And the chiefs of all the people, of all the tribes of Israel …: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And begins this verse, but many versions omit it (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). Again strong emphasis is placed on the fact that all the Israelites were in agreement to fight their brothers, the Benjaminites. Along with the repetition of the word all, the word people also appears twice. In this context the Hebrew word for chiefs refers to the leaders of the tribes of Israel. This word is literally “corners,” used figuratively here for leaders (see verse 1 Sam 14.38; Isa 19.13). The phrases all the people and all the tribes of Israel refer to the same set of people, with the second expression modifying or making more specific the first one. Translators need to ensure that readers do not understand there are two groups. This repetition emphasizes the unity of the people in coming forward to address the issue at hand. We might say “The chiefs [or, leaders] of all the people from each of the Israelite tribes….”

Presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God: For presented themselves, New International Version‘s “took their places” is closer to the Hebrew than Good News Translation‘s “were present.” The Hebrew verb here is the same one used when Moses is told to meet Pharaoh (Exo 8.20). It suggests a purposeful action. Assembly renders a general Hebrew word (qahal) that can refer to gatherings to prepare for war or for worship. As the story unfolds, it becomes clear that the Israelites met here to decide what to do about the tragedy that had occurred. The people of God (literally “people of the God”) renders an unusual phrase in Hebrew, referring to the Israelites, who belonged to, or were in a covenant relationship with God. Good News Translation translates the assembly of the people of God as “this gathering of God’s people,” which is a good model to follow.

Four hundred thousand men on foot that drew the sword renders an independent clause in Hebrew, so we might say “and there were…” (Good News Translation). Though certainly many different members of the community came to the assembly, these words specifically mention soldiers. This is probably another touch of irony, because normally an assembly would come to discuss what to do, but here it would appear many have already decided on war. Given the times, four hundred thousand is an enormous number of soldiers. It may be easier to use the numeral “400,000” (Good News Translation) instead of words, since in many languages such figures are extremely long. The Hebrew word for thousand can designate 1,000 soldiers or a group of soldiers (see verse 1.4), so four hundred thousand men may be rendered “400,000 soldiers” or “400 contingents of soldiers.” What is clear is that the number of Israelite soldiers far exceeded that of the Benjaminites. Men on foot refers to infantry soldiers, as opposed to soldiers who might be on horseback or in chariots. Men on foot who drew the sword refers literally to soldiers who were capable of drawing a sword from its scabbard and using it, but this is clearly a figurative expression to refer to armed, competent soldiers ready for battle (see verse 8.10). We might say “There were 400,000 foot soldiers, all armed for battle” or “There were 400,000 soldiers on foot, all fighting men.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• The leaders of all the Israelite tribes met together in the assembly of God’s people. Four hundred groups of infantry gathered there as well, all armed with swords.

• The chiefs of each tribe in Israel were present at the gathering of the people of God. Altogether there were four hundred thousand (400,000) soldiers, all with their swords, prepared to fight.

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 20.36b the narrator comments on the trust the Israelite army had in those they set in ambush. The description now turns to the ambushers themselves. While the armies of Israel and Benjamin were engaged in battle, the ambushers attacked the town of Gibeah.

The sentences of this verse are quite poetic, with the final phrase expressing the dramatic capture of Gibeah. They read literally:

And the ambusher they hurried and they rushed upon Gibeah.
And he spread out the ambusher and he struck all the city to the mouth of the sword.

Throughout this subsection singular subjects are often used with plural verbs, which is not so unusual in some Hebrew narratives. Here the word “ambusher” is repeated twice and is presented in a chiastic structure, adding to the emphasis on the great victory.

