 15d-16, so a blank line should be inserted after 15c.

The princes of Issachar came with Deborah: Instead of the princes of Issachar, the Masoretic Text has “my princes in Issachar,” which is a poetic way of describing the leaders of that tribe. Though Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives this reading an {A} rating, many versions prefer to render this phrase as in Revised Standard Version. For the Hebrew word rendered princes, see the comments on verse 4.2, where it is translated “commander.” As elsewhere, the word rendered princes does not refer to sons of the king, but rather to leaders, chiefs, or rulers. Since this is a military context, some translations say “generals” or “commanders.” Issachar was the fifth son born to Leah and Jacob’s ninth son (Gen 30.17-18). The region allotted to Issachar’s descendants was north of Manasseh and southeast of Zebulun, just west of the Jordan River and south of Mount Tabor. Once again, the tribal name can refer to the territory or to the people. In Hebrew there is no verb in this line, so Revised Standard Version supplies the verb came. Other possibilities are “joined,” “arrived,” and “came down.” For Deborah see verse 4.4. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “And Issachar’s chiefs were with Deborah.”

And Issachar faithful to Barak is literally in Hebrew “and Issachar thus Barak,” but some versions have “Naphtali, with Barak” (New Jerusalem Bible). Though Barak is from the region of Naphtali, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives Issachar an {A} rating, so it should be retained here. And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which here introduces other Israelites who joined in the battle against Sisera. Some may see Issachar’s army divided into two parts with its commanders going with Deborah, and the rest going with Barak. However, in such poetic structures, it is often the case the two lines complement each other. The presence of the Hebrew word for “thus” (ken) also suggests that as the people of Issachar came to assist Deborah, they also came to assist Barak. In other words, they came to assist the team, Deborah and Barak. New International Version provides a good model, stating “The princes of Issachar were with Deborah; yes, Issachar was with Barak.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh connects this line closely with the next one, saying “As Barak, so was Issachar—Rushing after him into the valley.” But this is not the majority view.

Into the valley they rushed forth at his heels: The valley refers to the Jezreel Valley as in the previous verse (see verse 4.7). They rushed forth is literally “he was sent.” The Hebrew verb for “send” (shalach), which can also mean “scatter” or “spread,” plays an important role in the narrative accounts of the deliverers, beginning with Ehud (verse 3.15) and throughout the rest of the book. Since the verb is singular here, it could refer to Barak or to Issachar. However, because this verb is followed by at his heels, the whole line probably means that the soldiers of Issachar were sent or dispatched to fight under Barak’s command. As in verse 4.10, at his heels (literally “at his feet”) means “under his command,” and the reference to “feet” may be ironic. The pronoun his probably refers to Barak, since he is the last person mentioned in the text. It seems logical to assume that Issachar’s warriors went as directed by Barak and spread throughout the valley. Good News Translation reflects this by saying “and they followed him into the valley” (similarly Contemporary English Version), but this rendering does not seem strong enough for the context. New International Version expresses the tone better with “rushing after him into the valley.”

Some translation models for the first three lines of this verse are:

• The leaders of Issachar joined Deborah,
Yes, the people of Issachar joined Barak,
rushing into the valley after him.

• Leaders from the tribe of Issachar rallied around Deborah,
and their people followed after Barak,
following him into battle in the valley.

Here is the end of the account of those tribes who came quickly to the aid of their brothers. The next line begins a new stanza concerning those who refused to come in aid. A blank line will show this separation.

Among the clans of Reuben there were great searchings of heart: These two lines begin an important inclusio that introduces the Israelite tribes who did not respond to the battle cry to join their brothers to fight Sisera (verses 15de, 16cd). Though there is no conjunction in Hebrew here, translators may wish to begin with a contrastive conjunction, such as “But” (Good News Translation) or “however” (Revised English Bible).

Among the clans of Reuben poses some problems for translators. The Hebrew word for clans comes from a root meaning “division.” But Reuben was already one “division” or “tribe” in Israel, so there is probably a sarcastic note here, implying that the tribe of Reuben was itself divided! Of course, this division among themselves meant that they could not take a unified decision and come to the aid of their brothers. This idea is well expressed by Revised English Bible, if not very poetically: “Reuben however was split into factions.” Good News Translation expresses the same idea with “But the tribe of Reuben was divided.” Reuben was the firstborn son of Jacob and Leah (Gen 29.32). His descendants settled on the eastern side of the Jordan Valley in Ammonite territory, around the modern-day capital of Jordan.

There were great searchings of heart is literally “great resolves of heart.” In Hebrew there is no verb, so Revised Standard Version supplies the phrase there were. Great searchings certainly refers to reflections or resolutions taken by the tribe of Reuben. The Hebrew word rendered searchings normally refers to laws or statutes, but here it seems to have a special meaning, referring to “resolutions” or “decisions.” The word great is certainly ironic, since their “great” reflections yielded nothing. The heart in Hebrew is the seat of the will (see verse 5.9) and could be rendered “mind” here. The meaning is “they thought/discussed a lot but could not make up their minds.” Good News Translation says “they could not decide to come,” which is possible. However, Contemporary English Version‘s rendering “But the tribe of Reuben was no help at all” does not communicate the meaning of the text and should not be used as a model. This line expresses irony, which might be conveyed in some African languages as “they thought and thought until…,” implying there was no outcome. Plagued by indecision, the people of Reuben never came to the aid of their fellow Israelites.

The last two lines of this verse form an inclusio with the last two lines of 5.16. Translators should take care to use exactly the same wording here and there, thus keeping the link between the two verses. Possible models for these two lines are:

• “The Reubenites were divided,
and just couldn’t make up their minds.

• “The descendants of Reuben were divided;
they thought and thought [until … ].

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 .