In those days, when there was no king in Israel: See verse 17.6. This clause helps to tie together the final five chapters of Judges. Many scholars see it as the conclusion of the first appendix (17.1–19.1a). This is further confirmed by the fact that the following sentence begins with the Hebrew expression wayehi (literally “And it was”), which often begins a new unit. If this analysis is adopted, then each of the appendices ends with the key expression there was no king in Israel. However, if 19.1a is considered to be the introduction of the second appendix, then this expression forms an inclusio around it (19.1a; verse 21.25). Translators must decide which analysis fits best and format their translation accordingly. If it is part of the first appendix, there will be a break in the middle of 19.1.

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 Levite now retells the tragic story from his own perspective. However, it seems noteworthy that he refers to himself three times (me) before mentioning his concubine! This could show his lack of concern for her as well as the fact that he is trying very hard to defend himself. He wants to emphasize how aggressive his attackers were, what danger he himself was in, and why he did not protect his concubine. The repetitive use of the first person singular suffix for me and my in Hebrew communicates his own terror, but in a very ironic way. His explanations are full of detail and often exaggerated (if not untruthful), finally leading to the short and simple truth: “and she [his concubine] died.”

And the men of Gibe-ah rose against me: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And introduces the next event. But it is striking that the Levite does not tell the whole story, as he skips the whole account of the old man’s welcome. The men of Gibe-ah is literally “the lords of Gibeah.” The Hebrew word for “lords” is baʿal, the same word used for the god Baal, which figures prominently in the introductory passages (verse 2.11; verse 3.7), at the beginning of the story of Gideon (verse 6.25), and in the account of Abimelech (see comments on verse 9.2). Throughout this book it is clear that the people of Israel abandoned Yahweh for the worship of Baal, the god of the Canaanites. It would appear that the Levite uses this term in an ironic or sarcastic way, since these men are not “lords” but “base fellows” (verse 20.13). Like Revised Standard Version, many other versions say simply “the men of Gibeah” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version). Revised English Bible is similar with “the townsmen of Gibeah,” and so is New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh with “The citizens of Gibeah.” However, New Revised Standard Version is more literal with “The lords of Gibeah,” thus preserving the sarcasm and link back to the previous passages. If possible, translators should try to do the same.

Rose against me uses the key Hebrew verb qum, which in the first and second parts of the book describes the LORD “raising up” the victorious deliverers of Israel (see comments on verse 2.16), but here describes the despicable men of Gibe-ah. In this context rose does not refer to any upward movement, but means “attack.” New International Version renders this phrase well with “came after me.” Ideally, however, the verb rose should be used here in order to maintain the irony.

And beset the house round about me by night renders an unusual expression in Hebrew, which is literally “and surrounded upon me the house at night.” Here the emphasis is on the pronoun me. For beset the house round about, see verse 19.22. Again this account ties back to the story of Lot and the men who surrounded his house, wanting to sexually assault his guests, the angels (Gen 19.4-9). By night emphasizes the peril. Most of the townspeople were sleeping, so there was no one to come to the Levite’s rescue. For by night, see verse 6.27. Some languages may prefer to reorder these clauses by saying “During that night the men of Gibeah rose and surrounded the house I was in to attack me.” Again the audience sees the irony here, since though the men of Gibeah threatened the Levite, they did not attack him.

They meant to kill me: The Levite seems to be explaining what the men of Gibeah wanted to do to him, but it is important to note that he is exaggerating. The men meant to rape him, not kill him. This clause is literally “me they thought to kill.” Once again the word order in Hebrew puts emphasis on the pronoun me. The Levite embellishes the story to show how much danger he was in, justifying his cowardly act of giving his concubine over to the rowdy crowd. Throughout this passage, he is focused on himself. Meant renders a Hebrew verb that usually means “think,” “imagine,” or “plan.” Kill translates a different Hebrew verb than the one rendered “murdered” in the previous verse, but in some languages the same verb will be used.

