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

One translation possibility for this verse is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translation models for this verse are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some translation models for this verse are:

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

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

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

And they said to one another is literally “And each man said to his friend/neighbor.” Translators should find a natural way to express the reflexive meaning here. In many languages they can simply say “They asked one another” (New American Bible) or “They asked each other” (Good News Translation).

Who has done this thing? is a literal rendering of the Hebrew question. On a certain level this is a real question, asking for information, but on another level this question also expresses the people’s dismay and unhappiness at finding their place of worship destroyed. The Hebrew expression rendered this thing is quite emphatic. The word for thing can also mean “word,” “matter,” or “affair.” Here it refers to the whole situation that the townspeople found in the morning. They are not happy about the present state of affairs. Contemporary English Version renders this question well with “Who could have done such a thing?” Good News Translation has “Who did this?” We might also say “Who dared to do this?”

And after they had made search and inquired: This clause is an independent sentence in Hebrew, literally “And they inquired and searched.” The Hebrew verbs rendered made search (yedereshu) and inquired (yebaqeshu) sound alike and even rhyme, making the scene almost comical. The use of these two verbs shows emphasis, but if only one verb is available in the target language, translators might say “They searched and searched.” Contemporary English Version says “And they kept on asking.”

They said: The referent for the pronoun they is ambiguous. Does it refer to the people inquiring or to another set of people? Many versions think it refers to another group of people who respond to those who are inquiring. For example, Contemporary English Version says “until finally someone told them.” New Revised Standard Version and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh are similar with “they were told.” However, some versions think the pronoun refers to the people who are inquiring. If so, they said may be rendered “they said to each other” or “they concluded” (similarly NET Bible). This interpretation does not affect the story line and either interpretation seems acceptable.

Gideon the son of Joash has done this thing: Direct speech in Hebrew spells out clearly who did the act. The use of the full name Gideon the son of Joash seems to convey how upset the people are and how serious they think this crime is. This thing once again refers to the whole situation. Depending on the interpretation of the previous clause, we can use direct or indirect speech here. To underline the fact that the townspeople are outraged, we might say “It’s Joash’s son, Gideon, who did this horrible thing!”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Everybody asked each other, “Who could have dared to do such a thing?” They made inquiries all around, until someone finally told them, “It’s Joash’s son, Gideon, who did this!”

• Then they asked one another, “Who could have done such a thing?” They searched and searched and they finally concluded it was Gideon, Joash’s son, who had done this terrible thing.

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

The account of the involvement of the Ephraimites with Gideon continues here. In verse 7.24-25 they helped him by fighting the Midianites and killing two of the enemy commanders. Even though a new chapter begins, there is no large division here. However, some languages may want to begin a new paragraph.

And the men of Ephraim said to him: And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction. New International Version and New Jerusalem Bible use the connector “Now,” and New Revised Standard Version has “Then.” Contemporary English Version and New American Bible render it “But” to indicate that the Ephraimites are confronting Gideon here. The verb said may be rendered “complained” since they express their anger in what they say to him. Because a new paragraph begins here, many languages will prefer to say “Gideon” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New International Version) instead of him. This whole clause may be rendered “When the Ephraimites came to Gideon, they complained to him, saying.”

What is this you have done to us…?: This question may be real or rhetorical. Probably the latter is correct, since the point of the question is to accuse Gideon of failing to respect the people of Ephraim. In many honor-shame cultures it would be expected that related clans would call on each other for help. By not doing so, Gideon has greatly offended the Ephraimites. Translators should express the accusatory or angry tone here. The question is literally “What this thing you have done to us…?” The Hebrew noun for “thing” comes from the same root (d-b-r) as the verb rendered “said” at the end of 8.3, so this word begins an inclusio that closes in verse 8.3. The demonstrative this insists on the “thing,” expressing frustration or anger. Possible models for this question are “How could you do this to us?” and “What have you done to us?” New International Version and Revised English Bible say “Why have your treated us like this?”

Not to call us when you went to fight with Midian: This clause explains what “this thing” is. The Ephraimites are upset because Gideon did not invite them to join in the battle against the enemy. Of course, readers know that God had purposely limited the number of warriors, so that Israel would understand the victory came from him. The word call in this military context refers to calling for soldiers to help in the battle. An appropriate verb should be used, such as “summon” (Revised English Bible) or “ask … to help” (Contemporary English Version). The Hebrew verb rendered fight comes from the same root as the noun meaning “battle,” thus translators can say “when you went to battle against the Midianites.”

