But the men would not listen to him: But is a good rendering of the Hebrew waw conjunction here, since the men of Gibeah refused to accept the old man’s suggestion. Presumably they refused because they wanted the Levite and not the women. The Hebrew verb for listen (shamaʿ) has the sense of “obey” or “do as asked” here (see verse 2.2). The pronoun him refers to the old man. We might say “But the men refused to listen [or, accept his offer].”

So the man seized his concubine: Who is the man in this clause? In this passage this expression is used to refer both to the Levite and to the old man, though usually the old man is referred to by a longer or different expression (see verse 19.23). The last masculine singular form refers to the old man, and he has already offered the Levite’s concubine to the men, seemingly without any discussion with her husband. However, it is also possible and perhaps more likely that it is the Levite who seized his concubine. Seeing that the old man was willing to offer his own virgin daughter, the Levite may have impulsively forced his wife outside. Many versions accept this latter interpretation by rendering the man as “the Levite” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible) or “the husband” (New American Bible). Like Revised Standard Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh preserves the ambiguity here, but it may be better to simply make a choice and follow through with it in the next clause. Seized renders the same Hebrew verb translated “made … stay” in verse 19.4 (see comments there), coming from a root meaning “strength.” Good News Translation and New International Version use the verb “took,” which seems too weak in this context. A better rendering is “grabbed” (Contemporary English Version).

And put her out to them: Put … out renders the same Hebrew verb translated “bring out” in verse 19.22 (see comments there). The subject here would be the same as in the previous clause, either the old man or the Levite. The pronoun her refers to the Levite’s concubine. Even though the old man also offered his daughter, evidently only the concubine was put outside. The pronoun them refers to the men who surrounded the old man’s house. This clause may be rendered “and pushed her outside to them.”

And they knew her: Even though the men refused the offer of the old man, once the concubine was outside, they forgot about her husband and attacked her. The Hebrew verb rendered knew appears in verse 19.22, where it refers to a homosexual act. Here it refers to the gang-rape of the concubine by the men of Gibeah. Contemporary English Version is very direct: “The men raped her.”

And abused her all night until the morning: The Hebrew verb rendered abused means “deal ruthlessly” or “treat badly,” but in this context it implies sexual abuse. Translators will have to find a term that will imply sexual mistreatment. All night until the morning is an emphatic temporal expression, stressing the continuous abuse of this woman. We might say “all night long until the morning.”

And as the dawn began to break, they let her go is literally “and they sent her away when the dawn came up.” Revised Standard Version reverses the order of these two clauses in Hebrew, which other languages may prefer to do as well.

As the dawn began to break adds a note of sadness to the story. Usually a new day is a sign of hope. Here it signals the end of a life. Thus this may be yet another touch of irony added by the storyteller. The Hebrew word for dawn refers to the very early time in the morning when the first light can be seen. Some languages will say “when the sun came up” or “when morning came.”

They let her go renders the key Hebrew verb meaning “send” (shalach), which is often used at the beginning or end of important conflicts (see verse 1.25). The text here really means “they sent her away,” but as will become evident, she is in no state to go very far. We might even say “they threw her aside.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• But the men didn’t listen to the old man. So the Levite grabbed his concubine and pushed her out to them. They gang-raped her and abused her all night. Then in the morning, as the sun came up, they let her go.

• But the men rejected the old man’s offer, and the Levite seized his concubine and shoved her outside to them. They raped and abused her all night long. Then early in the morning as the dawn was breaking, they abandoned her.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And the people of Israel went up against the Benjaminites on the third day: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “Then” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) to introduce the next event. Once again the people of Israel and the Benjaminites are literally “the sons [or, children] of Israel” and “the sons [or, children] of Benjamin.” These two phrases underline the disaster that has come upon Israel, as the descendants of brothers fight against each other. For went up against, see verse 1.1. On the third day sets the time of this attack in relation to the second attack (verse 20.25). These words might suggest that there were three battles on three successive days, or possibly that this attack took place on the third day after the LORD gave his go-ahead. Given the enormous casualties, the movement of troops, and the efforts made to consult the LORD, this later scenario seems more realistic. It is possible in this context that the word day may mean “occasion” or “time.” For example, New American Bible says “for the third time.” Many languages will prefer to put this time phrase at the beginning of the verse.

And set themselves in array against Gibe-ah: Set themselves in array renders the same Hebrew verb translated “drew up [the battle] line” in verse 20.20. The Israelite troops positioned themselves for battle.