And they ravished my concubine is literally “and my concubine they raped.” The Levite finally comes to the point. In Hebrew my concubine occurs at the beginning of this clause for emphasis. And is a good rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction here, since the Levite recounts the events in quick succession. However, in some languages it may be better rendered “but” or “instead” (Good News Translation) in this context. For the Hebrew verb translated ravished, see verse 19.24. New Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation say they “raped” her, but “abused” her might be closer to the Hebrew. Translators should find a good equivalent. Merely saying they had sexual relations with her would be far too weak. Some languages might say “and they forced my wife.”

And she is dead renders a brief statement in Hebrew, which is literally “and she died” (Good News Translation). The Levite does not want to dwell on his concubine’s death or be accused of it. Revised English Bible says “so that she died,” and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “until she died.”

Suggested translation models for this verse are:

• The men of Gibeah rose to attack me, surrounding me in the house that night. They planned to kill me. But they took my wife and raped her until she died.

• Those big men of Gibeah came to attack me. They surrounded the house I was in that night, planning to kill me. Then they took my wife and abused her. And now she is 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 .

Though this verse continues the flashback, it is part of the story climax, with the final clause being marked by the important Hebrew discourse marker hinneh, rendered behold. Other features of this climax include the repetition of the verb ʿalah meaning “go up” (rendered once as rise and once as went up), as well as the word smoke. This picture of an Israelite city going up in smoke brings to mind the holocaust sacrifice, that is, the “burnt offering” (verse 20.26). Though this story is an exciting tale of victory, it also has strong overtones of sadness. It is not Israel’s victory over her enemies which is being recounted, but the account of a terrible civil war resulting in the death of thousands of Israelites. Translators should reflect on how to convey the climactic but sad tone here. Again there seem to be subtle but ironic links back to the story of Lot and his wife (Gen 19.23-29).

But when the signal began to rise out of the city in a column of smoke renders an independent clause in Hebrew, which is literally “And the rising began to go up from the town, a pillar of smoke.” Good News Translation maintains the independent clause, saying “Then the signal appeared…,” which is a very lively rendering. However, Revised Standard Version and many other versions prefer to cast this independent clause as a dependent time clause. Indeed, in many African languages dependent clauses often lead up to a climax. Since the Benjaminites are thinking one thing, but a contrary situation is developing, But renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here. For most of the terms used here, see verse 20.38. The new element added here is the word column, which reminds the audience of the time that the Israelites were guided by a “pillar” of cloud by day and a “pillar” of fire by night (Exo 13.21-22). We might say “But when the column of smoke rose from the town” or “When the smoke rose like a tall column from the town.”

The Benjaminites looked behind them is literally “and Benjamin turned behind him,” which means the Benjaminites turned around to look at what was happening to their town. The Hebrew verb for “turned” (panah) differs from the one used in the previous verse. Here the meaning is “turn to look.” The phrase behind them may be left implied by rendering this clause as “the Benjamites looked back” (Revised English Bible) or simply “the Benjamites turned” (New International Version). This clause is another independent one in Hebrew, but it can also be cast as a dependent temporal clause to lead up to the climax by saying “and as the Benjaminites turned around.”

And behold, the whole of the city went up in smoke to heaven: When the Benjaminites turned around, they saw a shocking sight: their town was going up in flames. And behold introduces a clause describing what they saw. Behold, which renders the Hebrew word hinneh, marks the climax here. Translators need to use features from their language which serve a similar function. Since hinneh often involves seeing something that is surprising or shocking, New Revised Standard Version ends this sentence with an exclamation point. Good News Translation‘s “and they were amazed to see…” seems too weak. It would be better to say “and they were horrified/shocked to see…” or “They watched in horror as….”

The whole of the city went up in smoke to heaven is literally “all of the city went up [to] the skies.” The city refers to the town of Gibeah. The Hebrew verb rendered went up is not modified, but Revised Standard Version adds in smoke to clarify its sense in this context. Another possible rendering is “went up in flames.” In this context heaven does not refer to the dwelling place of God, but to the sky. The smoke was rising high in the sky—so high that it could be seen from far away. Some languages may prefer to use the past progressive tense for this climax statement, for example, “Their whole town was burning and the smoke was going high into the sky!” or simply “Their whole town was going up in flames!”