Here there are two questions: a general one, followed by a more specific one. Good News Translation chooses to put the more specific question first and the more general one second by saying “Why didn’t you call us when you went to fight the Midianites? Why did you treat us like this?” Contemporary English Version is similar with “When you went to war with Midian, you didn’t ask us to help! Why did you treat us like that?” In many languages a combination of a statement and a question may be effective, for example, “You should have called us when you went to fight against the Midianites. How could you have done this to us?”

And they upbraided him violently: The pronoun they refers to the Ephraimites. The Hebrew verb rendered upbraided is usually translated “complain” in the prophetic writings but can also mean “quarrel.” The Ephraimites are very angry with Gideon, so they use sharp and critical words here. Violently is literally “with force.” Translators need to find an expression for upbraided him violently that naturally occurs in such a context. Some languages will say “complained bitterly against him,” while others might say “rebuked him severely” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Contemporary English Version combines this clause with the initial one by beginning this verse with “But the men were really upset with Gideon and complained….”

Translation models for this verse are:

• But the men from Ephraim criticized Gideon severely and said, “Why didn’t you summon us to join you when you went to fight Midian? How could you do this to us?”

• Now the Ephraimites accused Gideon very strongly, saying, “How could you have done this to us? You should have called us to help you when you went to wage war against Midian!”

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 his mother’s kinsmen spoke all these words on his behalf in the ears of all the men of Shechem …: Abimelech’s uncles did as he requested, and as a result, the leaders of Shechem decided to follow him. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And is better translated “So” (New Revised Standard Version) to introduce their response to Abimelech’s request. For his mother’s kinsmen, see verse 9.1. All these words refers to Abimelech’s message for the leaders of Shechem in the last half of 9.2. The Hebrew expression rendered on his behalf could mean “about him” or “in front of him,” but Revised Standard Version‘s rendering fits this context best. Good News Translation is similar with “for him.” For the Hebrew expression rendered in the ears of all the men of Shechem, see verse 9.2, where it is translated “in the ears of all the citizens of Shechem.” It is advisable to use the same expression here as in 9.2, if possible. It is noteworthy that the body part ears occurs twice, before the next body part hearts occurs.

And their hearts inclined to follow Abimelech is literally “and their heart inclined after Abimelech.” The Hebrew word for hearts refers more to the will than the feelings (see verse 5.9), but here this body part represents the whole person. Thus some versions simply say “they” (New International Version, Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). The Hebrew verb rendered inclined normally means “extend,” “bend down,” or “turn toward.” To say that the leaders’ hearts “inclined after” Abimelech means they decided to support him. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh uses another expression, saying “and they were won over to Abimelech,” but Good News Translation is more direct: “and the men of Shechem decided to follow Abimelech.”

For they said, “He is our brother”: This clause gives the reason for the leaders’ decision to follow Abimelech. The leaders of Shechem consider he is their relative and think if he rules over them they will be favored. The Hebrew word ki rendered for introduces this reason. It may be translated “because” (Revised English Bible). The pronoun they refers to the leaders of Shechem, not to Abimelech’s uncles. Said renders the general Hebrew verb for speaking, but it is also used for interior dialogue, when people are thinking to themselves, so this verb may be rendered “said to themselves” or “reasoned [within themselves].”

In 9.2 Abimelech told his relatives to tell the town leaders they are related by blood. Here these leaders say He is our brother. As is the case in many parts of the world, villages or towns begin as one family or clan moves into an area. Even if the population grows, most families in a given location are often related one way or another. Thus everyone in a given locality is considered a brother. If a language has several expressions for brother, translators should choose the one with a wider meaning, referring to members of the same clan or even the same town. Alternative expressions for this clause are “He is one of us,” “He belongs to our clan,” and “He is our relative” (similarly Good News Translation). Contemporary English Version says “Yes, it would be better for one of our relatives to be king,” but this is not recommended since it introduces the word “king” before it occurs in verse 9.6. Good News Translation uses indirect speech here, which some may prefer (see also the first model below).

In some languages this reason clause can be placed before the result by saying “They said [to themselves] that Abimelech was one of them, so they decided to support him.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• So Abimelech’s uncles spoke to all the leaders of Shechem on his behalf, and they decided they would support him because he belonged to their clan.

• So Abimelech’s maternal uncles communicated this message to all the leaders of the town of Shechem, and the leaders reasoned, “He is our brother.” So they agreed to give him their support.

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 Zebul said to him: Now that Abimelech’s men are out in full force, Zebul turns to Gaal and mocks him.

Where is your mouth now…? is a literal rendering of the Hebrew. This rhetorical question shows contempt for Gaal and his earlier boast about getting rid of Abimelech. This is clearly an idiomatic expression in Hebrew, but many languages will have a similar idiom. Your mouth figuratively refers to the boastful words that Gaal spoke earlier. In colloquial English this question may be rendered “So much for your big mouth!” or “So much for all your talk!” However, a question could be kept here by saying “What do you have to say for yourself now?” Good News Translation says “Where is all your big talk now?” and Revised English Bible is similar with “Where are your brave words now?”