For as at other times (literally “as footstep by footstep”), see the comments on verse 16.20. While most of the Israelites were in hiding, waiting in ambush, many took battle positions as they always had, giving the impression that they were simply arranged for battle, as previously. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “as before,” which is a good rendering.

A translation model for this verse is:

• Then the Israelites went to attack the Benjaminites a third time, positioning themselves for battle against Gibeah, as they had previously.

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 .

One unusual feature of the Hebrew text here is the many pronominal references referring to distinct groups. Clarifying who is referred to by each pronoun is vital to understanding and translating this verse meaningfully.

And Benjamin returned at that time: The 600 Benjaminite soldiers who had hidden at Rimmon Rock now went back home. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “So” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version), since it introduces a result of the peace proclamation. Returned renders the key Hebrew verb shuv (see verse 2.19), which is often used elsewhere in the Old Testament to mean “restore.” Here the Benjaminites are clearly returning home. The phrase at that time marks the time of their return as significant, so we might emphasize it in a sentence-initial position: “So at that time the Benjaminites went back home.”

And they gave them the women …: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and indicates that the virgins were given to the Benjaminites after they returned home. Another possible connector is “Then.” The pronoun they refers to the Israelites, who handed over the captured women to the Benjaminites (them). If there is any confusion with these pronouns, they may be replaced by full nouns (see second model below). In this context the verb gave means “gave in marriage,” which Contemporary English Version makes clear by saying “the Israelites let them marry the young women from Jabesh.” Instead of women, translators may say “virgins” or “brides” if that is more appropriate in this context. During those times, women captured in war were regularly given to other men as wives or slaves, as made clear in the Song of Deborah (see verse 5.30).

Whom they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-gilead: The pronoun they refers to the Israelites. Had saved alive renders the Hebrew verb meaning “be alive,” but here it might be translated “had spared” ( NET Bible). Good News Translation says “had not killed.” The phrase of the women of Jabesh-gilead may seem redundant, but it underlines the fact that most of the women in this town were killed. Good News Translation reduces Jabesh-gilead to “Jabesh,” which is an acceptable change.

But they did not suffice for them is a dynamic rendering of the Hebrew, which is literally “and they did not find for them so.” Since there were only 400 virgins found, obviously there were not enough for each of the remaining 600 soldiers. The Hebrew verb for “find” forms an inclusio with “found” in verse 21.12, closing off this subsection. The pronoun they refers to the young women, and the pronoun them points to the Benjaminites. Again it may be necessary to use nouns rather than pronouns here. We might say “but there were not enough women for every man to have a wife.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• So at that time the Benjaminite soldiers went back home. The Israelites gave them the young women from Jabesh-gilead whom they had spared. However, there were not enough women for everyone to have a wife.

• At that time the Benjaminites returned home. Then the Israelites gave the young women taken from Jabesh to the Benjaminites to marry, but there were not enough young women for each of them.

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 information in this verse and the next one can also be found in verse 17.11-13. Even if a new paragraph begins here, this is a continuation of the story of the house of Joseph (verse 1.22-26). This verse begins with the Hebrew waw conjunction, which Revised Standard Version and most other English versions omit. However, if the story is allowed to flow from 1.26, this conjunction might be rendered “But” (New International Version).

Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants …: Manasseh was the older of Joseph’s two sons (see Gen 48). He became the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, with Gideon being one of his tribe’s most famous heroes. Manasseh’s territory was in the area west of the Jordan River and north of Shechem, extending up to Megiddo Pass. However, the tribe spread out to live on both sides of the Jordan River. As with the other singular names in this section, Manasseh refers not to that individual, but to his descendants or his clan.

For did not drive out, see the discussion at verse 1.19. Revised English Bible uses the expression “failed to drive out,” repeated throughout this section. This wording is an effective way to emphasize that the various tribes failed to do what the LORD asked. For inhabitants see verse 1.11.

Five towns are mentioned here: Beth-shean, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo, along with their villages. Some of these towns are known, especially Megiddo. All must have been wealthy cities and may have been important because of their proximity to various trade routes.

And its villages is literally “and its daughters,” obviously underlining all the places this tribe was unable to dominate. “Daughters” refers to the areas where those towns spread out. Often small communities settled around big towns, profiting from their protection and commercial contacts. Some languages do not have separate words for “city,” “town,” and “village,” so translators may have to find other means to express this notion. We may render its villages as “its settlements,” “its communities,” “people living near the town,” or “in the surrounding territory.”