Translation models for this verse are:

• As the Benjaminites turned and looked behind them, a column of smoke was rising up into the sky! Their whole town was going up in flames!

• As the smoke began to rise, the Benjaminites turned and saw it, and realized, with horror, that their whole town was going up in flames!

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 .

In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes: All or part of this verse has occurred in earlier texts. See verse 17.6; verse 18.1a; verse 19.1a. The book of Judges ends on this very sad note. It is clear that these statements were placed at the end of the book on purpose to underline the fact that at the end of this particular time period, Israel was in a state of total chaos. There were no more heroes. Worse, a supposed religious leader, a Levite, led the whole country into a civil war.

The final part of Judges known as “the appendices” (chapters 17–21) describes the final degradation of the social structures in Israel. Idolatry reigns, civil war erupts, and Israelite women are raped, murdered, and carried off as spoils of war. These incidents are almost without parallel in the Old Testament and are recounted, with the exception of this verse, almost without comment or condemnation.

Many scholars believe that the author of this book had an agenda, that is, these accounts were written to show in hindsight that Israel was in great need of a king and more unified form of government. The system of kingship set in place following this period eventually did centralize and regularize worship, establish an ultimate authority for judgment, and retain some appearance of law and order in the land. Thus in our biblical canon the books of Samuel and Kings (once unified as one text) flow naturally from the book of Judges, which supplies the background and the reasons for the historical developments described there.

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 Judah said to Simeon his brother: And translates the Hebrew waw conjunction, but given the context, it might be rendered “Then” (New International Version) or “So,” or omitted (Good News Translation).

Judah and Simeon both refer to tribes and not to individuals. Some languages may be able to use forms such as “the Judahites” and “the Simeonites.”

The Hebrew verb for said is the same here as in verse 1.2. Translators can substitute a more specific verb, such as “invited,” “proposed,” or “suggested” if they prefer.

Simeon his brother gives a literal rendering of the Hebrew singular form, which has a collective meaning here. Most translators will prefer to use a plural. Brother is a kinship term that shows Judah and Simeon were brothers, with the same father (Gen 29.33, 35). Thus the two tribes descended from these two ancestors were closely related (verse 19.1). Later in their history, they actually became one group. In some languages the word “brother” is used in exactly the same way as in Hebrew and so can be retained here. However, some English versions prefer to say “relatives” (Contemporary English Version) or “kinsmen” (Revised English Bible). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh uses the expression “brother-tribe,” which gives the right idea, but is not very natural in English. More explicitly, we might say “The people of the clan of Judah said to their relatives from the clan of Simeon.”

If the word brother, either singular or plural, is retained, in many languages it may be necessary to specify which of the brothers is older. In this case Simeon is older than Judah. If necessary, we might say “The descendants of Judah put a proposal to the descendants of Simeon, Judah’s older brother.”

Come up with me into the territory allotted to me: Once again the key verb “come/go up” refers to going into battle. Thus Judah is requesting Simeon’s help in capturing the land that God has promised to the people of Israel. A military term can be used here, such as “March” (New Jerusalem Bible), or a more general expression, such as “come help conquer,” “take,” or “attack.”

With me refers to the tribe of Judah. The dialogue is presented as if two individuals rather than two tribes are talking. Certainly each tribe had its representatives. In most languages it will be more natural to use a plural “us”: “Come help us conquer…” or “Come with us to help us take….”

The territory allotted to me, which is literally “my lot,” refers here to the land that was given to the tribe of Judah, as assigned by Moses (see verse 15). The Hebrew word for “lot” (goral) refers to the object cast to determine some fact or to make some choice, whether by Jews (verse 14.2-5) or non-Jews (Jonah 1.7). By extension, the word refers here to the land promised by the LORD to each tribe. Translators should try to find a term that differs from the word for “land” in verse 1.2, for example, “portion,” “area,” “region,” or “parcel.” The verb allotted does not occur in Hebrew but if a verb is needed, we might say “given” or “assigned” (Good News Translation). In some languages an agent will need to be specified. Joshua was the one who was in charge of the distribution, but ultimately it was God who determined the lots, so we might say “the land that God has given us.” To me is once again a reference to the tribe of Judah. See above.