You who said: These words introduces a quote within a quote. Zebul quotes Gaal word for word in order to mock and deride him. The Hebrew for the beginning of Zebul’s speech is literally “Where now is your mouth that said…?” However, as in Revised Standard Version, in some languages it will be necessary to make the pronoun you the subject of the verb said. Translators should express the mocking tone if possible, for example, “Well now, didn’t you say…?” and “Wasn’t it you, Gaal, who said…?”

Who is Abimelech, that we should serve him?: These words repeat what Gaal said in verse 9.28 (see comments there). Translators need to use appropriate punctuation for this quote within a quote. In some languages, however, it may be necessary to change this direct speech into indirect speech, for example, “Weren’t you the one who said that Abimelech is a good-for-nothing and that we should not follow him?”

Are not these the men whom you despised?: Here Zebul continues to mock Gaal by using another rhetorical question. The men (literally “the people”) refers to Abimelech and his men, who were coming down the mountains to attack the city of Shechem. Whom you despised shows that Gaal seriously underestimated Abimelech’s army. Despised may be rendered “ridiculed” (New International Version) or “made fun of” (Contemporary English Version). Many languages will prefer a statement rather than a question here, for example, “There is the army you sneered at” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

Go out now and fight with them: The Hebrew verb rendered Go out (yatsaʾ) is the same one used in previous verses of this episode (verse 9.27, 29, 33, 35). In Hebrew it is followed by the particle naʾ, which is normally used to express politeness. Here it is combined with the word now to express extreme irony. Up till now, Gaal does not know what the reader knows, namely, that Zebul is the one who helped organize the plan to bring him down. Go out now may be rendered “Please, be my guest, go on out there.” Fight with them is literally “fight with him.” The pronoun “him” refers to Abimelech, but Revised Standard Version and many other versions change it to them to include Abimelech’s men. Fight renders the Hebrew verb lacham meaning “battle” or “wage war” (see verse 1.1). We might say “There’s the army you belittled. So now, go on, go out and fight them!” However, some languages may prefer to reverse the clauses, for example, “Ok, be my guest, get out there and fight the people you made so much fun of!”

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, the leaders of Gilead, said to one another: Since this verse gives the reaction of Gilead’s leaders to the Ammonite invasion, the Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “So.” Many versions omit it (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). The people, the leaders of Gilead is a somewhat awkward rendering and might be incorrect. Good News Translation thinks these two phrases refers to two groups: the people and the leaders. However, it is more likely that the second phrase (the leaders of Gilead) fills out or completes the first one (the people). So New International Version says “The leaders of the people of Gilead” (similarly New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation). Leaders renders the Hebrew word sar (see verse 4.2, where it is translated “commander”). Leaders may be rendered “commanders” (New Revised Standard Version) or “officers” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Said to one another is literally “said … man to his neighbor/comrade.” Contemporary English Version has “asked each other,” which is a good model since a question follows.

Who is the man that will begin to fight against the Ammonites?: This question is a rather literal rendering of the Hebrew. The Israelites search for a leader to lead them into battle. We might simply say “Who will begin to fight…?” There are various interpretations possible here. Some scholars believe this is real question, while others consider it rhetorical, as the leaders wonder, “Who in the world will lead us to fight…?” Others take it as a relative clause. For example, New International Version says “Whoever will launch the attack…” (similarly Revised English Bible, New American Bible). Begin to fight has the sense of leading the people into battle. For the Hebrew verb rendered fight (lacham), see verse 1.1.

He shall be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead: The interpretations of this clause vary. It could be an affirmation (so Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation) or a wish (so New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). If it is a wish, it may be rendered “Let him be head…,” which makes sense in this context. Be head is literally “be as head,” which may be translated “serve as head” or simply “lead.” Head designates the “chief” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “leader” (Good News Translation) of the people. This metaphorical use of head is very common throughout the Old Testament. All the inhabitants of Gilead may be rendered “all who live in Gilead.” Since it is the leaders of Gilead who are speaking, another possible model is “all of us who live in Gilead.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• The leaders of [the people of] Gilead said to one another, “Whoever leads us into battle against the Ammonites will become the head of all of us who live in Gilead.”

• The leaders of Gilead asked each other, “Who will lead us into battle against the Ammonites? Let that person become the leader of all Gilead!”

This verse introduces a variant on the judges’ scenario. In the past God sent a judge or deliverer. Here the leaders of Gilead are taking matters into their own hands.

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 .