Revised Standard Version follows the Hebrew text closely with its repetitive the inhabitants of … and its villages. This repetition gives emphasis, but the translator may reduce it if necessary. Good News Translation lists the five towns and then adds the phrase “and the nearby towns.” Contemporary English Version is similar with “the towns of Beth-Shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, Megiddo, and all the villages nearby.”

But the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that land: This sentence is quite emphatic and underlines not only the inability of the Israelites to dominate these peoples, but also the forceful determination of the Canaanite peoples. But, rendering the Hebrew waw conjunction, may express contrast here, but in many languages this conjunction may sound unnatural. Many English versions do not translate it (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), but we might say “In fact,” “and,” or even “because” (see New International Version “for”).

The Canaanites put up strong resistance to the invasion by Manasseh’s soldiers. The Hebrew term for Canaanites is singular, but has a collective meaning here (see verse 1.1). Persisted in dwelling means the Canaanites “were determined to stay” (Contemporary English Version) or “held their ground” (New Jerusalem Bible). Good News Translation‘s “continued to live” is not strong enough here. In dwelling translates the Hebrew infinitive for the verb occurring first in verse 1.9 and throughout this book. In that land is emphatic in Hebrew, with the word for land (ʾerets) being the same one used throughout the Old Testament to refer to the Promised Land. However, here we may simply say “in that territory” or “in that region,” or we may replace the phrase with a pronominal expression such as “there” (Good News Translation).

A possible model for this verse is:

• But Manasseh did not succeed in driving out the people who lived in the towns of Beth-shean, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo, nor the villages surrounding them. Indeed, the Canaanites were determined to stay 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 .

Though the text speaks of training the Israelites to fight as being the only reason that the LORD allowed the foreign peoples to stay in the Promised Land, another reason was given in verse 2.22-23. There is much repetition here, since the Hebrew words for “know” and “only” each occur twice. New Revised Standard Version and New International Version, among others, consider this verse to be a kind of “aside” and put it in parentheses, but translators must find the best way in their language to present such material.

It was only that the generations of the people of Israel might know war …: The syntax of this verse is quite complicated in Hebrew, beginning literally with “only in order that” followed by two infinitive phrases with the verbs “know” and “teach.” These two infinitive phrases spell out the second reason Yahweh allowed the non-believing peoples to stay in the Promised Land. It was so that the new generation of Israelites would come to know or “learn” how to wage war. For it was only that …, some possible translations are “One of his main objectives was…,” “He did this in order that…,” and “He did this so that….”

The generations of the people of Israel is literally “the generations of the sons/children of Israel,” which may be rendered “successive generations of Israelites” (New Revised Standard Version), “future generations…,” or perhaps “each new generation….” For generations see verse 2.10; for the people of Israel, see verse 1.1.

The subject of the verb know is the generations of the people of Israel. Usually, this verb has a direct object, but in the Hebrew text there is none. It is almost as if the narrator made a false start, saying “so that the people of Israel might know, that they might learn [what] war [is about].” Many versions either omit the verb know in their translation or anticipate as its object the word war, which occurs in the following clause (so Revised Standard Version). Another possible solution is to render the first clause of this verse as “so that the future generations of the people of Israel might [really] understand [or, gain experience].”

That he might teach war renders an infinitive phrase that is literally “to teach war.” Revised Standard Version has made explicit that the LORD (he) will teach the Israelites how to fight. However, making Yahweh the subject here raises a number of practical and theological issues, so most versions avoid this approach. New Revised Standard Version says simply “to teach,” and Contemporary English Version has “The Israelites needed to learn how to fight in war.” Other possibilities are “He wanted them to learn how to fight” and “that they might experience what it is to fight.”

To such at least as had not known it before renders another difficult clause, which is literally “only who before did not know them.” This clause seems to indicate that the teaching is for those who had not previously known war, that is, “especially those who had not experienced war before.” Revised Standard Version replaces the Hebrew pronoun for “them,” which seems to refer to battles in the plural (as in verse 3.1), with it, to refer to war. Translators should follow ver RSVver* here. For some languages it is better if this clause comes earlier in the translation, so that it can directly modify the people of Israel.

A suggested model for this verse is:

• The main purpose was to teach each generation of Israelites, especially those who had no previous battle experience, how to fight.

Another possibility is to combine 3.1-2 as follows:

• The LORD wanted the new generation of Israelites to learn how to fight, especially those who had not previously taken part in a war. So to test them, he left the following nations in place:….

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 .