That we may fight against the Canaanites gives the goal of the invitation. The pronoun we refers to the combined tribes of Judah and Simeon. May fight renders the same Hebrew verb as in verse 1.1. At that time the Canaanites were living in the land assigned to the tribe of Judah, so the people of Judah needed to drive them out before they could take control of that territory. Some languages may prefer to make this purpose clause into an independent clause, as in Good News Translation: “and we will fight the Canaanites together.”

For the first half of this verse we might say:

• The people of Judah invited their brothers, the people of Simeon to join them in battle against the Canaanites. They were to fight for the territory God had promised them.

• The descendants of Judah said to their relatives, the descendants of Simeon, “Come into our territory and help us fight against the Canaanites so we can capture the plot of land God has given to us.”

And I likewise will go with you into the territory allotted to you is literally “and I also, I will go with you in your lot.” In typical Hebrew fashion the first suggestion is balanced by the second one. If Simeon helps Judah, then Judah will in turn help Simeon. Since there is a kind of pact being set up, it may be possible to use a condition-consequence construction, for example, “If you help us fight … then we will help you….” Though the two clauses are almost identical, the Hebrew verb for go is more general than the verb rendered Come up. However, the meaning is the same and identical verbs can be used if necessary. I likewise is emphatic, showing this is a solemn promise. Another way to show the emphasis is to use a verb such as “promise,” or a word such as “surely” or “certainly.” For example, we might say “If you do, then we promise to join you in capturing the land allotted to you” or “We will [in return] certainly help you fight for the territory God has given you.” The pronouns I and you are singular, but as noted above, will be better rendered as plurals in most languages, for example, “Come with us to help us conquer the land God gave to us, and we too, we will come and help you conquer the land God gave to you.”

So Simeon went with him indicates that the tribe of Simeon agreed to fight with the tribe of Judah against the Canaanites. So effectively renders the Hebrew waw conjunction here, which introduces the result of the discussion. Simeon accepts Judah’s invitation. Went renders the general Hebrew verb for “go” used in the previous clause. The pronoun him refers to Judah. We can follow Revised Standard Version here, or say “Simeon agreed to fight with Judah.” Good News Translation has “So the tribes of Simeon and Judah went into battle together,” which may slightly shift the emphasis. Here the focus is on Simeon’s acceptance of Judah’s request.

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 .

Now translates the initial Hebrew waw conjunction. It is not a time marker here, but rather introduces a new episode in the book. Translators should look for a good introductory expression. In some languages this might be a time expression such as “One day.” However, some versions choose to omit this conjunction (see Good News Translation).

The angel of the LORD is literally “the messenger of Yahweh,” whom he sends to speak with his people. This messenger appears first in Gen 16.7, where he comes to speak to and comfort Hagar, the mother of Ishmael. It is also the angel of the LORD who calls out to Abraham, preventing him from sacrificing his son Isaac on the mountain (Gen 22.11). In the book of Judges the angel of the LORD also appears at crucial times, both to reprimand the Israelites (verse 2.1-5; verse 5.23) and to appoint certain leaders (verse 6.11; verse 13.3). The angel of the LORD is not just a messenger, but a unique representative of Yahweh. Throughout the Old Testament, the angel of the LORD is used interchangeably with “the LORD.” When this angel speaks, he speaks for God in the first person.