And the men in ambush made haste and rushed upon Gibe-ah: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered And may be translated “Then” (New Living Translation) or left untranslated, as in New Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation. For the men in ambush (literally “the ambusher”), see verse 20.29. The verbs made haste and rushed describe the initial attack on the town of Gibeah. The Hebrew verb for made haste means “hurry.” The ambushers acted quickly. The Hebrew verb for rushed refers to a quick and violent action (see verse 9.33). This sentence paints a picture of a swift and sudden attack. In many languages these two verbs can be combined. For example, New Revised Standard Version says “The troops in ambush rushed quickly upon Gibeah,” and New International Version, “The men who had been in ambush made a sudden dash into Gibeah.”

And the men in ambush moved out: New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh sees two ambushes in this verse, but no other version adopts this interpretation. The men in ambush is simply repeated for emphasis. The Hebrew verb rendered moved out often means “drag out” or “drag off,” but in this context it can mean “deploy” or “spread out” (Good News Translation). After the ambushers rushed into the town, they moved throughout it.

And smote all the city with the edge of the sword means the ambushers killed everyone who remained in Gibeah. For smote … with the edge of the sword, see verse 1.8. All the city refers to the inhabitants of Gibeah.

There is much repetition in this verse, and some languages will prefer to describe what happened in briefer terms. Two models that do this are:

• Those waiting in ambush then rushed out and attacked Gibeah, killing everyone in that city.

• The ambushers rushed into the city of Gibeah, and spread out, putting to death everyone 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 .

This verse anticipates the reaction of the fathers and brothers of the captured young women of Shiloh.

And when their fathers or their brothers come to complain to us: And when is literally “And it will happen when.” This expression introduces a temporal clause in Hebrew, but many treat it as a conditional clause by beginning with “If” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). Another possible way to begin this verse is “And if it should happen that….” Their fathers and their brothers refer to the male relatives of the captured young women. In Hebrew the word for fathers includes uncles, and the word for brothers includes male cousins. Mentioning them reflects the cultural situation of that time, since it was the men of the family who were responsible for protecting the women, especially the unmarried girls (see Gen 34). The Hebrew verb rendered complain (riv) can mean “dispute” or even “accuse,” as in a legal setting (see verse 6.31, where it is rendered “contend”). Good News Translation uses the verb “protest,” which fits well here. The pronoun us in the Hebrew text refers to the Israelites. The Septuagint replaces this pronoun with “you,” referring to the Benjaminites. Though most versions stay with the Hebrew text, Good News Translation adopts the ver Septuagintver* reading. However, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends following the Hebrew text. Translators should indicate in a footnote if they opt for another reading than the Hebrew text.

We will say to them: The pronoun we refers to Israelites, and the pronoun them points to the male relatives of the captured young women. This clause seems to confirm that the pronoun us rather than the pronoun “you” should be used in the previous clause. Good News Translation changes this clause to read “you can tell them,” a reading that Hebrew Old Testament Text Project does not recommend.

Grant them graciously to us renders a Hebrew text that says “Be gracious [or, Show favor] to them for/to us.” The Septuagint omits the words to us, but Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends keeping them. The pronoun them refers to the Benjaminites, and pronoun us points to the Israelites leaders. The Israelites ask the men of Shiloh to forgive the Benjaminites for capturing the young women on their behalf. They want them to allow the Benjaminites to keep the women they have captured. Thus New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “Be generous to them for our sake,” and New International Version has “Do us a kindness by helping them.” Translators may also say “Be gracious to them on our account [or, for our sake].”

Because we did not take each man of them his wife in battle explains why the men of Shiloh should be gracious to the Benjaminites. During the attack on Jabesh-gilead, the Israelites were not able to obtain enough wives for all the surviving Benjaminites. Because renders well the Hebrew particle ki. The pronoun we refers logically back to the Israelite leaders, who did not physically carry out the act of “taking” the young women from Jabesh, but who are taking responsibility. The pronouns them and him refer to the Benjaminites. New International Version says “because we did not get wives for them during the war.” Contemporary English Version is similar with “After all, we couldn’t get enough wives for all the men of Benjamin in the battle at Jabesh.”