She sent and summoned Barak: Though many versions continue the same paragraph as far as 4.10, the introduction of a new character here (Barak) may signal a paragraph break (Contemporary English Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). This verse begins with a Hebrew waw conjunction, which may be rendered “One day” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) to help set the scene. The name “Deborah” can be reintroduced also in place of the pronoun She. The use of both sent and summoned may be due to the fact that Barak is at some distance from Deborah, or they may have the force of an order “had him summoned.” The Hebrew verb for sent (shalach) is a keyword throughout this book (for example, verse 3.15, 18, 21; verse 6.8; verse 7.24; verse 9.23). The verb for summoned is simply the verb meaning “call.” In some languages it may not be necessary to render the two verbs. Translators should find an appropriate expression in their language, such as “sent for.” For the whole clause Contemporary English Version says “Deborah sent word for him to come.”

The name Barak means “lightning” in Hebrew. A few biblical scholars have proposed that the names Barak (“lightning”) and Lappidoth (“torches”) refer to the same person, but there is no evidence to support this claim. Many others suggest that Barak’s name is significant, since it reflects the exact opposite of his personality. Lightning strikes quickly, but Barak is neither quick nor effective.

The son of Abino-am from Kedesh in Naphtali: As with other military heroes, Barak is introduced first through the name of his father, Abino-am. Both father and son come from Kedesh, a town in Naphtali, which was a tribal region northwest of the Sea of Galilee (see verse 1.33). This is the area where the oppression was taking place (verse 4.2-3). Deborah is farther south, sending a message north to Barak.

And said to him: As in other passages (for example, verse 1.15), some of the movement is left implicit. The narrator does not say that Barak responds after being summoned by Deborah. However, in some languages it will be necessary to include this implicit information by saying “When Barak arrived, Deborah said to him.”

The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you: Deborah is functioning as the LORD’s spokesperson in typical prophetic style. This address to Barak is actually a rhetorical question in Hebrew, which is literally “Has not Yahweh, God of Israel, commanded…?” (New Jerusalem Bible). The pronoun you does not occur in Hebrew here. Many translations render this clause as an emphatic statement, as Revised Standard Version has done. Contemporary English Version does so but is somewhat flat: “I have a message for you from the LORD God of Israel!” The negative rhetorical form in Hebrew sounds slightly reproachful and may imply that Barak already knew about this command, but had refused to carry it out. This is possible since it soon becomes clear that Barak is reluctant to go to battle (verse 4.8). Translators can render this clause either in question form or as an emphatic statement.

The LORD, the God of Israel is a long phrase but is appropriate in this prophetic context. It is a common expression in Joshua and Jeremiah, and is used throughout this book (verse 5.3, 5; verse 6.8; verse 11.21, 23; verse 21.3). Commands renders a Hebrew verb that can also mean “commission” or “appoint” (see comments on verse 3.4). It underlines the fact that Barak really has no choice in the matter. The pronoun you is implicit and can be added if need be.

In Hebrew the instructions from the LORD can be characterized as “a quote within a quote.” The narrator quotes Deborah, who is quoting the LORD directly. In some languages quotes within quotes are easily processed, while in others it becomes quite complicated to know who is speaking. Translators can cast part of this verse in indirect or semi-direct speech if this makes comprehension easier. See the introductory comments on verse 2.1-5.

Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor is literally “Go and proceed to Mount Tabor.” Go renders the general Hebrew verb, appearing here in imperative form. Though Revised Standard Version says gather your men, the Hebrew verb translated gather (mashak) means “march [into battle]” or “lead into battle.” Revised Standard Version combines this word with the following verb for “take,” rendering gather your men. However, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh is closer to the Hebrew, saying “Go, march up to Mount Tabor.” New Revised Standard Version is similar with “Go, take position at Mount Tabor.” Mount Tabor was located on the northeastern edge of the Plain of Esdraelon, south of Kedesh and Hazor. It was located right where the territories of Naphtali, Zebulun, and Issachar met.

Taking ten thousand men from the tribe of Naphtali and the tribe of Zebulun: Taking translates a Hebrew verb that shows Barak is to assemble or gather men together for battle. For ten thousand men, see verse 1.4 and verse 3.29. Translators can say “10,000 soldiers” or “10 military units.” From the tribe of Naphtali and the tribe of Zebulun is literally “from the children [or, sons] of Naphtali and from the children [or, sons] of Zebulun.” These were northern tribes, in tribal areas oppressed by Jabin of Hazor. The Hebrew is repetitive here, and translators can combine the phrases if need be. It would appear that there are ten thousand warriors in all, and not ten thousand from each of the tribes. Good News Translation rearranges God’s instructions to Barak in this verse by saying “Take ten thousand men from the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead them to Mount Tabor.”