Angel renders a Hebrew word designating a “messenger,” someone who represents another person and speaks on his or her behalf. For example, Jacob sent “messengers” to his brother Esau to ensure he would be well received (Gen 32.3). Many languages already have a word related to angel, itself derived from the Greek word angelos. This is the word the Septuagint uses to translate the Hebrew word found here, as well as appearing throughout the Greek of the New Testament. Some languages will rather translate angel as “God’s messenger,” “God’s representative,” or “God’s spokesperson.” However, in rendering this key term, translators must be careful not to confuse this word with other key terms, such as “prophet” and “apostle,” which are somewhat similar in meaning. In the Old Testament this angel is also called “the angel of God” (verse 6.20; verse 13.6, 9). Within this book as elsewhere, the angel of the LORD is presented as a known character, and the rendering of the phrase should be consistent throughout this book and the rest of Scriptures. See also the discussion of this phrase in A Handbook on Genesis at Gen 16.7.

Went up from Gilgal to Bochim: The key verb rendered went up is used in verse 1.1 and in many other places in this book with a military meaning of “attack” or “go into battle.” But in other contexts it refers to movement (upward), as in verse 1.16. This seems to be the meaning here. The multiple uses of this word make up part of the storyteller’s style and are a particular feature of this book.

The place names Gilgal and Bochim refer to locations that are unknown today. In verse 4.19 Gilgal is described as being on the east border of Jericho. It obviously was an important center because Joshua had set up a memorial there to mark the Israelites’ crossing of the Jordan River. Twelve stones representing the twelve tribes marked the spot (verse 4.19-24). Also, the Israelites were circumcised at Gilgal (verse 5.8-9) and it remained an important place for religious ceremonies at least until the time of Amos (Amos 4.4; verse 5.5). Bochim is another place name, despite the fact that in Hebrew it is preceded by a definite article. In this passage Revised Standard Version gives the name in its transliterated form, Bochim, while at the end of the section (verse 2.4-5), its meaning “the weeping ones” is made clear. This is a good solution in most translations. It is good to use the transliterated name Bochim here, since the point of the passage is to explain this proper name.

For this first sentence of the verse we can say:

• One day the messenger of the LORD went from Gilgal to Bochim.

Since the angel of the LORD has not been introduced previously, in some languages it will be clearer to say:

• One day Yahweh sent his messenger from Gilgal to Bochim.

And he said: Since said translates a very general Hebrew verb, we might prefer “declared” or “announced” as the angel delivers this solemn message. Curiously, the writer does not specify whom the angel is addressing, but it is clearly the people of Israel. See verse 2.4 where the addressee is named as “all the people of Israel.” Translators can make the addressee clear if need be. For example, Contemporary English Version says “and gave the Israelites this message from the LORD.”

I brought you up from Egypt: This clause is surprising because it shows that when the angel speaks, he uses the first person I, representing God. Thus this messenger is completely identified with the one who sent him. He gives the LORD’s exact words. It is as though the LORD himself is speaking. God first reminds the people that he set them free from Egyptian slavery. Although this theme occurs frequently in the Old Testament, this is its first appearance in the book of Judges. If possible, translators should render this key clause in the same way throughout Scripture.

Brought … up renders a form of the key Hebrew verb meaning “go up.” In this context, however, it does not have a military meaning (verse 1.1). Here it is a causative form meaning “caused to go up” and refers to the Exodus, when the Israelites left Egypt and traveled to the Promised Land, Canaan. While it may maintain some of its directional meaning here (up), the verb here also seems to convey the idea of “brought out” or even “deliver.” Translators should try to find a suitable verb. Good News Translation, for example, says “I took you out of Egypt.” Though the pronoun you seems to refer to the Israelites who are at Bochim, it is clear that this pronoun refers to the generation that was brought out of Egypt, and by extension their descendants. So the pronoun you includes both past and present generations, reflecting Israel’s understanding that all generations of a people are linked as one.

Egypt refers to the country on the African continent, corresponding roughly to modern-day Egypt. When the Israelites heard these words, a whole series of events would have come to mind. For most, the word Egypt was synonymous with “slavery,” since this was where the people of Israel were held in bondage (Exo 1.11), made to work as slaves (Exo 1.13-14), and suffered great violence (Exo 1.16). These words reminded them of how Moses led them out of Egypt, how the LORD delivered them at the Sea of Reeds (Exo 14.21-31), and how they came to the place they are now. Thus it is possible for translators to make explicit here “I freed you from slavery in Egypt” or “I brought you out of Egypt where you had been slaves.”