Neither did you give them to them is literally “for you, you did not give to them,” which seeks to explain why the men of Shiloh are not at fault. Normally a wrong would have been committed if they had willingly given their daughters in marriage to Benjaminite men, as specified in verse 21.1. However, the Israelites argue that in this case, the vow is not really being broken, since the daughters had not been “given.” This clause begins with the Hebrew particle ki, which could be rendered “because” (Contemporary English Version), “since” (Good News Translation, New International Version), or “for.” The men of Shiloh (you) did not willingly give their daughters (the first them) to the Benjaminites (the second them). Translators may make these pronouns explicit if necessary (see first model below).

Else you would now be guilty is literally “at the time you would be guilty.” If the men of Shiloh had willingly given their daughters, they would have broken their vow and been guilty before Yahweh and deserved to die. But since their daughters are stolen, they are not guilty. For this clause and the previous one we might say “You did not give your daughters to the Benjaminites, so you are not really guilty” or “You did not really give your daughters to the Benjaminites. If you had, you would be guilty [but you are not].” New International Version reverses these clauses, saying “and you are innocent, since you did not give your daughters to them.”

Translation models for this verse are:

• If the young women’s fathers or brothers come to us to protest, we will say, ‘Be generous to the Benjaminites on our account, because we could not get enough wives for them during the battle [at Jabesh-gilead]. Since you did not actually give your daughters to the Benjaminites, you are not guilty of breaking your vow.’ ”

• If it happens that the girls’ male relatives come to complain, we will beg them to forgive you because we weren’t able to get enough wives for you from the battle. We will say to them, ‘You are innocent [in this matter], since you did not give your daughters to them—they stole 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 previous verse seems to give a summary of the attack on Bethel, while the rest of this unit gives the details of the attack. For this reason Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version combine 1.22-23. However, in most languages this will not be necessary.

And the house of Joseph sent to spy out Bethel: And renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which may also be translated “first” since this clause describes how the tribe of Joseph went about capturing Bethel. Once again the phrases house of Joseph and “house of God” (Bethel) seem to be placed together for a contrastive effect. If repeating the house of Joseph is unacceptable, the translator may simply use the pronoun “they.” See verse 1.22 for comments on the house of Joseph and Bethel.

Sent to spy out renders a single verb in Hebrew (tur), which is also used in Num 13–14. We could say “sent out spies to find out what they could about Bethel.” If a word for spy does not exist, translators might say “sent men out to observe/look around the city.” Many languages will need to make explicit “to see how they could capture it.”

(Now the name of the city was formerly Luz): Gen 28.19 gives this same information, noting that Jacob is the one who named the town Bethel. Once again Revised Standard Version puts background information in parentheses. See verse 1.10. New Jerusalem Bible says “In olden days, the name of the town was Luz.” We might also say “Previously, Bethel was known as Luz.” The name Luz is repeated at the end of this unit (verse 1.26), forming an inclusio.

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 the previous verse explained what the Israelites had done to merit their punishment, this verse describes it. In most languages this order will make sense. If not, 2.20-21 might be combined. If there is a full stop at the end of the previous verse, it may be helpful to begin this verse with “Therefore,” “Because of this,” or “That’s why.”

I will not henceforth drive out before them …: In Hebrew this is an emphatic statement from God, similar to verse 2.3, beginning with the words “also I,” conveying the idea that a conclusion is being expressed. Revised Standard Version does not render this emphasis. It may be expressed by saying “So, this is what I’ve decided to do….” Revised English Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh have “I for my part…,” an emphatic phrase that could serve as a model in some languages.

The emphatic opening is followed by an emphatic negative statement, will not henceforth drive out (literally “will not add to drive out a man”), which means God will not continue to drive out any more Canaanites. The period of divine assistance is now at an end. Good News Translation translates “I will no longer drive out.” For drive out see verse 1.19. Here the verb has a direct object, “a man,” not expressed by Revised Standard Version. This is an emphatic way of saying “not a single man,” “not even one,” or “not any.” If possible, translators should try to express this emphasis. Before them refers to the Israelites and this can be made explicit if need be. Some versions leave this phrase out, since it may be understood from the context.