Translation suggestions for this verse are:

• One day, Deborah sent for Barak, the son of Abinoam, who lived in the town of Kedesh in the region of Naphtali. She said to him, “The LORD, the God of Israel, orders you to take 10,000 soldiers from the clans of Naphtali and Zebulun and march to Mount Tabor.

• Deborah summoned the son of Abinoam, named Barak, who lived in Kedesh in the region of Naphtali. When he arrived, she said, “Hasn’t the LORD, the God of Israel, commanded you to march to Mount Tabor with ten units of soldiers from Naphtali and Zebulun?

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 .

As with many parts of this song, the text here presents many problems for interpretation. Despite this challenge, translators should try to respect the rhythmic parallel lines, each one beginning in Hebrew with a prepositional phrase. They paint a strong image of armies coming from all sides to help their brothers. In this passage there is some ellipsis, so implicit information may need to be made explicit in translation.

From Ephraim they set out thither into the valley: Ephraim can refer to either the region named Ephraim or the tribe of the same name (see comments on verse 1.29). Benjamin, Machir, and Zebulun, which are mentioned in the following lines, can also refer to either regions or tribes. However, most versions see here a picture of people moving out from the various regions, coming to help their kinsmen. They set out thither into the valley means the soldiers from Ephraim came from their region into the Jezreel Valley, where the battle against Sisera’s army took place (see verse 4.7). A valley refers to flat, fertile land between two mountains or mountain ranges. It would have been easy for troops to pass through this “flat place” or “lowland.”

This line presents a serious textual problem. While Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, and Revised English Bible follow the Septuagint, the Hebrew text has “From Ephraim their root [was] in Amalek,” meaning the Ephraimites occupied the Amalekite territory. The Amalekites were an ancient people who lived in the southern part of Canaan (see verse 1.16; verse 3.13). They were fierce warriors and attacked the Israelites during the Exodus. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh follows the Hebrew text by saying “From Ephraim came those whose roots are in Amalek.” New International Version is similar, and so is Contemporary English Version, which provides the following helpful model: “Troops came from Ephraim, where Amalekites once lived.” But the Hebrew reading gets only a {C} rating from Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, so it is probably better to follow the ver Septuagintver*, and say “They came from Ephraim into the valley” (Good News Translation) or even “The Ephraimites rallied in the valley.” Whichever reading is chosen, translators may want to include a footnote with the alternative one.

Following you, Benjamin, with your kinsmen is another line whose meaning and rendering is challenging for the translator. Literally the Hebrew text reads “after you Benjamin among your people.” The proper name Benjamin is used as if referring to one person, as if this individual was leading an army. But of course, Benjamin, the ancestor of this tribe, is already dead, so translators may need to say “the Benjaminite army” or “the troops from the territory of Benjamin” if the name cannot refer to Benjamin’s descendants. Revised Standard Version thinks that the tribe of Benjamin is taking the lead, as do New Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. However, the Hebrew phrase rendered following you also occurs in Hosea 5.8, where it seems to mean that Benjamin is “bringing up the rear,” that is, at the back of the troops. This interpretation would fit better with the way the tribe of Benjamin is portrayed in this book. First, they failed to drive out the inhabitants of Jerusalem (verse 1.21), and later, they involved Israel in a deadly civil war (verse 19.1b–21.24). Many versions take this latter approach, saying, for example, “Behind you, Benjamin is in your ranks” (New Jerusalem Bible; similarly New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). For New Jerusalem Bible the referent for the pronouns you and your is Ephraim, but for Revised Standard Version the referent is Benjamin. Revised English Bible sees this line as a battle cry addressed to the Benjaminites, saying:

The men of Ephraim rallied in the vale,
crying, “We are with you, Benjamin!
Your clansmen are here!”

Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version try to solve the problem by removing all references to you. We might say:

• “From Ephraim came warriors down into the valley,
in support of Benjamin and its troops.*
* The meaning of these two lines in Hebrew is uncertain.

• “From the place the Amalekites once ruled,
here come the Ephraimites.
Your relatives, the Benjaminites are behind you!

From Machir marched down the commanders: From Machir is parallel to From Ephraim. Machir was the firstborn son of Manasseh, one of Joseph’s sons. In verse 17.1-13 this name is linked to the area around Shechem in Ephraim, extending toward the Mediterranean Sea. Since this name is not well known, many translations put the name Manasseh here with a footnote stating that Machir is a clan and part of the larger Manasseh tribe. Marched down renders the Hebrew verb meaning “go down” (yarad), used here to speak of going to battle (see verse 1.9). For commanders see verse 5.9.