And brought you into the land which I swore to give to your fathers: The goal of the journey from Egypt was to enter Canaan, the land that God promised to the patriarchs. Translators can render the land as “this land” or “the land of Canaan.” See verse 1.2 for more comments on the land.

Which I swore to give to your fathers refers to the LORD’s promise to give the land of Canaan to Abraham (Gen 12.1-7). That promise was renewed with each generation. The Hebrew verb rendered swore means “made a [solemn] promise” or “took an oath.” When a person swears to do something, it means that whatever happens, the person will do what he or she says. In most languages there are idiomatic expressions to express this idea, for example, “give mouth.” If such an expression does not exist, translators might say “I said strongly that I will [without fail]” or “I promised.”

In Hebrew there is no verb for give here, and the text simply says “which I swore to your fathers.” Some languages will need to add a verb here, as Revised Standard Version has done, and translate this clause as “that I promised to give to your fathers” or “that I promised your fathers would inherit/acquire.” Your fathers refers here to the ancestors of Israel, going all the way back to Abraham, who first received this promise. Many languages use the word fathers in a similar way to Hebrew. But others will say “ancestors” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation), “forefathers” (Revised English Bible), or “grandfathers.”

I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you: This sentence begins with the waw conjunction in Hebrew, so “and” can be added if necessary. I said renders the general Hebrew verb for “say.” But here the LORD is quoting himself, that is, the past promise he gave them. Translators must decide if they want to retain the quote within a quote, as in Hebrew and Revised Standard Version, or if it is better to use indirect speech here, for example, “I told you that I would never….” Whatever the choice, translators should use standard punctuation.

I will never break my covenant with you is literally “I will not break my covenant with you forever.” Never is a good English rendering of the Hebrew expression loʾ … le-ʿolam (“not … to eternity”). This type of language has its roots in the covenant traditions of Abraham and David, which use the same word ʿolam to describe the covenant (Gen 17.13; verse 2 Sam 23.5). Some languages may have ideophones to express the notion of “not forever,” somewhat like the English expression “never, ever.” Though it is better to retain the strong negative statement here, in some languages it may be necessary to transform this negative statement into a positive one. In this case we might say “I will always keep my promise to you” or “For all time, I will honor our alliance.” However, if possible, the negative expression should be maintained. This first negative statement will be balanced out by a second negative clause, an imperative, in what follows.

Break my covenant refers to breaking a promise, that is, stopping an agreement or an alliance between two parties (see, for example, Gen 17.14). In many languages one “spoils” an alliance rather than “breaks” it. Translators may use an idiomatic expression here. The Hebrew word for covenant (berith) is one of the most profound theological ideas found in the Bible, so translators should take great care in finding the right term. It designates an official relationship between two parties, sometimes with stipulations as to how that agreement can be maintained or broken. In a non-religious sense, it is the word used when alliances or treaties were made between nations, for example, to help each other in times of war. In a religious sense, this word conveys a special relationship between God and humans, and here it points specifically to the promise God made to Abraham in Gen 12.1-7. This word was translated “testament” in English to refer to the Old and New Testaments, since “testament” once had the same meaning as covenant. Translators need to look to their own culture to find the best word to describe this agreement between two parties or between ethnic groups. If a term already exists and is used in an older translation of the Bible, translators should reevaluate the term and propose a change if necessary. If a term does not exist, possibilities might be “alliance,” “pact,” “promise,” “agreement,” “special relationship,” “commitment,” and “contract.”

The LORD first made the promise to the fathers, so the pronoun you refers to all the Israelites, from the ancestors all the way down to the present generation hearing these words.

Translation models for this clause might be:

• I will never break the solemn promise I have made to you.

• I will forever keep the covenant I made 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 verse begins with a Hebrew waw conjunction that many versions choose to omit.