Any of the nations that Joshua left when he died: This clause completes and adds emphasis to the declaration of the LORD. It mentions a number of important elements. First, the Hebrew word for nations (goyim) ties back to the ironic remark made in verse 2.20, where Israel is designated a goy, a nation like any other. Also the mention of Joshua evokes a time when Israel was successful in entering the Promised Land and driving out their enemies. Joshua’s death is seen as a decisive turning point, when things start to go downhill, as the people no longer serve the LORD. Very often the term nations has to be rendered according to context. Here it refers to non-Israelite nations, but these are not large countries as the modern term might imply. Rather, these nations are tribal groups, whether large or small, such as the Canaanites (verse 1.4), the Jebusites (verse 1.21), and the Amorites (verse 1.34). If possible, the translation should imply that these are peoples who do not worship Yahweh. So we might speak of “foreign peoples,” “foreign clans,” or “foreign tribes.” The nations that Joshua left when he died refers to the non-Israelite tribes that were still living in the Promised Land when Joshua died. We might speak of “the foreign peoples who remained when Joshua died” or “the foreign tribes who were still there after Joshua died.” Good News Translation translates “the nations that were still in the land when Joshua died.” This is a good model to follow.

Translation suggestions for this verse are:

• Because of this, I have firmly decided I will no longer drive out even one of the foreign peoples/tribes remaining in the land when Joshua died.

• So here is my decision: I will no longer help them remove any of these pagan peoples who remained in the land after Joshua’s death.

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 sold them into the hand of …: For this idiom, see verse 2.14.

Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor: King of Canaan appears to be an old and well known title. However, some scholars doubt that there ever was a king of Canaan, and think that the expression is used here simply to give status to Jabin who was the king of Hazor at that time. Good News Translation calls him “a Canaanite king,” implying that he is one of many kings in the region. For king see verse 1.7; for Canaan see verse 1.1. Reigned renders a word from the same Hebrew root (m-l-k) as the word for king, thus putting heavy emphasis on Jabin’s power and authority. Obviously, from the storyteller’s viewpoint, the more powerful the enemy, the more impressive Israel’s victory will be.

Hazor was a city-state north of the Sea of Galilee, in the region assigned to Naphtali. According to verse 11.10, it was the “head” of many kingdoms. Thus the administrative center of Jabin’s realm was located at this important crossroads of the trade routes running between Damascus and the coast at Sidon.

The commander of his army was Sisera: The storyteller now introduces a new character who will play an important role in this episode. The Hebrew word translated commander (sar) can refer to an official, ruler, or leader, whether political or religious. But in this military context it refers to a general who is head of the troops. An appropriate term should be used, for example, “commander,” “chief,” or “general.” The pronoun his refers back to Jabin, the king. Unlike Ehud who had to rally his men, Jabin already has a full standing army. The word for army is singular in Hebrew, but of course, translators can use a plural term here, for example, “troops” or “soldiers.”

Who dwelt in Harosheth-ha-goiim: As with most main characters in this book, the origins of Sisera are spelled out. His Canaanite origins are reflected in the name of the town in which he lived, Harosheth-ha-goiim, which means “Harosheth of the nations.” The Hebrew word goyim (“nations”) is consistently used in the Old Testament to refer to the nations or peoples who did not recognize Yahweh as Lord (see verse 2.21, verse 23; verse 3.1). Non-Israelites were goyim, that is, “Gentiles” (Good News Translation) or “pagans.” The mention of the word here would have made listeners laugh with contempt. The precise location of this town is not certain, though it probably lies somewhere in the Plain of Sharon. Translators can decide if they want to transliterate this name (Revised Standard Version) or translate it (Good News Translation). However, there is a real advantage to translating it, since the reference to goyim sets the scene for the conflict here.