And from Zebulun those who bear the marshal’s staff: From Zebulun is parallel to From Ephraim and from Machir. Zebulun refers to the tribal people who lived in the central region of the Jezreel Valley, the site of the battle (see verse 1.30). In Hebrew there is no verb here, but marched down is implied from the previous line. As appropriate in their language, translators can either keep the ellipsis or fill in the missing verb. The expression those who bear the marshal’s staff is parallel to the commanders, and is a poetic way of describing the military leaders from Zebulun. This phrase is literally “those who march with [the] staff of [the] leader.” In this context the Hebrew word for marshal refers to a leader who musters people or calls them to service (compare verse 2 Kgs 25.19). The Hebrew word rendered staff comes from the same root as the word for “tribe,” so there is a play on words here. In many cultures scepters are carried by kings and chiefs as a sign of authority. Good News Translation omits this word by saying simply “the officers” (similarly Contemporary English Version). However, this rendering takes away from the beauty of what many would describe as a “praise name” for these important leaders.

Models for translating the second half of the verse are:

• From the tribe of Manasseh arrive commanders,
along with officers from the tribe of Zebulun bearing their staffs.

• From the clan of Manasseh marched down those commanding the battle.
From Zebulun came officers, bearing their batons of authority.

This verse has four parallel lines and translators should try to capture some of the poetic structure. For example, all the lines could begin with a preposition, as in Hebrew, or some other means could be used to imitate the parallel structures 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 .

And the LORD said to him: And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction. Since the LORD protests Gideon’s answer, this conjunction may also be translated “But.” Instead of the LORD, the Septuagint has “the angel of the LORD.” However, there is no textual justification for this change, and it is clear that the narrator is using “the LORD” and “the angel of the LORD” interchangeably (see comments on verse 6.12, verse 14). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “The LORD replied,” which is acceptable in this context.

But I will be with you: But renders the Hebrew particle ki, which may be better rendered “indeed” or “certainly” in this context. Most English versions leave this particle untranslated (New International Version, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). This clause links back to “The LORD is with you” in verse 6.12 (see comments there). Fundamental to any call to service is the promise of divine presence and strength. Again, this account is very close to that of Moses (see Exo 3.12). There seems to be a link as well with the revelation of the divine name in the account of Moses, since the Hebrew word rendered I will be is ʾehyeh (see Exo 3.14). This link to Moses and the seeming reference to the divine name could be pointed out in a footnote if so desired. Good News Translation renders this whole clause as “You can do it because I will help you” (similarly Contemporary English Version), which shows the statement is meant to give Gideon confidence. However, this rendering shifts the viewpoint from God to Gideon and should not be used as a model here.

And you shall smite the Midianites as one man: The LORD tells Gideon that because of his help, Gideon will have no problem defeating the Midianite army. These words are meant to encourage Gideon and assure him of victory. The Hebrew verb rendered smite (nakah) means “crush,” “destroy,” or “defeat” (see comments on verse 1.4). As one man is an idiomatic expression whose exact meaning is unsure in this context. According to a footnote in NET Bible, later in the book (verse 20.8, 11), it refers to “the collective unity of a group,” so one possible interpretation is “you will strike down all the Midianites together” (New International Version). However, the expression might refer to the ease with which Gideon will defeat the Midianites, as in Contemporary English Version: “Defeating the Midianites will be as easy as beating up one man.” If this interpretation is followed, we could say “You will destroy the [whole army of] Midianites as if they were only one person.” But this expression could also refer to Gideon defeating the Midianites “single-handedly.” However, since Gideon rallies and fights with his fellow Israelites, this interpretation is doubtful. Rather, the idea of unity may be retained, with the Israelite soldiers acting as one man. Expressions with the word man are frequent in this story, as well as in the last chapters of the book. Given the number of possible meanings, translators should just chose one. This translation choice will not greatly affect the theological impact of the text or the story line.

Translation models for this verse are:

• But Yahweh replied to Gideon, and said, “I will certainly be with you. You will be able to defeat the [whole army of the] Midianites as if they were a single man.”

• The LORD replied to him, “Ah, but I will be with you, and you will destroy all the Midianites together.”*
* The Hebrew says “you will smash the Midianites as one man.” Some think this means “you will smash the Midianites single-handedly.”

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 .