He gathered to himself the Ammonites and the Amalekites means that King Eglon rallied more than his own people to join him in battle against the Israelites. Gathered renders a Hebrew verb form that sounds like the verb for “added” in the previous verse, so there may be a play on words here. Gathered to himself expresses a Hebrew idiom that can be rendered “gathered around himself,” “brought together [to fight with him],” or simply “assembled.” The Ammonites (literally “the sons [or, children] of Ammon”) were people who lived in the territory north of Moab, in a region of the country today called Jordan. This group was located near Amman, the present capital of Jordan. The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, who was the grandson of Esau (Gen 36.15-16). These enemy people attacked the Israelites as they made their way from Egypt to the Promised Land (Exo 17.8-16). We might say Eglon “brought the Ammonites and the Amalekites together under his command” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) or “invited the Ammonites and the Amalekites to join him to fight Israel.”

And went and defeated Israel: In Hebrew the verbs here are singular, with Eglon as the subject. This is to be expected since Eglon is the one leading the combined forces that attacked and defeated Israel. In many languages it will appropriate to keep Eglon as the subject. If not, the translator can use the pronoun “they.” Went renders the simple Hebrew verb that means “go,” and defeated renders the verb that means “strike” (see comments on verse 1.4).

And they took possession of the city of palms: The combined armies crossed the Jordan River and captured Jericho. Took possession of renders the key Hebrew verb (yarash) that figures so prominently in the introductory sections (see comments on verse 1.19). Translators are free to add the name “Jericho” to the text, since this is what the original audience understood when they heard this phrase.

A model for the translation of this verse is:

• Eglon brought together [into his army] the peoples of Ammon and Amalek, and together they went out and defeated Israel. They captured the town of Jericho, the city of palm trees.

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 .

While Sisera runs away on foot, his army also tries to flee. In some languages this implicit information may need to be made explicit, for example, “As Sisera’s army fled, Barak pursued….”

And Barak pursued the chariots and the army to Harosheth-ha-goiim: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be omitted or rendered by another conjunction in the target language. Despite their efforts, the enemy army could not get away. Barak refers obviously to Barak and his warriors, for he did not do this alone. The Hebrew words for Barak pursued are baraq radaf, an apparent play on words, since they seem to rhyme. Pursued the chariots and the army is literally “pursued after the chariots and after the army.” Finally Barak is giving the battle his all. Translators may say “chased after Sisera’s chariots and men,” “ran after…,” or “went after….” For chariots see verse 1.19; for army see verse 4.15. The mention of Harosheth-ha-goiim (Good News Translation “Harosheth-of-the-Gentiles”) makes the point that the enemy is forced back to their starting point (see verse 4.2, verse 13) and also underlines the fact that the enemy soldiers are pagans, that is, they do not believe or follow Yahweh.

And all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword: It is now that all Sisera’s men are killed. In the meantime Sisera has abandoned his troops and is running for his life. All the army refers to both his soldiers riding on the chariots and his foot soldiers. Army renders the same Hebrew word as in the previous clause. Fell by the edge of the sword is a Hebrew idiom meaning these men were massacred. The Hebrew verb rendered fell (nafal) occurs once again, describing the death of the enemy (see verse 3.25; verse 5.27; verse 9.40). In many languages a similar idiom with the verb “fall” may express death. For the edge of the sword, see verse 1.8, where it is noted that this expression can be omitted. If the verb fell cannot be retained, translators could say “and Barak’s troops killed them all” or “Barak and his men killed all of Sisera’s soldiers.” In some languages it will be easier to use a passive expression, for example, “Sisera’s whole army was killed” (Good News Translation).

Not a man was left is literally “not it was left up to one.” The destruction was complete, with no enemy soldier remaining alive. The word man does not occur in Hebrew, but can be added as Revised Standard Version has done. Was left renders a Hebrew word that refers to survivors. This clause may be translated “not even one remained.” It may be possible to combine this with the preceding clause by saying “Every single soldier of Sisera’s army was killed” or “Barak killed every single one of Sisera’s soldiers.” But following the Hebrew closely can also be effective: “Barak killed all Sisera’s soldiers—not one was left” or “Barak killed all Sisera’s soldiers—every single one!”

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 .