Models for the translation of this verse are:

• So the LORD gave Jabin, king of Canaan, power over them, and he ruled over them from Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera, who came from the town of Harosheth-ha-goiim.

• So the LORD made them subject to Jabin, the Canaanite king who ruled in Hazor. The leader of his soldiers was named Sisera, from the town called Harosheth-of-the-Gentiles [or, Pagans].

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 Hebrew the structure of this verse is quite distinctive. Though Revised Standard Version begins with the imperative, Tell of it, this expression occurs at the end of the verse. The verse begins with three parallel participial clauses that identify those addressed and concludes with an imperative. It reads literally:

Those riding on tawny donkeys,
those sitting on saddle blankets,
and those walking on the road,
ponder!

These lines could be a call to the same set of people or to two or three different groups. Several versions see a progression from rich people, those who ride on donkeys, to poorer ones, those who walk (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version).

Tell of it renders a Hebrew verb that can mean “think about,” “ponder,” or “meditate on,” so New International Version says “consider.” It can also mean “complain out loud” or “speak out loud,” which seems behind the Revised Standard Version rendering. In Hebrew there is no word corresponding to the pronoun it, but many languages will need to add an object here. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “declare it.” Good News Translation puts “Tell of it” in the text and “Think about [it]” in a footnote. Some languages may prefer to be more explicit by saying “Consider what the LORD has done” or “Meditate on this victory.” Many versions prefer to place this imperative at the beginning of the verse as Revised Standard Version has done. However, New Jerusalem Bible follows the Hebrew order and puts the verb at the end of this verse, but its rendering “sing” does not seem accurate. New International Version presents this verb as introducing what follows in the next verse, saying “consider sup 11sup* the voice of the singers at the watering places.” Translators should study this verse and the next one and see how to best present the ideas here, all the while not forgetting that we are dealing with poetic lines.

You who ride on tawny asses is the first group of addressees. You who ride renders a Hebrew participle, which is literally “those riding” or “ones riding.” Revised Standard Version adds the pronoun you to help the reader know these people are being addressed. Ride translates a Hebrew verb that means “mount and ride” or “ride in a chariot.” Here the object is donkeys, so a verb used for mounting or riding a horse or donkey should be used. Tawny asses are light-colored donkeys. For asses see the comments on verse 1.14, where a different Hebrew word is used. The word for asses here refers specifically to female donkeys, so Revised English Bible says “she-donkeys,” but many versions simply say “donkeys” (Good News Translation, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible). Female donkeys were the common means of transport in biblical times, transporting both people and goods. In languages where donkeys are unknown, an expression such as “small beasts of burden” or “small horses” could be used. The Hebrew word for tawny refers to a color that many versions suggest is “white” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible). However, it is more likely that this word refers to a light color, closer to gray. In languages with few colors, translators might say “clear” or “light.” This detail may imply that lighter colored donkeys were favored or more expensive than darker ones. Even though in some cultures riding on donkeys would not be a sign of status, in biblical times just possessing a donkey meant the person was fairly wealthy. This whole line may be rendered “those of you who ride light-colored donkeys.”

You who sit on rich carpets: Many scholars think this line refers to the same people as in the previous one. This would mean the people who sit on rich carpets are riding on donkeys (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version). This seems logical, but others see a reference to another group of people of slightly lower status (Revised Standard Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Like the previous line, you who sit renders a Hebrew participle, which is literally “those sitting.” Once again, Revised Standard Version adds the pronoun you to express the idea that these people are being addressed. The Hebrew word rendered rich carpets can also mean “saddles” (Good News Translation) or “saddle-blankets” (New Jerusalem Bible). To avoid direct contact with riding animals and to provide a more comfortable seat, people placed small rugs or leather saddles on beasts of burden (that is, horses, donkeys, or camels). This line may be rendered “those of you who sit on [saddle] blankets.” Translators will need to decide whether or not this line describes the same people as in the previous one. If they describe the same group of people, one possible rendering for both lines is “you who ride on light-colored donkeys, seated on comfortable saddles.”

And you who walk by the way is literally “and those walking on the road.” The Hebrew verb here means “go” or “walk.” Though it is possible to consider this line as referring to the same people as in the first two lines, most versions believe there is a contrast here between rich people who can afford donkeys and those who are forced to walk. New American Bible takes the first approach, seeing only one group: “They who ride on white asses, seated on saddlecloths, as they go their way.” However, most see a contrast with these people “who go on foot” (New Jerusalem Bible). Good News Translation has “you that must walk wherever you go.”

For this whole verse Contemporary English Version says:

Listen, everyone!
Whether you ride a donkey
with a padded saddle
or have to walk.

Though several interpretations of this verse are possible, it seems likely that the singers are calling out to all members of the community, including all classes of people to “consider” what the LORD has done. If this wider interpretation is adopted, a possible model is:

• “You who ride on light-colored donkeys,
sitting [comfortably] on padded saddles,
and you too, who are forced to walk on foot,
consider [what the LORD has done]!

If only one group is understood to be in view, this verse may be rendered as follows:

• “Think about it, people!
You who ride light-colored donkeys,
on comfortable saddles,
as you go on your way.

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

And the angel of the LORD appeared to him and said to him: The storyteller does not give too many details concerning this scene. It would appear that the wine press was not far from the big tree. For the angel of the LORD, see verse 2.1. The pronoun him refers to Gideon, which Contemporary English Version makes explicit to avoid confusion.

The angel’s greeting is in two parts: a kind of blessing, The LORD is with you, followed by a vocative expression referring to Gideon, you mighty man of valor. However, in many languages it will be more natural to place the vocative initially: “O mighty warrior, the LORD is with you!”

The statement The LORD is with you is rare (verse 2 Chr 15.2). The Hebrew pronoun for you is singular, so the angel is addressing Gideon directly. Here, as is the case of Mary in the New Testament (Luke 1.28), this statement seems to indicate that God has chosen Gideon for some specific task. It serves as a promise of God’s presence, which is a common feature in many calls to service. Later in verse 6.16 Yahweh himself makes the same declaration in the first person, saying, “I will be with you.” Within 6.11-16 it becomes evident that the angel of the LORD is the manifestation of Yahweh (see verse 6.14, verse 16). This seems to be a case of “enallage,” where third person and first person are used to refer to the same person. Contemporary English Version says “The LORD is helping you,” but this is not a typical greeting, so it is better to stay closer to Revised Standard Version here.

You mighty man of valor is literally “warrior of the might.” Revised Standard Version has added the pronoun you to make it clear that this a vocative address. The Hebrew word for “warrior” (gibor) refers to heroes, but does not necessarily refer to men who were part of a standing army (see comments on verse 5.13, where it is rendered “mighty”). Translators should use a word such as “hero” rather than “soldier,” or a generic expression as Revised Standard Version has done. The Hebrew word rendered valor conveys the sense of strength, force, or power. Good News Translation has “brave and mighty man,” which is a good model. New Jerusalem Bible says “valiant warrior,” and Contemporary English Version has “you are a strong warrior.” Later, Jephthah will also be called a “mighty warrior” (verse 11.1).

Given the narrative that follows (which was certainly known to the hearers or readers even before this story has begun), these words may convey quite a bit of irony. Gideon will show over and over that he is hesitant, unsure, and unbelieving. In the end, he disobeys the LORD and gives birth to a son who brings much tragedy and shame to the people of Israel. Despite this irony, translators must render the words as they appear in the text. But it is good for exegetes and translators to appreciate these ironic notes as the story proceeds.

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 .